The CACF framework has been restructured to align with best practices in competency framework design, as outlined in the eCampus Ontario Open Competency Toolkit. The work done to restructure the framework included:
- Breaking up longer compound competency descriptors into more focused and concise competency statements
- Separating the performance criteria from supporting skills, knowledge, and attributes
- Creating a new framework structure that included levels of complexity within each competency area
- Adding content related to climate mitigation to the revised structure
Uses for the CACF v2
The primary target end users of the CACF v2 are people working in various roles and organizations that need to identify necessary skills and skill gaps, monitor and assess performances, and provide an evidence-based foundation for curriculum design for education and training designers.
Figure 1: Uses for Competency Frameworks. From the Open Competency Toolkit by Dennis Green and Carolyn Levy CC:BY SA4.0
CACF v2 Framework Structure
The framework is structured into
Domains – Six groups of related competency areas represented by a specific colour
Competency Areas – 3-7 groups of specific competencies within each domain
Competencies – sets of competencies ranging in complexity within each Competency Area (Figure 2).
Figure 2: CACF v2 Poster outlining structure
Competencies and levels of complexity
Competencies are benchmarked to performance criteria based on levels of complexity which relate to the increasing amount of autonomy, responsibility, accountability, impact, and expertise that each requires. (Figure 3).
Senior leaders, for example, may require the highest-level competencies in the framework, while those working in entry level/support roles require lower level competencies, and technical experts, supervisors, and managers using the middle to higher levels.
Figure 3: CACF v2 Levels of Complexity
Competency structure
Each competency descriptor includes:
- Competency statement describing the competency
- Performance criteria detailing the measurable behaviours that must be demonstrated to show proficiency in the competency. These are used as the basis for assessment. The assessment itself, and how these criteria are measured are up to users of the framework when developing assessment tools.
- Supporting Knowledge and Skills including base knowledge and skills that apply to a competency or set of competencies, as well as those specific to the particular competency. For example, a base level of knowledge about climate change may be expected of everyone (applies to all competencies in that area or possibly domain), whereas a deeper level of knowledge or expertise may be required for certain competencies.
Assessing proficiency
Many people use the term “proficiency levels” to describe levels in a competency framework. In the CACF v.2 we use levels of complexity to identified the differences between competencies in one competency area.
Levels of proficiency are the basis for assessment. The CACF v.2 does not include proficiency assessment at this time as different competencies and performance criteria lend themselves to different approaches to measuring performance expectations.
Every competency can be measured against a proficiency scale (i.e., how well does someone perform against the performance criteria) regardless of the level of complexity.
Different proficiency scales may be used when developing assessments for competencies.
Some competencies may lend themselves to using a typical progression scale (i.e., a variation on the Dreyfus model) as shown in Figure 6:
Figure 5: Typical Progression Scale. Adapted from the Open Competency Toolkit by Dennis Green and Carolyn Levy CC:BY SA4.0
Other competencies may be better assessed by a binary system – such as “competent” or “not yet competent”. This often applies to explicitly or demonstrably measurable competencies like working safely where you can either perform to expectations or you can’t.
Competencies that rely heavily on behavioural indicators are often best reflected using a frequency scale (Figure 6). For these, it’s important to measure how often the behaviour is demonstrated, rather than measuring the difficulty or complexity.
| How frequently is this behaviour demonstrated? | ||||
| Rating | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Frequency | Never | Some of the time | Most of the time | Always |
Figure 6: Typical Frequency Scale.
As people use the CACFv2 to develop assessments, some or all of these scales may be utilized.