Assessing
the Multidimensional Preparedness of Public Universities in Kenya for the
Implementation of Competency-Based Education
Dr. Jeremiah Mulinge
Kawinzi & Dr. Janet Kavula Mulwa (Ph.D)
Jerekawinzi@gmail.com & jmulwa@seku.ac.ke
South
Eastern Kenya University, School of Education, Department of
Educational Administration and Planning.
SUB-THEME
Student-centered
learning approaches
Abstract. Across the world,
education systems are increasingly shifting from traditional time-based models
of learning toward Competency-Based Education (CBE), which focuses on what
learners can actually do with the knowledge and skills they acquire. In Kenya,
this shift is particularly evident through ongoing education reforms,
especially the adoption of competency-based approaches at the basic education
level. At the same time, there is growing pressure on higher education
institutions to produce graduates who are not only knowledgeable but also
skilled, adaptable, and ready for a rapidly changing labour market. Against
this background, this study examined the preparedness of Kenyan public
universities to implement Competency-Based Education. The study specifically
explored the extent to which university curricula align with CBE principles,
the readiness of teaching and assessment practices, the capacity of academic
staff to deliver competency-based instruction, and the adequacy of existing infrastructure
and learning resources. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design wasadopted,
involving both quantitative and qualitative approaches. The study covered 12
public universities in Kenya, with data collected from 360 academic staff
through structured questionnaires and 36 key informants through interviews.
Additional insights were obtained through document analysis. The data were
analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Findings reveal
that most public universities are still in the early stages of preparing for
full CBE implementation. Although policy discussions are ongoing and some
curriculum review processes have begun, actual implementation remains limited.
Many institutions are still grappling with superficial curriculum adjustments,
limited use of student-centered teaching methods, and insufficient training for
academic staff in competency-based approaches. In addition, assessment systems
are not yet fully aligned with competency evaluation, while challenges such as
inadequate infrastructure, weak institutional incentives, and limited financial
resources continue to slow progress. Overall, while there is clear commitment
and policy interest in adopting Competency-Based Education within Kenyan public
universities, significant systemic, structural, and financial challenges
remain. The study recommends a coordinated national approach involving the
Commission for University Education (CUE), universities, industry stakeholders,
and development partners to strengthen curriculum reform, enhance staff
capacity, and build robust quality assurance systems that can effectively
support CBE implementation.
Keywords: Competency-Based Education, public universities, Kenya, higher
education reform, curriculum implementation, preparedness, graduate attributes.
1.0 Introduction
Higher education today looks very
different from a generation ago. Around the world, people are realizing that
the old way of measuring learning by how many hours a student sits in a
classroom no longer makes sense. Instead, attention is turning toward
Competency-Based Education (CBE). This approach focuses on what students can
actually do
with what they have learned. It’s not about piling up course
credits; it’s about showing real mastery of the skills, knowledge, and
professional attitudes that matter in the real world (UNESCO, 2021; OECD,
2022).
The idea of Competency-Based Learning
isn’t brand new. It first appeared in the early 1900s, mostly in vocational
training and teacher education. In the 1960s and 70s, the United States saw the
rise of competency-based teacher education (CBTE) because people worried that
traditional programs weren’t producing teachers who could actually handle a
classroom (Houston, 1974). Around the same time, psychologist B.F. Skinner’s
ideas about mastery learning took hold students moved ahead only after proving
they had truly mastered a topic (Block, 1971). Over in Europe, countries like
Germany and the UK started building competence-based frameworks into their
vocational training systems in the 1980s, directly linking learning to job
standards (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 2009).
Australia followed suit in the 1990s with a national system focused on
workplace performance (Smith & Keating, 2003). What these historical
threads show us is that CBE has been around for decades, but higher education
has never quite embraced it fully or consistently.
Around the world, universities
have taken very different paths with CBE. In North America, the United States
has seen a comeback of CBE through universities like Western Governors
University and Southern New Hampshire University, where students advance by
showing what they know, not by sitting through a set number of classes (Levine
& Patrick, 2019). Canada has woven competency-based approaches into
nursing, engineering, and medical education, often because professional boards
demand it (Canadian Medical Association, 2020). In Europe, the Bologna Process
pushed universities toward learning outcomes and student-centered teaching,
which indirectly opened the door for CBE across 48 countries (European Higher
Education Area, 2018). Meanwhile, in Asia, Singapore and South Korea have built
competency frameworks into their university programs, emphasizing things like
critical thinking, digital skills, and problem-solving to keep up with industry
needs (Asian Development Bank, 2021). Latin America has tried out CBE in places
like Brazil and Chile, mainly in technical and vocational higher education,
though it hasn’t spread widely yet (UNESCO-IESALC, 2020). The lesson from all
this is simple: CBE is not a one-size-fits-all model. It has to be adapted to
local conditions.
