Disruptive Innovations in Higher Education

Adaptive Learning

The introduction to my dissertation in 1979 contained the following statement:

This study evaluated one important aspect of the changing pharmacy environment – the utilization of a pharmacy computer system as a means of updating the pharmacist’s knowledge base. This was to be achieved through the development of a computer-assisted instruction program for use by pharmacists in a pharmacy computer system.

It utilized a Competency-based Education (CBE) model and a criterion-referenced test to determine achievement of a pre-determined level of competency. It succeeded. The pharmacists utilized the computer-assisted instruction (CAI) during the downtimes that they experienced in the community pharmacy. Instead of taking time off from work to attend a traditional continuing education seminar at a college campus, they could acquire the same information in the pharmacy with minimal disruption to their daily routine. They could take and pass the test and receive the credit without ever leaving the pharmacy. They loved it!

I completed the dissertation, defended it, and wrote the obligatory article describing the project for other academics, which was published in a typical educational journal. I expected a positive response. What I received was a collective yawn. Nearing the end of my graduate studies and preparing to enter the academic community, I was perplexed. Finally, I met with my major advisor and mentor, Dr. Mickey Smith, and asked, What gives? I proved it worked; I demonstrated that it was technically feasible to have a competency-based (rather than norm-based) educational program deliver instruction over a computer network, and I received absolutely no interest from other academics. Mickey leaned back in his squeaky wooden chair and made a profound observation.

You can change knowledge relatively quickly; attitudes may take a little longer, and you may die before behavior changes. He was alluding to the slow, almost glacial pace of change that resided in higher education in the early 1980s. We were on the cusp of a technological revolution, and academics couldn't care less.

Knowledge is constantly changing as research and new concepts are introduced into the academic community, and most faculty work conscientiously to maintain their knowledge base.

Attitudes, while influenced by new knowledge, are deeply rooted in experiences, cultural norms, and values. Much of what faculty do is a reflection of their observations about what their mentors did, said, and practiced. This is particularly true in medicine, where much of what a practitioner does is based upon observations. They rotate through various patient care settings, and they participate in grand rounds where treatment selections and patient cases are discussed by senior residents and clinicians. A significant amount of medical education is experiential, and the culture and customs are informally passed on from one generation of physicians to the next, but are still a part of the educational model. They refer to it as the hidden curriculum.^[1]

Behavior is the most entrenched. They are a culmination of both knowledge and attitudes, but also involve habits, routines, and the practical realities of academic life. Even when knowledge and attitudes begin to shift, it can take a considerable amount of time for those internal changes to manifest consistently into observable actions. This is especially true for societal behaviors, which can take generations to transform significantly. Academics learn to teach and test according to the models they were exposed to as graduate students. It may take a generation for behavior to change; fortunately for me, it only took 16 years. Two influential opinion leaders answered the question of why academics were slow to adapt and what would happen when an innovative college president created a new business model that departed significantly from the accepted model of higher education.

Clayton Christensen

In 2011, Clayton Christen published The Innovative University: Changing the DNA of Higher Education from the Inside Out. The book was based on the author’s earlier works on disruptive innovations in a variety of fields and echoed his earlier research that was published in his first book, The Innovator’s Dilemma (1997). Christensen and his co-author Henry Eyring examined how higher education institutions can adapt to the forces of disruptive innovation by breaking with conventional wisdom and traditions.

Christensen and Eyring argued persuasively that by embracing new strategies, particularly those driven by online technology, universities can serve more students at a lower cost while enhancing the quality and accessibility of education. They returned to the concept Clayton introduced in his first book, that industries create products and services that often exceed the customers’ needs. They do it to compete, but in so doing, they stray from their core business. In the case of higher education, you get fancier dorms, student centers, and programs of study that respond to culture rather than the demands of the marketplace. To pay for these goods and services, the industry inevitably raises prices and eventually exceeds what the customer is willing to pay. In doing so, the industry creates opportunities for competitors who can deliver what the customer needs at a more reasonable price. To use the vernacular, higher education prices itself out of the marketplace. The competitor presents a more reasonable alternative and becomes a disruptive innovation.

What I had proposed in my dissertation was a disruptive innovation, but I lacked the resources to implement it within the existing educational system. It took someone with the scope of authority of a university president. It took Paul LeBlanc.

Paul LeBlanc

I have been a regular subscriber to a publication titled Educause Review^©. It was a collection of articles concerning the increasing impact of technology on higher education, and I read each edition from cover to cover to gain insight into the shifts that were rapidly remaking higher education. One article captured my attention because it resonated with my earlier observation about academics being unwilling to change. The author, Dr. Paul LeBlanc, acknowledged the resistance to change, but rather than accept it, he offered an alternative in the form of a new business model. Finding New Business Models in Unsettled Times (November 10, 2014) was inspiring because it offered a well-reasoned alternative to the way most universities conducted business.

