The development of Creativity, Communication, Critical Thinking, and Collaboration (the 4Cs) is a central objective of contemporary competency-based education. However, empirical evidence on how these competencies evolve across learning modules and instructional phases remains limited. This study evaluates the evolution of the 4Cs from pre-pilot to pilot implementation phases across three educational contexts, using the project’s 4Cs theoretical framework as an analytical lens. The analysis of three pilot cases (IASIS, EASD, and UPATRAS) compares the 4Cs scores to identify patterns of growth, stagnation, or decline over time. Results indicate that communication and critical thinking showed the most consistent and substantial improvements, particularly in pilots with lower pre-pilot baselines, suggesting that structured pilot interventions effectively support cognitive and expressive competencies. In contrast, creativity exhibited context-dependent outcomes, while collaboration emerged as the most fragile competency, often stagnating or declining during scale-up. Interpreted through the theoretical framework, these findings suggest that competency evolution is strongly shaped by instructional design, assessment alignment, and learning activity structures rather than learner ability alone. The study contributes empirical validation to the 4Cs framework and highlights the need for differentiated, competency-sensitive design and evaluation strategies when scaling educational modules.
References
[1]
Amabile, T. M., Pratt, M. G., & Dutton, J. E. (2018). Dynamic Componential Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 3-20.
[2]
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st Century Skills and Competences for New Millennium Learners in OECD Countries. OECD Education Working Papers.
[3]
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
[4]
Brianza, E., Schmid, M., Tondeur, J., & Petko, D. (2024). Is Contextual Knowledge a Key Component of Expertise for Teaching with Technology? A Systematic Literature Review. ComputersandEducationOpen,7, Article ID: 100201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2024.100201
[5]
Cosgrove, J., & Cachia, R. (2025). DigComp 3.0: European Digital Competence Framework. JRC Publications Repository.
[6]
Dumas, D., & Kaufman, J. C. (2024). Evaluation Is Creation: Self and Social Judgments of Creativity across the Four-C Model. EducationalPsychologyReview,36, Article No. 107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09947-1
[7]
Duret, C., & Romero, M. (2025). Developing Teachers’ Contextual Knowledge and TPACK in a Pedagogical Change Laboratory. In M. Phillips, E. Baran, P. Mishra, & M. J. Koehler (Eds.), HandbookofTechnologicalPedagogicalContentKnowledge(TPACK)forEducators (3rd ed., pp. 61-96). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032635194-5
[8]
Facione, P. A. (1989). Delphi Report: Critical Thinking. American Philosophical Association.
[9]
Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. Insight Assessment.
[10]
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical Thinking, Cognitive Presence, and Computer Conferencing in Distance Education. AmericanJournalofDistanceEducation,15, 7-23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923640109527071
[11]
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw-Hill.
[12]
Halpern, D. F. (2006). Thought and Knowledge: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (4th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
[13]
Jeong, H., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2016). Seven Affordances of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: How to Support Collaborative Learning? How Can Technologies Help? EducationalPsychologist,51, 247-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1158654
[14]
Leroy, A., & Romero, M. (2022). Creative Intention and Persistence in Educational Robotic. EducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopment,70, 1247-1260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10128-6
Panadero, E., & Romero, M. (2014). To Rubric or Not to Rubric? The Effects of Self-Assessment on Self-Regulation, Performance and Self-efficacy. AssessmentinEducation:Principles,Policy&Practice,21, 133-148. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594x.2013.877872
[17]
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2023). Effects of Rubrics on Learning: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Research Review, 38, Article ID: 100504.
[18]
Romero, M. (2015). Digital Game Design as a Complex Learning Activity for Developing the 4Cs Skills: Communication, Collaboration, Creativity and Critical Thinking. In A. De Gloria, & R. Veltkamp (Eds.), Games and Learning Alliance (pp. 90-99). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40216-1_10
[19]
Septiani, D. P., Kostakos, P., & Romero, M. (2023). Analysis of Creative Engagement in AI Tools in Education Based on the #PPai6 Framework. In Z. Kubincová, F. Caruso, T. Kim, M. Ivanova, L. Lancia, & M. A. Pellegrino (Eds.), Methodologies and Intelligent Systems for Technology Enhanced Learning, Workshops—13th International Conference (pp. 48-58). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42134-1_5
[20]
Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2012). A Comparative Analysis of International Frameworks for 21stcentury Competences: Implications for National Curriculum Policies. JournalofCurriculumStudies,44, 299-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.668938
[21]
Voorhees, R. A. (2001). Competency‐Based Learning Models: A Necessary Future. NewDirectionsforInstitutionalResearch,2001, 5-13. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.7
[22]
Westera, W. (2001). Competences in Education: A Confusion of Tongues. JournalofCurriculumStudies,33, 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270120625
