extracted from
Key Competences in Europe: Opening Doors For Lifelong Learners Across the School Curriculumand Teacher Education
EAN 9788371784972
Publisher:
CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research on behalf of CASE Network 12 Sienkiewicza, 00-010 Warsaw, Poland
It may be useful to start by underlining the importance of the context insofar as any competences or key competences defined by an education and training system reflect choices made at a given period of time, linked to perceived economic and social needs in an intricate and complex relation to the underpinning philosophy of education and prevailing trends and influences (including of international organizations). This dynamic becomes all the more complex when 27 countries are in- volved. In addition, as Noel Entwistle18 points out, ‘What we learn depends on how we learn and why we have to learn it’. This study seeks to bring some clarity and understanding in a highly complex and evolving field and one in which there are many intervening factors linked to different types of context that affect the definitions, choices and uses of terminology, the content (explicit or not) behind it and the interpretation into policy and practice.
It has become a truism to say that there are different definitions in use of the terms competence and skills. In some cases they are explicit, while in others they are implicit through the context and utilization. Over the last 20 years, a range of terms such as key or core skills, key or core competences, etc has been used and, depending on the country and the field of education and training, one or another may be favoured. This is further explored in the policy chapter. For example, in school education, Ireland and the UK tend to use the notion of key skills, whereas France and French-speaking Belgium are developing a ‘socle’ (foundation or core) of competences. The first question is whether the terms can be used interchangeably. As is underlined in Key Competences for Lifelong Learning; a European Reference Framework19, terminology is never neutral, is necessarily linked to the goals and objectives of the policy-makers, and reflects the dominant paradigms in use. Words will take on different connotations in different socio-linguistic environments. This section seeks to gain a better understanding of the issues behind the conceptualization. In the chapter that follows, the policies formulated by the Member States and the link between the terminology and the main thrust of the policies are analysed.
The notion of cross-curricular approaches is certainly not new. One example from the 1970s that can be cited is the Bullock Report published in the UK20 in 1975 which focused on language acquisition and emphasized that language learning was not the responsibility of the English teachers only, but that schools should have a policy for language across the curriculum involving all the teachers in building pupil’s reading and writing skills. Furthermore, this report recommended that a ‘system of monitoring should be introduced employing new instruments to assess a wider range of attainments than has been attempted in the past and allow new criteria to be established for the definition of literacy’. An interesting aspect is that the report is not recommending just cross-curricular activities, transversal to the different elements of the curriculum, but a whole school policy involving all teaching staff that includes assessment criteria, instruments and purposes. This is at the heart of the current debate on the introduction of cross-curricular key competences into the school curriculum in European countries.
At some risk of overgeneralization, outcomes-based approaches started to make a real impact from the mid-1980s, when they were introduced as part of the reforms intended to improve the employability of young people and the unem- ployed and to improve the labour market relevance of vocational qualifications. The initial focus was, thus, on VET and the learner was targeted as an individual functioning in the labour market and the workplace. One of the tools used was functional analysis of occupations, with the identification of competences and learning outcomes as key elements of the methodology. This approach was highly developed in the literature of the English-speaking world, but was also present in the approaches to functional analysis used, for example, in Germany and in France. This does not mean that the notion of competence was used in the same way in the different national productions – history, educational policy, learning cultures, work culture, etc. inevitably come into play. The common element was the focus on the outcome (to be measured)21. In general, at least in the early phases in Europe, competence was defined as going beyond skills acquisition by putting a focus on what the individual was ‘able to do’ in a real situation. This led to many debates about the comparative merits of knowledge and skills-based or competence based approaches and the narrow or broad reference to employment fields and/or occupations. This type of debate serves to highlight the importance of the multiple and interconnecting contexts e.g. school-based versus work-based learn- ing as well as the national contexts. In the Maastricht report, Leney et al (2004) emphasized the strong national characteristics of provision for vocational education and training and developments in terms of the ‘traditions, circumstances, challenges and aims. The insert 2.1 below illustrates some differences for occupational practice.
Insert 2.1. Some different models of competence in European occupational practice2
In the first three examples, competence is defined as ‘capacity’ in relation to a broad occupational field. It is a multi-dimensional concept, combining different forms of knowledge and skills, as well as social and personal qualities. It relates to a person’s ability to draw on multiple resources to deal with a given work situation.