In Kenya, the conversation around
Competency-Based Education has become urgent since the country launched its
Competency-Based Curriculum (CBC) for basic education in 2017. But when it
comes to public universities, CBE is still very new. For a long time, Kenyan
universities have followed a traditional system inherited from British colonial
education that rewards course completion and final exams (Sifuna, 2010). There
have been small efforts here and there: teacher training programs through the
SMASSE project, and community-based learning in medical education. But these
were isolated experiments (Ministry of Education Kenya, 2016). Recently, the
Commission for University Education (CUE) told all universities to reform their
curricula around competency-based outcomes. Yet progress has been slow. Old
habits die hard. Faculty haven’t been trained. Money is tight (CUE, 2023). A
few public universities Moi University and Kenyatta University, for example have
tried out CBE inspired modules in business and technical programs, but there’s
still no overall plan. And the clock is ticking. The first cohort of CBC
learners will be ready for university by 2029. Kenyan public universities need
to stop talking and start acting.
Technology keeps changing. The
job market keeps shifting. Employers are tired of graduates who know theory but
can’t apply it. They want people who can solve problems, adapt, and innovate.
So universities around the world are turning to CBE as a way to offer flexible
learning, personalized pacing, and a better fit between what is taught and what
workplaces actually need (World Bank, 2020; International Labour Organization,
2023). Africa is feeling this pressure too. University enrollment is exploding,
but too many graduates can’t find jobs, and employers say skills don’t match.
CBE looks like a promising answer: focus on real competencies, real
application, and graduates who can actually contribute to development (African
Union, 2020; Association of African Universities, 2022).
But let’s be honest adopting CBE
in Africa is not easy. Many universities are struggling with crowded
classrooms, poor infrastructure, and not enough funding. Old academic
traditions and rigid university structures don’t change overnight. And there’s
a real debate about whether to simply import CBE models from the West or adapt
them to local realities. Issues like relevance, inclusivity, and decolonizing
knowledge are front and center (African Development Bank, 2021; UNESCO, 2022).
All of these global and regional
currents are flowing directly into Kenya. The new CBC at the basic level is
already forcing change upward. It’s not just about primary and secondary
schools anymore universities have to get on board. Public universities, which
are supposed to be developing the country’s human capital, are under real
pressure to rethink what they teach, how they teach, and how they assess
(Ministry of Education Kenya, 2021; Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development,
2022). Recent policies like Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2019 and updated
guidelines from the Commission for University Education make this clear. They
tie competency-based reforms directly to Kenya Vision 2030. The message is:
produce graduates who are innovative, skilled, and ready for a fast changing
economy (Commission for University Education, 2023; Ministry of Education
Kenya, 2023).
It’s against
this backdrop that this study is situated. This paper asks a straightforward
but important question: how ready are Kenyan public universities to actually
adopt and implement Competency-Based Education? By looking at the big global
picture, then narrowing down to Africa, and finally focusing on Kenya, the
study aims to offer a clear, grounded understanding of what stands in the way,
what opportunities exist, and what practical steps are needed to make this
transition work and work well.
2.0 Statement of the
Problem
Kenyan public universities are in
the middle of a major shift. National policies are pushing them to move away
from the old “stand-and-deliver” model of teaching and toward Competency-Based
Education (CBE) an approach designed to make university learning more relevant
and graduates more employable. In theory, this makes perfect sense. The problem
is that nobody really knows whether these universities are actually ready to
pull off such a big change. Most studies so far have looked at only one piece
of the puzzle. Some focus on whether lecturers are prepared. Others look at
infrastructure gaps. That’s helpful, but it doesn’t give us the full picture.
What’s missing is a holistic, institution-wide assessment that brings together
all the key ingredients for CBE success curriculum design, teaching methods,
assessment practices, staff capacity, and resources and shows how they interact
(Odhiambo & Mwanbi, 2023; Musyoka & Ndirangu, 2024).
And that gap is risky. When
policies move faster than institutions can keep up, universities often end up
just going through the motions. They tick boxes on paper, but nothing really
changes. People resist. Implementation fails. And the whole point of CBE producing
capable, job-ready graduates never happens (Kipkoech & Kindiki, 2023).
So who actually feels the pain of this problem? It’s not just abstract “institutions.” Real people
are affected. Students are
at the front line. If CBE is done badly, they’ll keep sitting through
theory-heavy lectures and exams that don’t teach them practical skills. They’ll
graduate still unready for work, and the skills mismatch that CBE was supposed
to fix will just keep getting worse. Lecturers and academic staff are
caught in the middle. They’re being told to teach and assess differently, but
they rarely get proper training, clear guidance, or extra resources. No wonder
many feel frustrated and push back. University administrators are
stuck between policy demands and harsh realities. They have tight budgets,
outdated curricula to revise, and no solid evidence to guide their decisions. Employers keep getting graduates whose
actual abilities are a mystery. That doesn’t help anyone. Policymakers
the Ministry of Education, the Commission for University Education are affected
too. Their vision of a competency-driven workforce, tied directly to Kenya
Vision 2030, simply won’t happen if public universities aren’t genuinely ready
(Mwebi & Otieno, 2023; Gachago & Masinga, 2024).
