[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]
No competing interests were disclosed.
By 2027, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Uganda are expected to receive learners who have been studying under revised A-Level curriculum, which is competency-based. The essence of Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) hinged on the notion of paradigm shifts from teacher-centered to learner-centered methods. Therefore, to maximize student potential, it would be prudent to match learning requirements with appropriate learning strategies as required by the CBET. Hence, this policy brief is intended to support the cause by identifying and putting together some of the key ICT policy requirements needed to support CBET development.
Notably, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is among the key drivers of CBET and learner-centered methods. Hence, a proactive ICT policy that suit learner-centered techniques would be essential. Therefore, it is prudent in this policy brief to match ICT teaching/learning strategies with learning requirements. Otherwise, HEIs would run the risk of restricting student learning outcomes in the absence of proactive ICT policy.
Overall, this policy brief would guide curriculum development stakeholders by offering implementation strategies, by supporting administrators with the essential requirements for orienting teachers, and raise awareness among student body. Specifically; HEIs should incorporate ICT pedagogy training into staff development programs; implement national digital learning strategies in line with education policies; and use blended and flexible learning models to increase access and flexibility in educational systems.
A well aligned ICT learning strategies would maximize student potential, and make learning more effective. Hence, matching ICT teaching/learning strategies with students’ learning requirements is beneficial to HEIs. In this case, HEIs will be able to effectively utilize technology in teaching and learning through strategic capacity training, and institutional regulations, as well as promoting interactive and self-directed learning. Therefore, the need for a clear framework for digital pedagogy, and digital learning would be beneficial.
Globally, the requirements for Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) resonate with the principles of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 4, (
Recently, the Ugandan government, through its regulatory bodies – UCC (Uganda Communication Commission), and NITA-U (National Information Technology Authority – Uganda), has established ICT-National Backbone Infrastructure (NBI) connecting more than 1,567 government facilities, including HEIs, (
A learner-centered technique is an instructional strategy that moves the attention of educationist from the teachers to the students, making students more active participants in their own learning process rather than passive receivers of information and knowledge, (
In this case, ICT-driven personalized learning techniques would then enhance students to tailor their educational experiences by flexibly adapting to learning strategies that suit their own needs, pace, and learning styles. Which enhance learners’ involvement and motivation, (
Profoundly, the essence of CBET principles hinged on the notion of paradigm shifts from teacher-centered methods to learner-centered methods, (
The main aim of the policy brie is to provide guidelines on how to match ICT teaching/learning strategies with learning requirements as guided by CBET principles.
Precisely, the specific objectives were to:
Identify ICT learning requirements of Health Science students at Kampala International University – Western Campus. Examine ICT and CBET curriculum requirements, which are relevant to Health Science training at Kampala International University – Western Campus. Develop a blueprint for supporting ICT-driven CBET curriculum development process at Kampala International University – Western Campus.
A learner-centered technique makes students more active participants in their own learning process rather than passive receivers of information and knowledge. Hence, with ICT controlling information and learning resources, teachers would then be required to refocus and adjust on their roles, by directing students, facilitating discussions, and offering support, rather than being the sole sources of information and knowledge (
The main obstacles to switching from traditional curricula to CBET include unclear implementation protocols and administrative support, inadequate training and preparation for teachers and students, as well as lack of resources and infrastructure. These issues are exacerbated by the short notice given to HEIs in Uganda to modify their curricula to meet CBET requirements by 2027, (
No underlying data associated with this article.
Figshare: ICT-Driven Competency-Based Education and Training: College of Health Science, Kampala International University, Uganda.
The dataset is available for public view at
Data are available under the terms of the
This policy brief addresses an important and timely issue: the ICT requirements needed to support the transition to Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) in Ugandan higher education, particularly in anticipation of the 2027 intake of learners who will have progressed through a revised competency-based A-Level curriculum. The article argues that ICT is a key enabler of learner-centred, flexible, collaborative, and outcomes-oriented approaches, and it proposes that higher education institutions should integrate ICT pedagogy into staff development, align digital learning strategies with national education policy, and use blended and flexible learning models to increase access and flexibility.