I had never heard of the author and quickly conducted a search to determine if he had legitimacy. He was authentic. Paul LeBlanc took over a small, struggling liberal arts campus in Southern New Hampshire (SNHU) and turned it into a major online player. Before his tenure at SNHU, LeBlanc directed a technology startup for Houghton Mifflin Publishing Company (1993-1996) and served as President of Marlboro College in Vermont (1996-2003).

His most significant impact came during his 21-year presidency at SNHU, where he led the institution's remarkable growth from 2,800 students to over 250,000 learners. Under his leadership, SNHU became the largest nonprofit provider of online higher education in the United States, lauded for its innovative and accessible approach. He focused on keeping tuition costs low and providing support for students from diverse backgrounds, emphasizing competency-based education and flexible learning. He embraced what I had studied as a graduate student – Competency-Based Education.

Focus on Mastery, Not Seat Time: The central idea is to shift from measuring learning by the amount of time spent in a classroom or the number of credit hours accumulated to demonstrating mastery of specific skills and knowledge (competencies). Students advance when they can prove they've achieved a defined level of proficiency, regardless of how long it takes them. Credit hours were irrelevant. I had observed the same phenomenon in my study. Some of the pharmacists were well-versed in the topic and breezed through the content quickly. Others had to spend more time on the content and, in some cases, go back over the material that they didn’t initially grasp until it made sense to them. In the current vernacular, for them, it was remediation. For those with knowledge of the material, it was a review.

Clear, Measurable Learning Outcomes: Competencies are precisely defined, observable, and measurable. This means that for each skill or knowledge area, there are explicit criteria and standards for determining whether a student has reached the required level of performance. This clarity benefits students, faculty, and even potential employers. It is the basis for most certifications and licenses. Experts from the field (item writers) create what they feel are the basic competencies for the field and then prepare an examination that matches those competencies. If the student makes a passing score on the competency examination, they are allowed into the practice of nursing, pharmacy, medicine, etc.

Authentic Assessment: Assessment in CBE goes beyond traditional exams. It emphasizes authentic assessments that require students to apply their acquired knowledge and skills to real-world problems and tasks. This could include projects, portfolios, simulations, and other methods that demonstrate a student's ability to apply what they've learned. It is not simply regurgitation of facts and figures, although most examinations assume that the student has that information in their knowledge base. Competency is, as the name implies, both describable and measurable.

Recognition of Prior Learning: Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) was a key component of the Competency-Based Education (CBE) model, championed by LeBlanc. He championed the idea that learning can happen anywhere, not just in the classroom. His CBE model allowed students to receive credit for knowledge and skills gained through work experience, military service, or other informal learning, provided they could demonstrate competency. This is the basis of reskilling a workforce, which is a growing concern for many industries that are faced with hiring badly needed talent in an increasingly competitive marketplace. A viable option is to hire for character and train for the position.

Affordability and Access: By decoupling learning from fixed timeframes (e.g., a semester) and allowing students to progress at their own pace, CBE can contribute to lower costs and increased access to higher education. Students don't pay for seat time they don't need, and they can accelerate their degrees, potentially saving money. This also addresses inequities in the traditional system, where time can be a privilege. It permits a person with limited resources to advance their career while balancing education, a full-time job, and family needs.

Relevance to Workforce Needs: Perhaps the most important facet of CBE in today’s world is the ability to upskill a workforce quickly and as many times as necessary. A strong emphasis is placed on developing competencies that are directly relevant to the demands of the workforce. LeBlanc believed that CBE can better prepare students for employment by focusing on the practical skills and abilities employers value. This, in turn, requires academics to relinquish their grip on the curriculum and permit experts from rapidly advancing fields such as technology to offer up solutions and to participate in the education of the students. This is the behavior I observed at the Virginia Serious Gaming Institute.

Technology as an Enabler: While not the core of CBE, technology plays a crucial role in enabling its scalability and effectiveness. Online learning platforms, adaptive learning tools, and robust assessment systems are vital for delivering and managing CBE programs. We embraced these concepts in the creation of the Bernard J. Dunn School of Pharmacy, and it was refreshing to know that LeBlanc championed those beliefs.

In essence, LeBlanc's vision for CBE is about creating a more equitable, accessible, and outcomes-focused higher education system that prioritizes what students can do rather than simply how much time they've spent learning. He used these concepts to propel a small liberal arts college to national prominence. It is a vital shift to address the needs of modern learners and prepare them for a rapidly changing world, including the impacts of artificial intelligence on the workforce. Combining the power of artificial intelligence with a solid educational model like Competency-Based Education renders a remarkable result.