To be fair, some measures are
already in place. The Commission for University Education (CUE) has put out
Competency-Based Curriculum guidelines and told every university to submit
revised programs for approval (CUE, 2023). The Ministry of Education, through
university funding reforms, has set aside some conditional grants for
curriculum review and staff development in selected public universities
(Ministry of Education Kenya, 2023). A few institutions like the University of Nairobi
and Kenyatta University have set up teaching and learning centres that offer
short courses on competency-based assessment and learner-centred methods. The
World Bank has also backed a staff development program that trained a small
group of lecturers from six public universities on CBE design and delivery
(World Bank, 2022). And professional bodies such as the Engineers Board of
Kenya and the Kenya Medical Practitioners’ Council have started accrediting
programs based on competency outcomes instead of just credit hours.
These efforts are scattered,
uneven, and not well coordinated. No national baseline study has ever assessed
the real readiness of all public universities. Most interventions reach only a
tiny fraction of staff or programs. Given all this, there’s a clear and urgent
need for a systematic look at how prepared Kenyan public universities actually
are. Without real evidence, you can’t plan properly, spend money wisely, or
design training that actually helps. And that means the whole reform slows down
or worse, fails entirely. That would be a huge loss, because getting CBE right
is critical to improving the quality, relevance, and impact of higher education
in Kenya.
This study is
going straight to the heart of the issue: the gap between the national push for
Competency-Based Education and our very limited understanding of whether public
universities across all the interconnected dimensions that matter are truly
ready to make it work.
4.0 Study Objectives
This
study is guided by an overarching goal, supported by a set of specific and
practical objectives. Together, these objectives are designed to provide a
clear and comprehensive understanding of how prepared Kenyan public
universities are to implement Competency-Based Education (CBE).
4.1
General Objective
The main aim of this study is to
assess the level of preparedness of public universities in Kenya for the
implementation of Competency-Based Education.
4.2
Specific Objectives
To achieve this broad aim, the study
focuses on the following specific objectives:
1. To examine the extent to which
public universities have begun aligning their academic programmes with CBE
principles.
2. To evaluate how ready universities
are to shift from traditional lecturer-centered teaching to more
student-centered, experiential learning approaches.
3.0 Literature Review
To make sense of how ready Kenyan
public universities are for Competency-Based Education (CBE), this review looks
at four key areas that match the study’s specific objectives: how well academic
programmes are being aligned with CBE principles and whether teaching is
shifting toward student-centered, hands-on learning.
3.1 Alignment of
Academic Programmes with CBE Principles
Around the world, moving from
traditional, content-heavy courses to competency-based ones is no small task.
It requires completely rethinking how programmes are designed, what students
should be able to do by the end, and how that is measured. In places like North
America and Europe, universities have created competency maps, broken courses
into smaller modules, and spelled out learning outcomes that match what
employers actually need (OECD, 2022; European Commission, 2021). The United
States, for example, has seen a rise in “direct assessment” programmes where
students move ahead only when they have truly mastered a skill, not just
because they sat through a certain number of classes (Educause, 2022). But the
reality is messier. Many institutions only pretend to change they add a few
competency statements to old syllabi without really rethinking the content or
exams (World Bank, 2020; UNESCO, 2021). True alignment takes serious time,
money, and input from outside stakeholders (OECD, 2023).
In Sub-Saharan Africa, aligning
university programmes with CBE is still in its early days. A lot of the push
comes from big regional goals like the African Union’s Agenda 2063, which wants
graduates who can actually build things and solve problems (African Union,
2020). Countries like Rwanda and South Africa have made some progress, mostly
in technical and vocational fields, but university-level change is patchy
(Afeti, 2023; Tikly, 2020). Ghana tried to bring CBE into public universities,
but researchers found that many programmes still look very traditional competencies
are often tacked on as a separate module rather than woven through the whole
curriculum (Amoah et al., 2022). One recurring problem is that there are no
clear national guidelines on what a competency should look like, so every
university does its own thing (Materu, 2021). Sometimes, donor funding pushes
rapid changes, but without local buy-in, those changes tend to fall apart
(World Bank, 2022).