The topic is highly relevant. The transition from teacher-centred to learner-centred education requires changes in curriculum design, pedagogy, assessment, institutional infrastructure, staff development, student support, and quality assurance. The manuscript also has a potentially useful focus on the College of Health Science at Kampala International University, which could provide a concrete institutional case through which broader national policy issues are examined. However, in its current form, the article does not yet offer a sufficiently rigorous, comprehensive, or evidence-based policy analysis.
Regarding the first criterion, the paper only partly provides a comprehensive overview of the policy and implementation context. The manuscript gives some useful background, including the expected arrival of CBET-prepared learners in higher education by 2027, the relevance of ICT infrastructure, and the importance of learner-centred methods. However, the policy being reviewed is not clearly specified. The article should identify the official policy documents, regulatory frameworks, curriculum directives, and institutional guidelines on which the analysis is based. At present, the reader is not given a clear account of which national ICT policy, higher education policy, CBET curriculum framework, or digital learning strategy is being analysed. This makes it difficult to understand the precise object of the policy brief.
The implementation context also needs substantial strengthening. The manuscript should provide a clearer chronology of CBET implementation in Uganda, explain the relationship between secondary curriculum reform and higher education curriculum redesign, and clarify what HEIs are required or expected to do before 2027. It should also distinguish more carefully between the national context, the higher education sector, and the specific case of KIU-CHS. At present, the paper moves between Uganda, HEIs generally, and KIU-CHS without sufficiently explaining whether the brief is intended as a national policy analysis, an institutional implementation guide, or a case-based policy reflection. This lack of scope weakens the accessibility of the paper for a general international reader.
Several key concepts also require clearer operational definition. Terms such as “proactive ICT policy”, “ICT-driven CBET curriculum”, “learning requirements”, “matching ICT teaching/learning strategies”, and “learner-centred techniques” are used repeatedly but are not defined with sufficient precision. The manuscript would be improved by including a short conceptual framework or table showing the links between CBET requirements, ICT affordances, institutional conditions, expected pedagogical changes, and intended student outcomes. This would make the argument more accessible and would help policymakers, institutional leaders, and educators understand the practical implications of the brief.
Regarding the second criterion, the discussion of implications is not yet clearly or accurately developed. The manuscript does not contain a sufficiently substantive discussion section. Instead, the section on “Policy outcomes and implementations” largely restates the general value of learner-centred methods and ICT-supported learning. It does not analyse the implications of the proposed policy direction for curriculum governance, assessment, staff workload, digital infrastructure, student equity, data protection, accessibility, quality assurance, costs, or implementation capacity. These issues are central to ICT-supported CBET and should be addressed explicitly.
The literature base is current in parts, but it is not yet used critically. The paper cites recent sources, including literature from 2024–2026, but the citations are mostly used to support broad claims rather than to build a balanced argument. The manuscript needs to engage more directly with evidence on the challenges, limitations, risks, and conditions of successful ICT integration in competency-based curricula, particularly in low- and middle-income contexts. It should not assume that ICT automatically supports learner-centred pedagogy. The discussion should consider implementation barriers such as unequal access to devices and connectivity, uneven lecturer digital competence, institutional readiness, maintenance costs, student digital literacy, and the risk of superficial technology adoption without pedagogical transformation.
A scientifically important issue concerns the manuscript’s reliance on “learning styles” and the idea of matching teaching strategies to students’ learning styles. This claim requires major revision. The “learning styles” framing is contested and should not be used as a central policy rationale unless the authors engage critically with the evidence. A stronger and more defensible approach would be to frame the argument around learner needs, accessibility, universal design for learning, formative assessment, active learning, adaptive support, and differentiated scaffolding rather than around fixed learning styles. This point must be addressed because it affects the scientific credibility of the article’s central argument.
The manuscript also needs to clarify its methodological basis. Although the article is presented as a policy brief, it refers to identifying ICT learning requirements, examining ICT and CBET curriculum requirements, and developing a blueprint. These are analytical tasks, but the paper does not explain how the evidence was gathered, selected, reviewed, or synthesised. The authors should include a short methods or evidence base section explaining whether the brief is based on a document review, literature review, institutional needs assessment, stakeholder consultation, or analysis of a dataset. If the Figshare material is used as extended data, the paper must explain what it contains, how it was generated, and how it supports the conclusions. The current combination of “no underlying data associated with this article” and a linked dataset/extended data record is confusing and should be clarified.
