Title: The Competency Paradox: Why Does a Competency-Based Curriculum Adhere to a Rigid, Time-Bound Educational Cycle? A Critical Inquiry
Authors: Dr. Arinaitwe Julius, Asiimwe Isaac Kazaara
Volume: 9
Issue: 12
Pages: 88-97
Publication Date: 2025/12/28
Abstract:
This mixed-methods study critically examined the competency paradox-the fundamental contradiction between competency-based education's (CBE) philosophical commitment to flexible, self-paced, mastery-based learning and its practical implementation within rigid, time-bound educational cycles governed by traditional academic calendars, predetermined course durations, and inflexible progression timelines. Conducted across 15 educational institutions in Uganda implementing competency-based curricula, the research employed a concurrent design involving 461 participants (180 educators, 200 students, 45 administrators, and 36 policy makers) selected through purposive sampling with adequate statistical power (80%) to detect small to medium effect sizes. The study's objectives were threefold: to identify institutional, economic, and regulatory factors constraining flexible CBE implementation; to examine stakeholder perceptions of the contradiction between CBE principles and time-bound practices; and to explore reconciliation strategies and transformative models. Quantitative data collected through structured questionnaires were analyzed using descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation, multiple regression, and structural equation modeling (SEM), while qualitative data from 24 interviews, 6 focus groups, and 45 policy documents underwent thematic analysis using NVivo 12. Results revealed statistically significant perceptual divergences among stakeholder groups, with administrators and policy makers rating CBE implementation authenticity significantly higher than educators and students (F=87.45, p<0.001, ?²=0.364), indicating critical disconnect between decision-makers and practitioners. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that institutional inertia (?=0.298), accreditation requirements (?=0.246), financial aid regulations (?=0.221), stakeholder resistance (?=0.206), faculty contract structures (?=0.187), and technological limitations (?=0.143) collectively explained 68% of variance in time-bound structure persistence (R²=0.679, F(6,454)=159.47, p<0.001). Structural equation modeling with excellent fit indices (CFI=0.952, TLI=0.945, RMSEA=0.035) confirmed that regulatory environments (?=0.418), institutional cultures (?=0.392), and economic constraints (?=0.337) converged to create time-bound structures, which strongly predicted CBE implementation gaps (?=0.756, accounting for 57% of variance) that in turn produced significant negative effects on student outcomes (?=-0.523). Moderating effects of administrative support (?=-0.287) and faculty professional development (?=-0.234) suggested potential mitigation strategies within existing constraints. The study concluded that the competency paradox represents not implementation failure but a systemic phenomenon requiring coordinated reforms across policy, regulatory, and institutional levels. Key recommendations included comprehensive regulatory reform to replace time-based accountability with competency-based metrics, institutional restructuring encompassing contract renegotiation and technological infrastructure development, and development of sophisticated hybrid models that create authentic flexibility within constrained timeframes through mechanisms such as competency-based modules, flex periods, and inter-institutional consortia that distribute implementation costs and risks while expanding access to genuine mastery-based learning pathways.