Back home in Kenya, the
government has made its position clear. Documents like Sessional Paper No. 1 of
2019 and guidelines from the Commission for University Education (CUE) say that
universities must align their programmes with CBE (Ministry of Education, 2019;
CUE, 2023). But when you look at what is actually happening on the ground, the
picture is different. Chege and Mbugua (2023) found that while many courses now
use fancier verbs in their learning outcomes “demonstrate,” “apply,” “create” the
actual curriculum is still lecture-driven and packed with content. Odhiambo and
Mwanbi (2023) describe how some universities simply rename old courses or add
one CBE module and call it a day, without touching assessments or teaching
methods. Wambua and Mutisya (2022) point out another uncomfortable truth:
employers and graduates are rarely invited to help design curricula, so the
competencies being taught may not be what the job market actually wants. And
Gitonga and Ochieng (2022) highlight a strange disconnect: students who go
through the new Competency-Based Curriculum (CBC) in primary and secondary
school then show up to university and find a completely different,
old-fashioned system waiting for them.
3.2 Readiness for
Student-Centered, Experiential Learning Approaches
At the heart of CBE is a simple
but powerful idea: learning should be about the student, not the lecturer. That
means problem-based learning, case studies, simulations, internships, and real
projects (ILO, 2023; Educause, 2022). In richer countries, technology has made
this easier flipped classrooms, virtual labs, and personalized learning paths
are becoming common (OECD, 2022). But even there, change does not come easily.
Many lecturers stick to what they know: the lecture. It feels familiar, it is
efficient for large classes, and it is what the system has always rewarded
(UNESCO, 2022). Making the shift requires not just training but also changes to
classroom layouts, timetables, and how students are assessed (European
Commission, 2021). The universities that succeed often start small, test things
out with a pilot programme, and then scale up slowly (World Bank, 2020).
Across Africa, student-centered
learning runs into some hard realities. In many public universities, you will
find classes with 50, 80, or even 100 students per lecturer. That makes it
nearly impossible to give individual attention or run small-group activities
(Materu, 2021; African Development Bank, 2021). In Ghana, Amoah and colleagues
(2022) found that lecturers simply give up on interactive methods because the
classes are just too big. Rwanda has good policies on paper, but there are not
enough lab benches or workshop spaces for hands-on learning (Afeti, 2023).
South Africa does better in professional programmes like medicine and
engineering, but in the humanities and social sciences, lectures still rule
(Tikly, 2020). Another problem is the exam system: most universities still rely
heavily on end-of-year exams, which discourages lecturers from trying
continuous, performance-based assessment (World Bank, 2022; Odora Hoppers,
2020).
The question as to where Kenya
stands can be answered defending on which faculty you are in. Musyoka and
Ndirangu (2024) found that although policy documents talk a good game about
experiential learning, the reality in most large first- and second-year classes
is still a lecturer at the front talking. Kipkoech and Kindiki (2023) noticed
that internships, field projects, and community-based learning happen much more
often in professional faculties like education, agriculture, and health
sciences. In arts, social sciences, and business, these methods are rare.
Odhiambo and Mwanbi (2023) add that even when experiential learning happens, it
is often a one-off event rather than something built systematically across the
whole semester. What gets in the way? Rigid academic calendars that leave no
room for extended fieldwork, weak partnerships with industry, and very little
training in active teaching methods (Mwangi & Changeiywo, 2022). Wambua and
Mutisya (2022) also point out that quality assurance systems rarely check what
teaching methods are being used, so there is no real pressure to change.
3.5 Synthesis and
Identified Research Gap
Across the globe, Africa, and
Kenya, a few themes keep coming up. First, aligning programmes with CBE is hard
and often stays superficial unless the institution is truly committed. Second,
moving to student-centered, hands-on learning runs into big obstacles:
overcrowded classes, exam-focused assessment systems, and a lack of appropriate
spaces. Third, lecturers are generally not well prepared training is scarce,
and the promotion system does not reward teaching innovation. Fourth, the
resource situation physical, technological, and financial is a major constraint
everywhere, but especially in Sub-Saharan Africa and Kenya.
But here is the gap. Most studies
look at only one piece of the puzzle at a time. One study focuses on what
lecturers think. Another looks only at infrastructure. Another examines
curriculum policy. Very few studies try to look at everything together curriculum,
teaching methods, staff readiness, and resources as part of one big picture.
Even fewer ask how these different pieces interact and collectively determine
whether a university is truly ready for CBE.
That is exactly what this study
aims to do. By assessing all four dimensions at once across Kenyan public
universities, we hope to get a much fuller, more practical understanding of
where things really stand and what needs to happen next.
5.
Methodology
5.1
Research Design and Approach
This study adopted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods research
design, guided by a pragmatic research philosophy. This approach
combines the strengths of quantitative and qualitative methods to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the preparedness of Kenyan public universities
for Competency-Based Education (CBE). Quantitative data were first collected to
identify broad patterns and levels of preparedness across multiple
institutions. This was followed by qualitative data collection, which explored
the underlying reasons behind these patterns, captured lived experiences, and
provided contextual insights that numbers alone cannot reveal (Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2018). The pragmatic stance enabled the study to focus on
practical solutions and evidence-based recommendations that are directly
applicable to policy and institutional decision-making.