Combining Artificial Intelligence with the Power of Competency-based Education

• Personalized Learning Paths: AI can be used to analyze a learner's strengths, weaknesses, learning style, and pace to create highly individualized learning paths. Most admissions directors attempt to do this through transcript review, but they often struggle to determine if the content of the student’s prior educational experiences matches the demands of their program.

• Adaptive Assessment and Feedback: AI-powered assessment tools can provide real-time, personalized feedback to learners as they demonstrate their mastery of competencies. This immediate feedback helps learners understand their progress, identify areas for improvement, and correct misconceptions quickly. AI can also automate grading for certain types of assessments, freeing up educators' time. I utilized this strategy in the program I created for my research, and it was amazing to see how the pharmacists utilizing the program responded. The program remembered where they stopped and picked up at that point when they resumed their studies. It provided in-context clarification (e.g., definitions) and could route the student through remedial materials if they were struggling. When they took an exam, it provided feedback on incorrect responses, allowing students to understand in real-time where they had erred in their thinking. It was crude by today’s standards of interactive learning, but the pharmacists in the program benefited from it.

• Identification of Learning Gaps: By analyzing performance data, artificial intelligence can quickly identify specific learning gaps or areas where a learner is struggling with a particular competency. This allows for targeted interventions and resources to address those gaps effectively. It also permits a realistic and accurate assessment of prior learning and experience.

• Simulations and Real-World Scenarios: AI can power simulations that allow learners to practice competencies in realistic, safe environments. This is particularly valuable for developing non-recurrent skills or those that require hands-on application. This is the potential power of combining virtual reality with adaptive artificial intelligence as a learning experience.

• Teacher Support and Professional Development: AI can assist educators in designing instruction, developing assessment rubrics, and even providing personalized professional development based on their teaching strengths and areas for growth in implementing CBE. The rapid growth of generative AI by faculty and students attests to the value they attach to the powerful combination of these two developing technologies.

  

  Future of Competency-Based Education

  Competency-based Education offers a compelling alternative to traditional educational models by providing a learner-centric approach that empowers students to take greater ownership of their educational journey and to progress at their own pace. This flexibility directly addresses the limitations of a one-size-fits-all instructional approach, which often fails to cater to diverse learning styles and individual needs.

  Optimism surrounding CBE's future is remarkably high across the higher educational sector. According to the National Survey of Postsecondary Competency-Based Education, a significant majority of institutions, 82%, anticipate a continued increase in the number of CBE programs in the United States over the next five years. CBE is widely regarded as a disruptive innovation that will continue revolutionizing higher education.

  Faculty Opposition to Change

  University faculty often resist change for a combination of individual, cultural, and systemic reasons. However, three major reasons stand out.

  · Lack of Perceived Need or Benefit (Status Quo Bias): Many faculty members simply don't see a compelling reason to change their current practices, especially if their existing methods appear to be working. They may be more comfortable and feel more effective with their established teaching styles, research routines, and administrative workflows. Without a clear understanding of why the change is necessary, what problems it solves, or what tangible benefits it will bring to them, their students, or their research, they will naturally resist disrupting their familiar and often successful status quo. This can also stem from a belief that the proposed new approach is not more effective than what they are already doing. Many academics are reluctant to leave their comfort zone.

  · Time Constraints and Workload Concerns: Faculty typically have incredibly demanding schedules, balancing heavy teaching loads, extensive research commitments (writing papers, securing grants), and various service responsibilities (committees, advising, administrative tasks). Any new initiative, even if well-intentioned, is often perceived as an additional burden or one more thing that will consume their already limited time and energy. If the change isn't accompanied by clear support, resources, or a reduction in other duties, faculty will resist it due to the practical impossibility of fitting it into their already packed schedules. One way around this dilemma is to offer faculty reduced loads to permit them the time to develop new instructional strategies. This can be done either within the academic year or as a supplement to their normal activities during the summer.

  · Threat to Autonomy and Academic Freedom: Academic freedom and the inherent autonomy of faculty over their teaching and research are core values in higher education. When changes are perceived as top-down mandates or as infringing upon their professional judgment and control over their courses or research directions, faculty typically resist. They may feel that the change undermines their expertise, dictates how they should teach, or limits their intellectual independence, all of which are deeply ingrained aspects of their professional identity. A corollary to this is the sometimes-restraining role that faculty curricular committees can exert on progressive initiatives. The underlying theme is either that we have never done it this way, or we don’t want to make our colleagues look bad. I have experienced both, and they can stifle creativity and instructional innovation.

  Threats to Faculty Autonomy

  Threats to faculty autonomy are rising from two sources. One is internal to the university, and the other is from corporate partners.

