Innovation for Competency Education－A Critical Exploration of Competency and Innovation Discourse

Abstract

This study discusses whether the concept of competency (core competency, major competency, learning competency) and the classification of competencies in the university innovation support project (which is linked to the 3rd cycle of the university basic competency diagnosis evaluation), are indeed valid. At the same time, the government implemented in the name of autonomous innovation (this is a sentence fragment and doesn’t fit). The purpose of this study is to reflect on whether universities implementing a competency-based curriculum are truly innovating when it comes to education. Although competency is a competency that must be cultivated in all curricula, regardless of whether that entails a general education curriculum or a major curriculum, the basic competency diagnosis evaluation handbook of universities reduces the concept of competency to the concept of generic skills and divides competencies into major and liberal arts education. This tendency has further solidified the dichotomy of the curriculum and has caused distortion within the curriculum structure. For these reasons, it is difficult to find innovation in education in universities that uniformly operate a curriculum based on core competencies according to a given manual for evaluation. However, looking at the case of Minerva University, which is innovating education through competency-based education, we find first that competency is presented as an ability to be cultivated not only in the cornerstone course corresponding to the liberal arts curriculum, but also in the major curriculum. This is different from the dichotomy approach of competencies as taught at Korean universities. Second, the core competency of the University of Minerva is a tool for achieving sub-competence and competency, and through the establishment of HC (Habit of Mind, Foundational Concept), the accessibility and applicability of competency, ease of practice, and measurability are all increased. This enables both instructors and learners to overcome the ambiguity of the core competency concept and to enhance their understanding of core competency as practical knowledge. This is different from the structure of establishing core competencies and sub-competencies of Korean universities. Third, the diagnosis and evaluation of core competencies are conducted through objective evaluation tools and self-rubrics to enable feedback of evaluation results at the level of learners, thereby increasing the reliability of academic achievement results. This is different from the self-reported core competency diagnosis of learners at Korean universities. Despite the advantages of Minerva University’s core competency-based curriculum, Minerva University’s core competency-based curriculum firstly reduces individuals to skills. Second, it takes a segmented approach to core competencies rather than a holistic approach, and finally, it is limited in regards to education because it fosters customized talents which meet the demand, not talents which create social demand. True innovation in education should be achieved through individual learners’ self-innovation, not top-down government-led innovation. In other words, innovation in education begins when learners communicate with the surrounding world based on their knowledge and experience and acquire self-organization skills.