5.2 Target Population
The study focused on multiple layers
of stakeholders to ensure a holistic assessment of institutional preparedness.
The target population included all the 35
chartered public universities in Kenya, spanning older established
universities and newer institutions, to capture diversity in structure,
capacity, and regional context, Academic
Staff: Lecturers, senior lecturers, associate professors, and professors
involved in teaching and curriculum development, Academic Leadership: Key decision-makers including Deputy
Vice-Chancellors (Academic Affairs), Deans, Directors of Quality Assurance, and
Curriculum Committee Chairs, whose roles influence policy implementation and
institutional readiness.
5.3 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size
To ensure representativeness while
managing resource constraints, a multi-stage
sampling strategy was employed: universities
were sampled using stratified random sampling and purposive
sampling to select 12 universities
representing diversity in founding generations, geographic regions, and
institutional specializations. This approach ensured that both well-established
and newer institutions were included, capturing variation in capacity and
experience. Within each selected university, stratified random sampling identified 360 academic staff (30 per university). This sample size was
guided by Krejcie and Morgan’s (1970) formula for finite populations, balancing
representativeness and feasibility. Purposive
and snowball sampling identified 36
key informants (3 per university) for in-depth interviews. These
individuals were selected based on their direct involvement in curriculum
design, quality assurance, and policy implementation. Sample size was
sufficient to achieve data saturation,
where additional interviews were unlikely to generate new insights (Guest et
al., 2006). Document Sampling:
Institutional documents were purposively selected from the 12 universities,
including strategic plans, curriculum review reports, and teaching and
assessment policies, to allow systematic review of written preparedness
evidence. Multiple data collection methods were used to capture both breadth
and depth: Structured Questionnaires: Administered
to 360 academic staff. Designed
on a 5-point Likert scale covering the five key dimensions of preparedness:
curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, faculty capacity, and resources. Piloted to
ensure reliability, with a Cronbach’s
alpha > 0.78, indicating high internal consistency. Semi-Structured Interviews: Conducted
with 36 key informants using
open-ended guides. Interviews were audio-recorded (with consent) and
transcribed verbatim. Allowed participants to elaborate on experiences,
challenges, and institutional strategies in a nuanced manner, providing
insights beyond survey data. Document
Analysis: Systematic review of university documents using a
structured protocol. Examined evidence of policy alignment, curriculum
reform, assessment practices, and institutional strategies to support CBE
implementation. Quantitative Data was
analyzed using SPSS Version
27. The data was analyzed
using thematic analysis (Braun
& Clarke, 2006). Transcripts and document notes were coded and categorized
into emerging themes corresponding to the five preparedness dimensions. The
findings were presented narratively with direct quotations to illustrate key points. Quantitative and
qualitative findings were merged at the
interpretation stage to provide a more holistic understanding. This
integration allowed the study to identify patterns in the data while explaining
the reasons and context behind them, providing richer insights for
decision-making. Ethical standards were strictly adhered to throughout
the study: Participants were informed that they could withdraw from the study
at any point without penalty.
6.0
Findings
This study explored how prepared
Kenyan public universities are to implement Competency-Based Education (CBE),
focusing on five key areas: curriculum reform, pedagogy and assessment, faculty
capacity, infrastructure, and resources. By combining quantitative data with
insights from interviews and document analysis, a clear picture emerges while
efforts toward CBE are underway, overall preparedness remains limited and
uneven across institutions.
6.1 To
What Extent Have Kenyan Public Universities Reformed Their Curricula to Align
with CBE?
The findings suggest that
curriculum reform is still at an early stage and, in many cases, remains
largely procedural rather than transformative. Although most universities have
initiated curriculum review processes, only a small proportion have made meaningful
changes that reflect the principles of CBE.
Table 6.1: Status of Curricular Reform (n
= …)
|
Indicator |
Percentage (%) |
|
Courses reviewed |
78% |
|
Substantial CBE-aligned
restructuring |
34% |
|
Use of standardized
competency frameworks |
0% |
While 78% of academic staff
reported that course reviews had taken place, only 34% felt that these reviews
resulted in genuine restructuring. This gap points to a deeper issue: reform is
happening more in form than in substance.
Insights from interviews
reinforce this concern. Many participants described what can best be termed as “CBE
labelling”—a process where existing syllabi are simply reworded to include
competency language without fundamentally changing their structure or intent.
Document analysis confirmed this pattern, revealing that none of the
universities had a clear, standardized competency framework guiding their
programs. As one Dean of Education candidly put it:
“We are largely taking the old syllabus and mapping the topics to
purported competencies… the structure remains the same.”