Germany
Competence of action-taking or Handlungskompetenz is the principal aim of VET in the dual system: to enable the student to take autonomous and responsible action within the workplace. It is a multi-dimensional concept comprising occupational competence (Fachkompetenz), social competence (Sozialkompetenz), procedural competence (Metho- denkompetenz) and personal competence (Selbstkompetenz). Each of these dimensions relate to particular knowledge, skills and competences. The latter include moral and so- cial attributes such as taking responsibility and showing awareness of the consequences of occupational action.
The Netherlands
Competence is ‘the ability to successfully meet complex demands in a particular context through the mobilisation of psychosocial prerequisites’ (Rychen & Salganic, 2003: 13). The Dutch system distinguishes between four types of competences: occupational, career, civic and learning competences. Each of these is defined in terms of knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour. The Netherlands has a competence-based qualifications frame- work. Core competences have been derived from a job content analysis. These serve both as a basis for curriculum development and assessment.
France
The French approach draws on knowledge (savoir), skills (savoir-faire) and social com- petences (savoir-être). Individual competences relate to each other and are difficult to disassociate from the overall occupational profile. Competences can be understood as dynamic processes of learning, developing and passing on knowledge. France has a com- petence-based qualifications framework. Competences have been derived from a job con- tent analysis. These serve both as a basis for curriculum development and assessment.
England
In the English model, competence relates not to the overall capacity of the individual but to the individual’s performance of prescribed tasks or skills to a defined standard. This is epitomised in the National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) system which combines ‘units of competence’ based on occupational standards into NVQ awards. Competence in this model is based on narrow and fragmented skill sets, which are cumulative rather than integrative. Any knowledge presumed necessary for underpinning performance is equally fragmented. With its focus on output, competence in the English system is not a holistic concept, nor does it encompass an individual’s social or civic qualities. It contains no notion of development of the self.
In ‘Learning to learn: what is it and can it be measured? Hoskins and Fredriksson present some definitions of skill and competence to highlight the differences. They draw on Chisholm (2005):
‘Competence means the ability to apply knowledge, know-how and skills in a stable/recurring or changing situation. Two elements are crucial: applying what one knows and can do to a specific task or problem and being able to transfer this ability between different situations’.
A skill, however, she defines as the ability, usually learned, and acquired through training to perform actions that achieve a desired outcome. Furthermore, they quote both Rychen and Tiana who distinguish between the ability to per- form complex motor or cognitive skills with precision, including in changing situations, and a competence that is considered to be broader and to include several skills, as well as non-cognitive elements and attitudes. However, once that distinction has been made, the term competence (as well as competences and competencies) lacks a single, standard meaning, whether in the English language or across the range of European languages and education and training systems.
Within a given system, ‘competence’ may not be used in the same way in voca- tional education and training (VET) and in general education. Influences and ap- proaches may well differ depending on whether the purpose is to improve the at- tractiveness of VET awards for employers or to determine the foundation of basic education. As an illustration, the competence standards (référentiels) set for French vocational diplomas include a strong labour market influence, given the role of the social partners in their determination, whereas the foundation of compe- tences for compulsory education reflects more the humanistic philosophy of edu- cation. Insert 2.2 below contains the aims of the recently reviewed curriculum for secondary education in England. The implicit notion of competence is rather dif- ferent from that of the NVQs described in Insert 2.1.
Insert 2.2. The aims of the curriculum for secondary education: England
The curriculum should enable all young people to become:
|
Evaluation Synthesis Analysis Application Comprehension Recall |
Internalising values Organising & prioritising V aluing |
Origination Adaptation Complex overt response Mechanism Guided response Set response Perception |
In summary:
A range of terms is used in the broad field related to competence and skill. Additionally they include the notions of capacities, capabilities, qualities, attributes, etc. Furthermore, in the European context, translation plays a role in the interpretation of notions into shared operational terms. As we will see in the later sections of this chapter, the EU framework uses the term ‘competences’, whereas the OECD DeSeCo project used the term ‘competencies’ in the synthesis report discussed below. The report by CRELL on Learning to Learn: What is it and can it be measured? uses both plurals. Though the distinction is not always clear, it would appear that the plural ‘competences’ tends to refer more to a holistic notion about the attribute, capacities and qualities of the person, while competencies is close to the use of skills as the ability, which is usually learned, to perform an action to achieve desired outcomes31. This study, which focuses on the implementation of the EU Key Competences framework, will use the plural ‘competences’, except for specific examples where ‘competencies’ is the preferred term used by the authors of a report or in country data or reports. A brief summary of the terms used is given here with definitions that are relevant to this study.