Regarding the third criterion, the recommendations are partly clear but insufficiently balanced and insufficiently justified. The three recommendations are understandable: staff development in ICT pedagogy, implementation of national digital learning strategies, and adoption of blended/flexible learning models. However, they remain too general. They are not sufficiently derived from a transparent analysis of the implementation problem, and they do not specify responsible actors, required resources, timelines, risks, or measurable indicators of success.
The recommendations should be revised into a more actionable policy framework. For example, the authors could organise recommendations by level: national/regulatory level, institutional leadership level, faculty/programme level, lecturer level, student level, and industry/professional stakeholder level. Each recommendation should include: the problem it addresses, the evidence supporting it, the actor responsible for implementation, the minimum resource requirements, an indicative timeframe, and success indicators. For example, a recommendation on staff development should specify whether training should focus on learning management systems, digital assessment, simulation, collaborative online learning, open educational resources, data-informed feedback, or inclusive digital pedagogy. Similarly, a recommendation on blended learning should specify which components of health sciences education can realistically be blended and which require laboratory, clinical, or practice-based face-to-face provision.
The recommendations also need to be more balanced. ICT integration has benefits, but it also creates risks: widening inequalities between students with different levels of access, increasing workload for lecturers, encouraging platform adoption without pedagogical redesign, creating privacy and data governance concerns, and requiring recurrent funding for infrastructure, technical support, and maintenance. A stronger policy brief would explicitly acknowledge these trade-offs and propose mitigation strategies.
The article would also benefit from stronger alignment between aims, analysis, and conclusions. The stated objectives include identifying ICT learning requirements of Health Science students, examining ICT and CBET curriculum requirements relevant to Health Science training, and developing a blueprint. However, the paper does not present findings corresponding to these objectives. If the authors intend to keep these objectives, they must present evidence for each one. Alternatively, if the article is intended as a conceptual policy brief, the objectives should be rewritten so that they match the actual scope of the paper.
The writing and structure also require revision. The manuscript contains several language and editing issues that affect clarity and credibility. There are typographical errors, repeated phrases, grammatical problems, and several sentences that are difficult to follow. More importantly, the structure needs to be reorganised. I recommend the following structure: (1) policy problem and rationale; (2) Ugandan CBET and ICT policy context; (3) institutional case/context of KIU-CHS; (4) evidence base and method of synthesis; (5) key implementation challenges; (6) policy implications; (7) prioritised recommendations; and (8) conclusion.
Clearly identify the policy documents, curriculum frameworks, regulatory expectations, and institutional guidelines being reviewed. Clarify the scope of the paper: national policy brief, higher education sector analysis, or KIU-CHS institutional case. Add a transparent evidence base or methods section explaining how literature, policy documents, institutional data, or stakeholder evidence were selected and analysed. Present findings that correspond directly to the stated objectives, especially the claimed identification of ICT learning requirements and the development of a blueprint. Replace or substantially qualify the “learning styles” rationale with a more evidence-based framework grounded in learner needs, active learning, universal design, formative assessment, accessibility, and differentiated support. Develop a substantive implications section addressing curriculum design, assessment, staff development, student access, infrastructure, equity, quality assurance, costs, and governance. Revise the recommendations so that they are prioritised, actor-specific, feasible, evidence-based, and accompanied by measurable implementation indicators. Clarify the relationship between the “no underlying data” statement and the linked extended dataset. Improve the balance of the literature by including critical evidence on ICT implementation challenges, not only sources that support ICT adoption. Undertake substantial language editing and structural reorganisation to improve accessibility for a general reader.
Overall, the manuscript addresses a relevant policy issue and could become a useful contribution if substantially revised. However, in its current form, it is not yet sufficiently grounded in policy analysis, evidence synthesis, or implementation detail. I would recommend major revision before the article can be considered scientifically sound.
Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?
Partly
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
No
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
Teacher Education; Curriculum development; Higher Education Pedagogy; Education Innovation
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.
Question 1: Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and its implementation context in a way that is easily understood by the general reader?