Taken together, these findings
suggest that while curriculum reform is visible on paper, it lacks the depth
and coherence needed to drive real change in teaching and learning.
6.2 How
Prepared Are Universities in Terms of Pedagogy and Assessment for CBE
Implementation?
A similar pattern emerges when
looking at teaching and assessment practices. Despite the shift toward CBE,
most universities continue to rely heavily on traditional methods.
Table 6.2: Teaching and Assessment
Practices
|
Practice
Indicator |
Percentage (%) |
|
Lectures as primary
teaching method |
85% |
|
Courses relying on
written exams (>60% grade) |
89% |
|
Use of
continuous/authentic assessment |
< 40% |
The data show that lectures
remain the dominant mode of instruction for 85% of respondents, while written
examinations continue to carry the greatest weight in student evaluation.
Continuous and authentic assessment central to CBE are still used sparingly.
Faculty members highlighted
several practical challenges behind this situation, including large class
sizes, limited training in alternative assessment methods, and uncertainty
about how to evaluate competencies fairly and consistently. A Teaching Centre
Director captured this uncertainty: “Staff ask, ‘How do I grade a competency?
How do I defend the grade?’ We have no clear answers.” These realities suggest
that, although CBE calls for more interactive and student-centered approaches,
classroom practices have yet to shift in any meaningful way.
6.5 What
Is the Overall Level of Institutional Preparedness for CBE Implementation?
When considered together, the
findings reveal a system that is not yet fully prepared for CBE. The challenges
identified across the five dimensions are closely interconnected and tend to
reinforce one another.
Table 6.5: Summary of Preparedness Levels
|
Dimension |
Level of
Preparedness |
|
Curriculum |
Low |
|
Pedagogy &
Assessment |
Low |
|
Faculty Capacity |
Very Low |
|
Infrastructure |
Low |
|
Resources |
Very Low |
For example, limited faculty
training leads lecturers to rely on familiar lecture-based methods. These
methods, in turn, reduce the pressure for meaningful curriculum reform. At the
same time, inadequate infrastructure makes it difficult to experiment with new
teaching approaches, while weak institutional incentives discourage innovation.
The result is a cycle that
sustains the status quo. In this context, CBE risks remaining more of a policy
ideal than a lived reality in university classrooms.
7.0 Discussion
This
study set out to understand how prepared Kenyan public universities are to
implement Competency-Based Education (CBE). What emerges from the findings is a
clear and consistent picture: while there is strong policy commitment at the
national level—reflected in frameworks such as Sessional Paper No. 1 of 2019
and the CUE Guidelines (2023) the reality within universities tells a
more complex story.
Across
curriculum reform, teaching practices, staff readiness, infrastructure, and
resources, there are noticeable gaps that make implementation difficult. In
essence, the ambition to adopt CBE is evident, but the conditions required to
make it work effectively are not yet fully in place.
The
discussion that follows unpacks these issues across the key variables of the
study.
7.1 Curriculum Reform and Alignment with CBE
Although
many universities have begun reviewing their curricula, the findings suggest
that these efforts are, in most cases, still at a surface level. Rather than
fully rethinking programmes around competencies, institutions appear to be
adjusting existing structures to fit the language of CBE.
This
pattern is not unique to Kenya. Amoah
and Ogawa (2022) note that across many African systems, reforms are
often adopted formally but struggle to take root in practice due to
institutional inertia and limited technical capacity. Similarly, Odhiambo and Mwanbi (2023) describe a
tendency toward symbolic compliance,
where curricula are rebranded without meaningful structural change.
What
stands out in this study is the absence of clear, shared competency frameworks
to guide universities. Without such benchmarks, each institution is left to
interpret CBE in its own way, leading to inconsistencies and weak alignment
across programmes.
Taken
together, these findings suggest that curriculum reform needs to move beyond
routine review exercises. It requires a more deliberate and coordinated effort one
that focuses on redesigning programmes from the ground up and ensuring that
competencies are meaningfully integrated into teaching and learning.
7.2 Pedagogy and Assessment Practices
A
similar tension is evident in the area of pedagogy and assessment. While CBE
calls for interactive, learner-centered approaches and continuous assessment,
teaching in many universities remains largely lecture-based, with heavy
reliance on written examinations.
This
persistence of traditional practices is understandable when viewed in context.
As Amoah and Ogawa (2022) point
out, large class sizes and limited pedagogical training often make it difficult
for lecturers to adopt more engaging methods. In Kenya, Odhiambo and Mwanbi (2023) also found that assessment systems
remain heavily exam-oriented, making it challenging to evaluate practical
competencies.
What
is particularly striking in this study is the uncertainty among lecturers about
how to assess competencies. Questions about grading, fairness, and
accountability point to a deeper issue of limited assessment literacy.