Competences: Definitions of competence tend to refer to a complex notion that goes beyond the cognitive aspects, includes attitudes and capacities in addition to a set of skills. The EU definition in EQF includes a notion of autonomy and responsibility. Thus, ‘competence is defined as the proven ability to use knowledge, skills and personal, social and/or methodological abilities, in work or study situations and in professional and personal development. In the 2004 document, Key Competences for Lifelong Learning; a European Reference Framework, competence is described as a combination of skills, knowledge, aptitudes and attitudes crucial for personal fulfillment, active citizenship and inclusion and employability. The contexts are aligned; the main difference is that for the EQF, the competence must be ‘proven’, as it is a framework linked to qualifications.
Skill, on the other hand, means ‘the ability to apply knowledge and use know- how to complete tasks and solve problems. In the context of the European Qualifications Framework, skills are described as cognitive (involving the use of logical, intuitive and creative thinking) or practical (involving manual dexterity and the use of methods, materials, tools and instruments), which is a similar classification to the cognitive and psychomotor skills in Bloom’s taxonomy.
Key competences: A historical reference describing what key competences could be (even though the term itself is not used) was suggested in the 2002 Eurydice study on Key Competencies. It is the World Declaration on Education for All: Meeting Basic Learning Needs (World Conference on Education 1990) which states: ‘Every person – child, youth and adult – shall be able to benefit from educational opportunities designed to meet their basic learning needs. These needs comprise both essential learning tools (such as literacy, oral expression, numeracy, and problem solving) and the basic learning content (such as knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes) required by human beings to be able to survive, to develop their full capacities, to live and work in dignity, to participate fully in development, to improve the quality of their lives, to make informed decisions, and to continue learning.
This is echoed in the OECD DeSeCo study (see below section 4), which had quite significant influence on the work on competence frameworks in the EU (both Member State and EU level). Key competences are supposed to contribute to a successful life and a well-functioning society: "Globalization and modernization are creating an increasingly diverse and interconnected world. To make sense of and function well in this world, individuals need for example to master changing technologies and to make sense of large amounts of available information. They also face collective challenges as societies – such as balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability, and prosperity with social equity. In these con- texts, the competencies that individuals need to meet their goals have become more complex, requiring more than the mastery of certain narrowly defined skills. This project’s conceptual framework for key competencies classified them in three broad categories:
In the 2002 Eurydice survey report mentioned above, key competences were found to: ‘usually relate to better management of one’s own learning, social and interpersonal relations and communication and reflect the general shift of emphasis from teaching to learning’35. In the European Reference Framework, the central focus of this study, key competences are defined as those competences that ‘all individuals need for personal fulfillment and development, active citizenship, so- cial inclusion and employment’36. The additional element in the Eurydice survey is the management of one’s own learning but this is in fact embedded in the 8 key competences of the reference framework.
Cross-curricular key competences: Though it is common to find illustrations of cross-curricular key competences, finding a definition is more difficult37. The Quebec Education Program defines them highlighting three aspects. Firstly, they have a focus in all subjects and all activities in a school and are the responsibility of all school staff. Secondly, they represent the goals that are common to the whole curriculum and constitute different types of tools schools believe that stu- dents need to adapt to a variety of situations and to continue learning throughout life. Thirdly, they are mutually complementary: ‘since all complex situations nec- essarily call for more than one cross-curricular competence at a time’. In the Quebec programme, they are described as epitomizing integrated learning as they ap- ply to all areas (described as horizontal integration) and all years (described as vertical integration).
Observations that can be made:
• Developing a set of key competences (or key skills) in a given education system could imply some significant differences in goals and purposes among both countries and sub-sectors.
• The same ‘content’ may be labelled differently in different systems or approaches.
• This is still an evolving domain including in the use of vocabulary. This factor has had to be taken into account in analyzing the data in the fol- lowing chapters on policy and implementation.
The next section turns to the different EU frameworks and one European project.
