Defining competencies in curriculum and instruction and developing a new competency model

The paper situates competency development within global and national quality agendas in higher education, highlighting the role of standards and qualifications frameworks (e.g., EQF, TQF, NQF-HETR) in ensuring transparent, measurable learning outcomes. In Türkiye, competencies are structured into knowledge, skills, and competence across levels, influenced by the Bologna Process. Curriculum and Instruction (CI) experts are pivotal in articulating these competencies. Noting a gap at the doctoral level in CI, the study targets doctoral program competencies (CIDP) through expert consensus. Research questions: (1) According to expert opinions, what competencies should be acquired in CIDP? (2) According to expert opinions, how should a competency model for CIDP be? The purpose is to define CIDP competencies and propose a model aligned with EQF and NQF-HETR, thereby supporting quality and international comparability.

The review covers multiple strands: (a) Bologna Process and Course/Programme Information Packages integrating competencies into curricula (Çınkır & Yıldız, 2018; Fer et al., 2019); (b) teacher competencies, delineating core knowledge and skills for educators (e.g., Biçer, 2021; Gerosa et al., 2024; Huntly, 2008; Nouri et al., 2021; Sever & Bostancı, 2020; van Werven et al., 2021); (c) field-specific competency frameworks across diverse domains (Aleksić et al., 2022; Geagea & MacCallum, 2020; Homberg et al., 2020; Hvidberg et al., 2021; Kahramanoğlu & Al, 2019; Yakar & Karakuş, 2020); (d) competencies across educational levels (Cline, 2008; Lunde et al., 2023; Şahin et al., 2018; Üstün et al., 2016); and (e) competencies for master’s programmes in CI derived from needs analyses (Atik Kara et al., 2020; Ökmen et al., 2019). The gap identified is the lack of doctoral-level CI competency definitions. The study addresses this by eliciting expert consensus to build a comprehensive, doctoral-level CI competency model.

Design: A three-round Delphi study (qualitative orientation) was used to identify and refine competencies for Curriculum and Instruction Doctoral Programs (CIDP). Round 1 employed open-ended questions; Rounds 2 and 3 used 7-point Likert scales to rate agreement on competencies. Participants and sampling: Purposive criterion sampling targeted CI experts meeting these criteria: holding a PhD in CI; working in CI at a university with a CIDP; and willingness to participate. From an expert pool of 268 identified via university websites in Türkiye, 34 consented and 29 completed Round 1; 28 completed Rounds 2 and 3. Demographics (n=29): 58.6% female; academic ranks included Associate Professor (44.8%), Assistant Professor (37.9%); most were aged 35–39 (34.5%); CI experience largely 6–11 years (44.8%); 55.2% had experience defining competencies. Data collection: e-Delphi via Google Forms (Round 1) and JotForm (Rounds 2–3). Round 1 included two main open-ended questions (plus probes) to elicit competencies and potential domain structures distinct from EQF, NQF-HETR, GCTP. Round 2 presented 59 items; Round 3 presented 47 items. Timelines/response rates: Round 1—27 days, 85% (29/34); Round 2—12 days, 97% (28/29); Round 3—25 days, 97% (28/29). Data analysis: Round 1 applied descriptive and content analysis using MAXQDA 2020. Expert statements (n=767) were coded into 148 codes, then consolidated into 58 competencies across domains. Rounds 2–3 used descriptive statistics: measures of central tendency (mode, median, mean) and dispersion (IQR, SD), and percentage agreement for ratings 6–7 on a 7-point scale. Consensus thresholds: Round 2—median ≥6, IQR ≤1, and ≥80% of responses at 6–7; Round 3—median ≥6, IQR ≤1, and ≥90% of responses at 6–7. Rigor: Literature-grounded design; expert selection per established Delphi guidance; pilot with 5 experts; iterative feedback across rounds; researcher triangulation; detailed audit trail; thematic analysis; member checking; ethical approval obtained (Kırşehir Ahi Evran University Ethics Committee, 04 March 2021, No. 2021/1). Ethics and data availability: Informed consent obtained online; data available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Round 1: 767 expert opinions coded into 148 codes, consolidated into 58 competencies across domains: Knowledge (18), Skill (15), Competence (10), Attitudes and Values (15). Sub-competency domains identified included knowledge: possessing and deepening knowledge; skills: teamwork and leadership, sharing knowledge, innovative thinking, independent work, problem-solving, critical thinking; competence: analytical thinking, communication/negotiation, interpreting practices, collaboration; attitudes/values: professional sensitivity, ethics, lifelong learning. Round 2 (n=28): Consensus achieved on 46/58 competencies (79% overall). By domain: Knowledge 12/18 (67%); Skill 11/15 (73%); Competence 8/10 (80%); Attitudes and Values 15/15 (100%). Twelve items without consensus were excluded. Round 3 (n=28): Consensus achieved on 31/46 competencies (67% overall). By domain: Knowledge 6/12 (50%); Skill 8/11 (72.7%); Competence 3/8 (37.5%); Attitudes and Values 14/15 (93.3%). Fifteen items without consensus were excluded. Across Rounds 2–3, competency mean ratings increased by 0.07 to 0.64; IQR decreased for 10 items (by 0.25–1.0), unchanged for 32, and increased for 5 (by 0.75–1.0). The percentage of 6–7 ratings rose by up to 25 points for six competencies, remained the same for five, and decreased for five. Final model development: Post–Round 3 expert-approved competencies (31) were further reviewed for redundancy and domain fit. Three competence-domain items overlapped with skills (e.g., presenting and transforming studies into publications; discussing current issues and proposing solutions; analyzing implementation problems and developing solutions) and were reassigned to skills. With no remaining unique items, the competence domain was removed from the model. One attitudes/values item on social skills was reframed and reassigned to skills. The resulting final model comprises 22 competencies: Knowledge (5), Skills (10), Attitudes and Values (7). Example competencies include: Knowledge—mastery of research design/implementation/reporting; analyzing curriculum development steps; analyzing national/international trends; relating curriculum development and teaching; applying curriculum development principles. Skills—using social and communication skills in practice/research; disseminating knowledge; independent research and problem analysis; designing learning-teaching models; solving complex problems in CI. Attitudes/Values—professional sensitivity and professionalism; lifelong learning orientation; adherence to ethical principles and core human values (justice, honesty, respect, responsibility). The model aligns with EQF and NQF-HETR and targets CI doctoral graduate outcomes.