In
practice, this means that even where there is willingness to change, lecturers
tend to fall back on familiar methods. This suggests that shifting to CBE will
require more than policy direction it will require sustained support, practical
tools, and confidence-building among academic staff.
7.3 Interconnected Nature of Preparedness Variables
One
of the most important insights from this study is that these challenges do not
exist in isolation. Instead, they are closely linked and tend to reinforce one
another.
For
example, limited faculty training encourages reliance on lectures, which in
turn reduces the push for deeper curriculum reform. At the same time,
inadequate infrastructure makes it difficult to experiment with new teaching
approaches, while weak incentives discourage lecturers from trying.
The
result is a cycle that sustains the status quo. Progress in one area is often
slowed or even reversed by challenges in another.
This
interconnectedness reinforces the idea, widely supported in educational change
theory, that reform must be approached holistically. Addressing one issue at a
time is unlikely to produce meaningful results unless the broader system is
also considered.
7.4 Implications for CBE Implementation
Overall,
the study makes it clear that implementing CBE in Kenyan public universities is
not simply a matter of adopting new policies. While national frameworks provide
an important foundation, their success ultimately depends on what happens
within institutions. If the current gaps are not addressed, there is a real
risk that: Curriculum reforms will remain superficial, Teaching practices will
continue to rely on traditional methods, Faculty engagement will remain limited
and Infrastructure constraints will continue to hinder innovation . In such a
scenario, CBE may exist more as an ideal than a lived reality, with limited
impact on the competencies and employability of graduates.
For
CBE to succeed, a more coordinated and system-wide approach is needed one that
brings together curriculum redesign, staff development, institutional reforms,
and investment in infrastructure. Only by addressing these areas collectively
can universities move from policy intention to meaningful educational
transformation.
8.0 Conclusion
The transition to
Competency-Based Education (CBE) in Kenyan public universities is both
necessary and complex. While national policy frameworks are clear,
forward-looking, and ambitious, the reality on the ground tells a different
story. Universities are still grappling with limited capacity across key areas
such as curriculum design, teaching practices, assessment, staff preparedness,
and resources. Without deliberate and well-coordinated interventions, there is
a real risk that CBE will remain more of a policy aspiration than a lived
classroom experience ultimately falling short of its goal of producing
graduates who are employable, adaptable, and able to contribute meaningfully to
national development.
Looking at curriculum reform, it is evident that although
universities have begun reviewing their programmes, these efforts have yet to
bring about meaningful transformation. In many cases, changes appear to be more
about adjusting existing structures than rethinking them entirely. Without
clear and shared competency frameworks to guide this process, curriculum
alignment remains weak, limiting the extent to which programmes can truly
support competency development.
In terms of pedagogy and assessment,
traditional approaches continue to dominate. Lectures and written examinations
remain the norm, even as CBE calls for more interactive, learner-centered
methods and continuous forms of assessment. This gap suggests that teaching and
evaluation practices have not yet caught up with the expectations of CBE,
making it difficult to effectively develop and measure the competencies that
students are expected to acquire.
Overall, the study suggests that
implementing CBE in Kenyan public universities requires more than policy
direction it calls for a coordinated, system-wide effort. Addressing
curriculum, pedagogy, faculty development, and resource constraints in
isolation is unlikely to produce lasting change. Instead, a holistic approach
is needed, one that brings all these elements together. Without such an
approach, reforms may remain fragmented and superficial, limiting their
potential to improve the quality and relevance of higher education.
9.0 Recommendations
To enhance preparedness and ensure
meaningful implementation of CBE, the study proposes the following
recommendations:
1. Develop a realistic, stepwise roadmap with clear milestones, timelines, and
progress indicators, coordinated by the Commission for University Education
(CUE).
2. Establish a ring-fenced fund to support curriculum redesign, faculty
development, infrastructure upgrades, and acquisition of digital tools
necessary for competency-based teaching.
3. Introduce nationally accredited training programs on CBE pedagogy and
assessment, making participation compulsory for teaching staff involved in
competency-based programmes.
4. Revise promotion and reward systems
to recognize teaching innovation and
successful CBE implementation, thereby motivating faculty to invest time
and effort in curriculum transformation.
5. Strengthen CUE oversight by
developing assessment metrics that
focus on demonstrated competencies, rather than procedural compliance,
ensuring that universities are accountable for genuine learning outcomes.
6. Upgrade laboratories, digital
platforms, and teaching facilities to enable practical, experiential
References
Afeti, G. (2023). Competency-based
education and training in Africa: Current status and future
prospects. African Development Bank Group.
African Development Bank. (2021). Skills
development and human capital in Africa: Policy brief.
African Development Bank.
African Union. (2020). Continental
education strategy for Africa (CESA 16–25). African Union
Commission.
Amoah, J., Mensah, D., & Owusu, K.
