Implementing Competence Frameworks in Curricula
A Stepwise Approach

von Ulf-Daniel Ehlers  |  27. Januar 2026

1. Why Competence Models Cannot Simply Be “Implemented” - but need a transformative approach?!

Competence frameworks are not plug-and-play instruments. They are sophisticated structures representing idealized profiles of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that learners should acquire in a given educational or professional context. However, translating these ideal models into real learning experiences requires a deliberate, phased approach that bridges abstract conceptualizations and situated educational practice.

Drawing from current theory and practice in curriculum development, we propose a three-step implementation model that guides institutions and educators through a structured transformation of competence models into curricular reality.

Fig. 1: Three steps to transform curricula with competences

2. Agile Programme Development and Organizational Perspectives

Beyond its grounding in Design-Based Research, the three-step model is further supported by theoretical work on agile programme development and organizational theory in higher education. Agile approaches to curriculum and programme development originate from organizational learning and innovation research and emphasize responsiveness, iterative development, and stakeholder co-creation in contexts of uncertainty (Highsmith, 2009; Rigby et al., 2016).

Applied to higher education and VET, agile programme development acknowledges that competence requirements—particularly in emerging domains such as AI—are dynamic rather than stable. Consequently, study programmes cannot be designed as fixed structures but must be understood as evolving organizational artefacts that are continuously refined through feedback from learners, educators, and practice partners. This perspective aligns with research highlighting the importance of experimentation, rapid prototyping, and reflective adaptation in curriculum innovation (Blessinger & Anchan, 2015; Reeves & McKenney, 2019).

From an organizational theory perspective, higher education institutions are commonly described as loosely coupled, professional organizations characterized by high autonomy of academic actors, strong disciplinary cultures, and limited hierarchical control (Weick, 1976; Mintzberg, 1979). In such organizational contexts, linear implementation strategies are unlikely to succeed. Instead, curriculum transformation depends on shared sense-making, negotiated meaning, and locally anchored design processes.

Agile and competence-oriented programme development approaches respond to this organizational reality by shifting the focus from control to coordination, from compliance to engagement, and from static planning to learning-oriented change processes. In this sense, the three-step model does not merely offer a didactic framework, but also functions as an organizational development instrument that enables institutions to build adaptive capacity for ongoing educational transformation.

3. A Three-Step Model for Implementing Competence Frameworks

 

Step 1. Interpret the Framework as a Reference Model

The first step is understanding. Before any practical application, a competence framework—such as TRICOMP—must be treated as a reference model. This means engaging deeply with the document: reading its structure, analyzing its underlying assumptions, and understanding the competence areas it addresses.

This stage involves critical reflection: What vision of the professional or learner is being promoted? What transversal and domain-specific skills are highlighted? What developmental logic is embedded in the competence progression?

This analytical phase is not optional—it is essential for making informed, responsible use of the model.

Step 2. Contextualize the Framework for the Learning Environment

Once the reference model is understood, the second step is contextualization. This means adapting the competence framework to the specific educational setting: the discipline, the learners, the type of institution, and the societal or professional expectations involved.

Contextualization includes two main activities:

• Selective Adaptation: Choose relevant competences from the broader framework that align with the learning goals of a specific curriculum or module.
• Thematic Specification: Reformulate general competence descriptions to match the disciplinary or professional context. For example, “communication competence” becomes “communication competence in physician–patient interactions” in a medical program, or “communicating technical constraints to non-specialist stakeholders” in a software engineering program.

Contextualization ensures that learners and instructors alike recognize the relevance and authenticity of the competence objectives.

Step 3. Design Learning Experiences for Competence Acquisition

The third step involves designing the learning architecture that will enable learners to develop the targeted competences. This is not a mechanical step but a creative, evidence-informed process that defines:

• Social forms: individual work, group collaboration, peer feedback, or real-world co-creation.
• Learning formats: lectures, flipped classrooms, project-based learning, challenge-based learning, simulations, etc.
• Tasks and experiences: What activities must learners engage in to experience the development of the competence? What real or simulated problems must they solve?

This phase focuses on designing learning as experience, not merely as content transmission. It anchors the abstract competences in concrete, embodied learning opportunities.

4. Distinguishing Reference Frameworks from Topic-Specific Competence Models

It is important to clarify the distinction between general reference frameworks and domain-specific competence models.

• Reference frameworks, such as the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) or the UNESCO Future of Education Competency Framework, are meta-level tools. They offer cross-sectoral benchmarks and overarching descriptors (e.g., "Level 6: advanced knowledge of a field of work or study") and serve primarily policy, comparability, and quality assurance functions.
• In contrast, topic-specific competence models—such as a framework for “Promoting Innovation in Technical Professions” or the TRICOMP model for research and innovation competences—are operational tools. They are tailored to particular sectors, learner groups, or educational missions. They describe how competence manifests in specific settings and are meant to be used directly in curriculum planning, assessment, and didactic design.

The two types of frameworks are complementary. Reference frameworks provide the macro-architecture of qualifications; topic-specific competence models provide the granular scaffolding needed to build meaningful curricula and learning pathways.

5. Note on Theoretical and Methodological Approach

1. Agile Programme Development and Design-Based Research as a Methodological Backbone

The three-step model for implementing competence frameworks is methodologically grounded in principles of Design-Based Research (DBR) and closely related approaches to agile educational design. DBR provides a particularly suitable methodological lens for understanding why competence-oriented curriculum development must be iterative, context-sensitive, and theory-informed rather than linear or purely technical.