  The internal threats are dropping enrollment and the concerns expressed by university stakeholders. These include parents who vote with their wallets, university boards who often consist of corporate individuals who find the slow pace of change in the university unacceptable, and, finally, public institutions which feel pressure from legislators to improve the relevance of course offerings and, by extension, the quality of outputs (graduates).

  It is unlikely that the adoption of Competency-based Education will resolve all of these threats, but it will address some and should be conveyed to the faculty as an institutional priority before external forces make it an issue.

  Corporate Competition

  Corporate entities, particularly those engaged in rapidly evolving technology sectors, have decided not to wait for higher education to change. They are pursuing their own best interests by creating what amounts to an educational pipeline that they fund, coordinate, and harvest. Degrees from institutions of higher education are becoming less important than requisite skills.

  Major companies such as IBM, Delta Airlines, Google, and Bank of America have all removed college degree requirements. A 2023 survey found that 53% of hiring managers say their company eliminated a requirement for bachelor's degrees for some roles within the past year. Among the 53% of employers who eliminated bachelor's degree requirements, 70% did it for entry-level, 61% for mid-level, and 45% for senior-level roles. A 2022 survey of tech-focused employers found that 40% have added behavioral skill-based requirements to hiring procedures.

  Technology companies are also developing innovative strategies for developing talent and then recruiting the best performers to become employees. A good example is the acquisition of LinkedIn^© by Microsoft in December 2016. At the time, industry analysts were puzzled by the move. One, however, had an insight that proved very perceptive. He noted that Microsoft, like other technology companies, was increasingly having to compete for talent in a limited pool. They solved their problem by acquiring a major career website that also contained an online training platform called Lynda. It was rebranded LinkedIn Learning^© in October 2017 and became part of their new recruitment strategy. They offered online certificates and micro-credentials that were compatible with their needs. The offerings were reasonably priced, and some were free.

  When a LinkedIn member took a course and earned a certificate, they would be offered the next level or one that was related to the certificate that the individual had just completed. They kept track of the individual’s progress and, more importantly, how conscientious they were in taking the certificate. If the individual showed initiative and promise, they were often contacted and offered a position at Microsoft. Problem solved.

  Other technology companies established similar in-house educational initiatives, and now most, if not all, have specialized wings of the company that offer competency-based educational initiatives with the competencies established not by a curriculum committee, but by the company.

  • IBM: IBM has been a long-time proponent of skills-based learning. They utilize their own AI capabilities (like Watson) to analyze employee performance, identify skill gaps, and recommend personalized development pathways. Their internal training programs are often structured around specific technical and professional competencies required for various roles, allowing employees to acquire new skills and advance their careers based on demonstrated mastery. They also use gamification and virtual environments to assess competencies like problem-solving and teamwork.

  • Google: Google's various training programs, especially for developers, cloud architects, and data scientists, are highly competency-based. They often use a combination of online courses, hands-on labs, certifications, and project-based assessments to ensure individuals can do the work, not just recall information. Their Google Career Certificates are a prime example of external-facing CBE.

  • Deloitte (as a tech consultancy): While a consulting firm, Deloitte significantly invests in technology training for its employees. They use immersive technologies like VR for leadership training, assessing decision-making, and interpersonal dynamics in simulated business challenges. This directly aligns with assessing competencies in a practical, experiential way.

  Adaptive Learning

  The term that best describes this approach to education is Adaptive Learning. It has been projected that adaptive learning products will generate revenue of $5.3 billion by 2025. Adaptive learning platforms use artificial intelligence algorithms to dynamically modify the complexity and pace of learning content based on students' real-time performance data. Each student will receive support and assessment thanks to this individualized strategy, which maximizes learning outcomes. This is Competency-Based Education on steroids.

  

  Technology companies are in a very competitive marketplace and are constantly searching for talent. They are growing impatient with the pace of change in traditional higher education. They are prepared to develop educational initiatives that are in their best interest, but the most beneficial solution is for higher education to work cooperatively with technology companies to develop workers who are both proficient in the latest technology and possess the skills to use it effectively in a work environment.

  Soft skills like critical thinking, the ability to collaborate, adapt, and communicate effectively are equally important in today's complex technology settings. While traditional higher education still does a better job of inculcating graduates with the leadership skills that greatly determine the effectiveness of any organization, its inability or unwillingness to adjust to the demands of the marketplace could be its downfall. The future of higher education hangs in the balance. Higher Education leaders can either find ways to adapt their institutions to these new realities or watch their relevance slowly decline and their audience find more productive economic alternatives.

---

¹ Stoller, J.K., Building Teams in Health Care. Stoller, CHEST, Volume 159, Issue 6, 2392 – 2398 (6/6/21).