(2022). Curriculum reforms and competency-based learning
in Ghana. African
Journal of Education Studies, 14(2), 45–60.
Amoah, J., & Ogawa, K. (2022).
Competency-based education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Trends and
challenges. International
Journal of Educational Development, 89, 102541.
Asian Development Bank. (2021). Skills
development in Asia: Preparing for the future of work.
Manila: ADB.
Association of African Universities.
(2022). Harnessing the potential of competency-based
education in African
higher education. Accra: AAU.
Block, J. H. (1971). Mastery
learning: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using
thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Canadian Medical Association. (2020). Competency-based
medical education framework. Ottawa:
CMA.
Chege, M., & Mbugua, Z. (2023).
Curriculum transformation in Kenyan universities under CBC
reforms. Kenya
Journal of Education Planning, 12(1), 34–49.
Commission for University Education.
(2023). Guidelines for curriculum development and review
in universities in Kenya. Nairobi: CUE.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L.
(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Educause. (2022). *7 things you should
know about competency-based education*. EDUCAUSE
Review.
European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training. (2009). Competence-based
approaches in vocational
education and training. Luxembourg:
CEDEFOP.
European Commission. (2021). Competence
frameworks in higher education: Policy report.
Brussels: European Union.
European Higher Education Area.
(2018). Bologna process implementation report. Brussels:
EHEA.
Gachago, D., & Masinga, L. (2024).
Decolonising competency-based education in African
universities. Journal
of Higher Education in Africa, 22(1), 45–63.
Gitonga, R., & Ochieng, P. (2022).
Policy alignment challenges in competency-based education
in Kenya. East
African Journal of Education Policy, 8(2), 21–38.
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L.
(2006). How many interviews are enough? Data saturation in
qualitative research. Field
Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
Houston, W. R. (1974). Competency-based
teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education,
25(1), 5–10.
International Labour Organization.
(2023). Skills and lifelong learning for the future of work.
Geneva: ILO.
Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development.
(2022). Competency-based curriculum designs and
guidelines. Nairobi: KICD.
Kipkoech, J., & Kindiki, J. (2023).
Resource constraints and higher education reforms in
Kenya. Journal of
African Higher Education, 5(1), 66–82.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970).
Determining sample size for research
activities. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607–610.
Levine, A., & Patrick, S. (2019). What
is competency-based education? Washington, DC:
CompetencyWorks.
Materu, P. (2021). Higher education
quality assurance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Ministry of Education Kenya. (2016). Report
on the SMASSE project and competency-based
teacher training. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Ministry of Education Kenya. (2019). Sessional
paper no. 1 of 2019 on reforming
education and training
in Kenya. Nairobi: Government Printer.
Ministry of Education Kenya. (2021). Competency-based
curriculum implementation framework.
Nairobi: Government Printer.
Ministry of Education Kenya. (2023). Education
sector strategic plan 2023–2027. Nairobi:
Government Printer.
Musyoka, M., & Ndirangu, M. (2024).
Lecturer preparedness for competency-based teaching in
Kenyan universities. International Journal of
Educational Research in Africa, 6(1), 15–29.
Mwangi, P., & Changeiywo, J. (2022).
Infrastructure readiness for CBC implementation in
Kenyan universities. Journal
of Education and Practice, 13(4), 88–99.
Mwebi, B., & Otieno, M. (2023). Policy
implementation gaps in competency-based higher
education in Kenya. African
Educational Management Journal, 9(2), 112–128.
Odhiambo, G., & Mwanbi, D. (2023).
Competency-based curriculum implementation in Kenyan
higher education: Opportunities and constraints. African
Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 101–115.
Odora Hoppers, C. A. (2020). Knowledge
production and decolonization in African
education. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 52(6), 601–613.
OECD. (2022). The future of
education and skills: Education 2030 framework. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
OECD. (2023). Transforming higher
education through competency-based learning. Paris: OECD
Publishing.
Sifuna, D. N. (2010). Some reflections on
the expansion and quality of higher education in public
universities in
Kenya. *Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15*(4), 415–425.
Smith, E., & Keating, J. (2003). From
training reform to training packages. Sydney: Social Science Press.
Tikly, L. (2020). Education for sustainable
development in Africa. Comparative Education, 56(3),
1–17.
UNESCO. (2021). Reimagining our
futures together: A new social contract for education. Paris:
UNESCO.
UNESCO. (2022). Transforming
education for the future: Global report. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO-IESALC. (2020). Higher
education in Latin America and the Caribbean. Caracas:
UNESCO Institute for Higher
Education in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Wambua, R., & Mutisya, S. (2022).
Pedagogical practices under CBC reforms in Kenya. Journal
of Curriculum Studies
Research, 4(2), 120–138.
World Bank. (2020). The changing
nature of work and skills development. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
World Bank. (2022). Skills
development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policy pathways. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