Answer: NO
Detailed Explanation: This paper fails to provide a comprehensive overview of the ICT policy and the implementation context of CBET in Uganda for three main reasons. First, the author does not cite or specifically reference official policy documents such as the Uganda National ICT Policy, the NITA-U Act, or the Ministry of Education's Circular on CBET. Readers are left unclear about which policy is being discussed, when it was enacted, and what the relevant articles contain. Second, the implementation context is presented fragmentarily without a clear chronology. For example, the author mentions 2027 as the target year for enrolling CBET graduates, but does not explain: when was the A-Level curriculum revised? What is the current status of CBET implementation in secondary schools? What percentage of schools have implemented it? What challenges have emerged? Third, key terms such as "proactive ICT policy," "matching learning strategies with learning requirements," and "ICT-driven CBET curriculum" are not operationally defined, making it difficult for general readers (including non-technical policymakers) to grasp their true meaning. Furthermore, there are no figures, tables, flowcharts, or conceptual frameworks to help visualize the relationship between policy, implementation, and outcomes. As a result, this article is understandable only to those already familiar with the technical terms of CBET and ICT in Uganda, despite the fact that Q1 journals require accessibility for a diverse international audience.
Question 2: Is the discussion of the implications presented clearly and accurately, and does it cite recent literature?
Answer: NO
Detailed explanation: This article lacks a stand-alone discussion section. Implications are only mentioned very briefly in the "Policy outcomes and implementations" section (page 4), which is less than 300 words long. Even there, the author simply repeats the definition of learner-centered methods without discussing the implications of the findings for theory, practice, or policy. Worse still, not a single citation of recent literature is used to support the claims of implications. Of the 30 references listed at the end of the article, only 7 (23%) were published in the last 3 years (2024-2026), with the rest being 5-8 years old. Scopus Q1 journal standards for policy briefs or research articles typically require a minimum of 40-50% of references from the last 3-4 years. Furthermore, all cited references are confirmation biased—none of the studies address ICT implementation failures in CBET, challenges in developing countries, or theoretical contradictions. Consequently, the discussion is uncritical, unbalanced, and unreliable as a basis for policy. Q1 journals expect authors to honestly address contradictory evidence and study limitations, rather than simply citing concurring literature.
Question 3: Are the recommendations clear, balanced, and justified based on the arguments presented?
Answer: PARTIAL
Detailed explanation: The recommendations (three points on page 4) are clear in language, but unbalanced and cannot be empirically justified. This imbalance is evident because the recommendations are addressed to only two stakeholder groups: HEIs (higher education institutions) and the government (through the national strategy). There are no recommendations for students (who should be the primary subject of CBET), industry/employers (who will absorb CBET graduates), civil society (as policy watchdogs), or professional organizations (such as medical associations in the case of KIU-CHS). Worse still, the recommendations are unjustified because the authors do not present any empirical data demonstrating that the problem they are intended to address actually exists. For example: What percentage of KIU-CHS lecturers currently possess ICT pedagogical competency? How low are students' internet access and device ownership rates? To what extent has the national policy on digital learning been implemented? Without such baseline data, the recommendations are speculative and their effectiveness cannot be measured. Furthermore, there is no prioritization among the three recommendations—they are all given equal weight, even though, given Uganda's limited resources, there needs to be a scale of priorities (e.g., lecturer training is more urgent than new infrastructure development). Finally, there are no measurable indicators of success for each recommendation.
This article is a policy brief that discusses the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) requirements to support the implementation of Competency-Based Education and Training (CBET) in Ugandan higher education institutions, using a case study of the College of Health Science, Kampala International University (KIU-CHS). Background: By 2027, Ugandan higher education institutions will be accepting graduates from a competency-based A-Level curriculum. The author argues that ICT teaching/learning strategies need to be aligned with student learning needs to achieve the CBET (student-centered, flexible, and outcomes-based) principles. The key recommendations are: (1) integrating ICT pedagogical training into faculty staff development programs; (2) implementing a national digital learning strategy aligned with education policy; and (3) using blended and flexible learning models to increase access and flexibility in the education system.
Fundamental Weaknesses: This article is not an empirical research study as it does not present adequate data collection methods, data analysis, findings, or discussion. This article is more of an opinion piece or policy essay than an evidence-based policy brief as required by journals.
Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?
No
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
No
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?
Partly
Reviewer Expertise:
My research interests include higher education policy, information and communication technology (ICT) in learning, and the implementation of competency-based curriculum (CBET) in developing countries, with particular experience in conducting article reviews for Scopus Q1 and Q2 indexed international journals in the fields of education, public policy, and educational technology.
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.