Design-Based Research emerged from the recognition that educational innovations cannot be adequately developed or evaluated under laboratory conditions alone, but must be designed and studied in real educational settings, in close collaboration with practitioners (Brown, 1992; Collins, 1992). Its core purpose is twofold: to generate theoretically grounded design principles and to produce practically viable solutions for complex educational problems (Design-Based Research Collective, 2003).

This dual ambition aligns directly with the logic of the proposed three-step model.

DBR and Step 1: Interpreting Competence Frameworks as Reference Models

In DBR, the design process begins with a theory-driven analysis of the problem space. Rather than immediately proposing solutions, researchers and practitioners jointly examine existing theoretical models, assumptions, and normative expectations (McKenney & Reeves, 2012).

This corresponds closely to the first step of the model: interpreting competence frameworks as reference models. Competence frameworks are not treated as prescriptive blueprints but as theoretical artefacts that articulate an idealized vision of professional or learner competence. DBR emphasizes that such artefacts must be critically examined before being operationalized, including their epistemological assumptions, embedded values, and intended scope (Reeves, 2006).

Thus, Step 1 reflects a DBR-informed stance: understanding precedes design, and responsible use of competence models requires analytical distance rather than immediate application.

DBR and Step 2: Contextualization Through Iterative Design Decisions

A defining feature of DBR is its commitment to contextualized design. Educational interventions are not designed for abstract learners but for specific institutional, disciplinary, and cultural contexts (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012). DBR therefore rejects one-size-fits-all solutions and instead foregrounds adaptive design decisions.

This principle is directly mirrored in Step 2 of the model: contextualizing the framework for the learning environment. The processes of selective adaptation and thematic specification represent deliberate design moves that translate general competence descriptions into locally meaningful formulations.

From a DBR perspective, this step constitutes the first design cycle, in which theoretical constructs are transformed into provisional design hypotheses. These hypotheses are then tested, refined, or revised through interaction with real learners, educators, and institutional constraints (Wang & Hannafin, 2005).

Importantly, DBR conceptualizes contextualization not as a one-time translation but as an ongoing negotiation between theory and practice—a logic that is central to competence-oriented curriculum development.

DBR and Step 3: Designing Learning Experiences as Interventions

The third step—designing learning experiences for competence acquisition—corresponds to the core intervention phase of DBR. Here, learning designs function as theory-informed interventions that are intentionally crafted to elicit the targeted competences.

DBR emphasizes that learning environments should be designed as experiential systems, integrating tasks, social arrangements, feedback mechanisms, and reflective opportunities (Barab & Squire, 2004). Competence development, from this perspective, is not an outcome of exposure to content but the result of sustained engagement with authentic problems under guided conditions.

Crucially, DBR treats implementation itself as a source of knowledge. Observations of learner engagement, breakdowns, unexpected uses, and emergent practices feed back into subsequent redesign cycles (McKenney & Reeves, 2019). This resonates strongly with the competence-oriented view that learning outcomes cannot be fully predicted in advance but must be supported through adaptive learning architectures.

Iteration, Learning, and Programme-Level Transformation

Beyond individual courses, DBR offers a compelling framework for programme-level curriculum development, particularly in emerging domains such as AI competence. Agile programme development can be understood as a sequence of nested DBR cycles, in which competence frameworks guide orientation, curricula serve as design hypotheses, and learning formats function as testbeds for competence development.

This perspective explains why the three-step model is not linear but cyclical. Interpretation, contextualization, and design are revisited continuously as programmes evolve, new requirements emerge, and empirical insights accumulate. DBR thus provides the methodological rationale for treating competence-oriented curriculum development as a learning process of the institution itself.

Design-Based Research as a Bridge Between Frameworks and Practice

In sum, Design-Based Research clarifies why competence frameworks cannot simply be “implemented.” Frameworks articulate what should be learned; DBR-informed curriculum design addresses how this learning can be made possible under real conditions.

By aligning competence interpretation, contextualization, and learning design with iterative design cycles, the three-step model operationalizes DBR principles for curriculum and programme development. It transforms abstract competence models into living curricular structures that evolve through use, reflection, and redesign—precisely the kind of transformation required for competence development in complex, AI-shaped educational landscapes.

6. Conclusion

The implementation of competence models is not a single act of curriculum alignment—it is a transformative, three-stage process. First, educators must interpret frameworks as reference tools; second, they must translate them into meaningful, context-specific formulations; and third, they must orchestrate learning experiences that make competence development real.

Only through this deliberate, reflective, and design-oriented approach can competence models truly fulfill their promise: to empower learners for a future of autonomy, collaboration, and responsible innovation.

Literature

Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11428813

Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: The path to innovation in educational research. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2

Collins, A. (1992). Toward a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). Springer.

Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. Routledge.

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Reeves, T. C. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. V. den Akker et al. (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 52–66). Routledge.

Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504682

Blessinger, P., & Anchan, J. P. (2015). Democratizing higher education and empowering lifelong learners. International Journal of Adult Education and Technology, 6(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJAET.2015070101

Highsmith, J. (2009). Agile project management: Creating innovative products (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations. Prentice Hall.

Reeves, T. C., & McKenney, S. (2019). Conducting educational design research (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing agile. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 40–50.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391875