The Delphi process progressively narrowed and clarified a broad initial set of competencies, with strong stability in attitudes and values and greater scrutiny in knowledge-related items. Minimal changes in Round 3 indicate convergence of expert views and a robust consensus. The final model integrates knowledge, skills, and attitudes/values, emphasizing not only advanced disciplinary knowledge and research capability but also application (communication, collaboration, innovation, analytical problem-solving) and ethical-professional dispositions. The model is consistent with EQF, NQF-HETR, GCTP, and international competency frameworks (e.g., OECD Education 2030, CMEC, P21), underscoring the importance of a holistic approach that embeds attitudes and values within educational environments. Academics’ modelling of ethical, professional behaviours is highlighted as crucial for doctoral training. Practically, the model can guide CIDP curriculum design, assessment, and continuous improvement to produce adaptable, ethical, research-productive graduates prepared for complex educational challenges.

The study defines and validates a doctoral-level competency model for Curriculum and Instruction, developed through a rigorous multi-round Delphi process with CI experts. The final model comprises 22 competencies across knowledge (5), skills (10), and attitudes and values (7), aligned with EQF and NQF-HETR, and intended to enhance CIDP curricular coherence, quality, and international comparability. Future research suggestions include: examining competencies across undergraduate and master’s levels; involving international experts for cross-cultural validation; employing mixed methods (e.g., surveys, case studies, ethnography, longitudinal designs); engaging students, faculty, and employers to map implicit and explicit competency development; testing the model across contexts and cultures; and distinguishing implicitly acquired versus explicitly taught competencies. Continued implementation research and adaptation will support broader applicability and sustained impact.

Methodological limitations of the Delphi approach include potential groupthink (mitigated via anonymity and independent revisions), expert-selection bias limiting perspective diversity, and inherent subjectivity of expert judgement despite structured processes. Iterative rounds can be time-consuming and may cause participant fatigue, potentially affecting later-round engagement. The initial open-ended round generated substantial qualitative data, posing challenges for objective synthesis. The e-Delphi format may exclude or deter participants less comfortable with online tools. The national scope limits generalisability across different cultural and educational systems.