3.9 El acento kerigmático de la historia de Moisés.

In the above some words have already been devoted to the development of transfer capability. In this section a more general look will be given to the incorporation of generic competencies in the curriculum, including programmes and courses in Higher Education. The criticism on competence-based education that states that a competence-based approach leads to narrow, behavioural checklists, enabling bureaucratic control over workers, can be countered through the introduction of generic competencies in the curriculum (Hager, 1999).

In fact the inclusion of generic competencies in the curriculum of Higher Education programmes is expanding. Down et al. (1999) argue that generic competencies should be integrated into the curriculum and not addressed as a separate discipline or 'taught' in separate courses or workshops:

"As argued, such integration needs to be built into the total teaching and learning approach of the university and to shift the focus from knowledge and skill acquisition to a holistic, integrated and contextual experience which builds professional competence through enhancing the students ability to put their learning to work. Whilst discipline knowledge is an essential element to professional competence, it needs to be enriched through the development and generic capabilities and their integration onto transformative, observable practice" (p.11). However, the need for generic competencies should not be overestimated according to Teichler (1998). He states that there are many indications that the need for general knowledge is endemically overestimated because employers have often no knowledge of specific competencies and because generic competencies surface across jobs and can be found in many job descriptions and are, in this way, more 'visible'. The question of how to develop generic competencies and how to create learning environments that best promote this development is still an issue of debate and research (Delors & Draxler, 1999; NSTF [National Skills Task Force], 2000; Unwin, Wellington, Fuller & Cole, 2000, cited in Kearns, 2001). Nevertheless, some indications and directions can be given as guidelines for the design of curricula that promote the development of generic competencies.

Bransford et al., in their book on how people learn, outline the research findings on the differences between competent problem solvers and beginners who are less proficient. Beginners have less organised knowledge. their fragmented knowledge remains isolated from the conditions or situations in which conceptual knowledge or procedural skills should be used. They also lack the know-how, usable knowledge, knowledge that is applied to appropriate situations (Bransford et al., 2000). These results confirm once more what was stated about transfer in the previous section: context-specific knowledge and general skills have to be brought together and the approach to learning should actively encourage transfer (Brown, 1998b; Cornford, 2001; Kegan, 1999). Thus, the knowing that and the know-how are two distinct but interdependent domains (Bennett et al., 1999). Or: "..one cannot opt for performance knowledge without also understanding that one has 'acquired' propositional knowledge in the bargain, and vice versa" (Fenstermacher, 1996, cited in Bennett et al., 1999).

The design of curricula that include the development of generic competencies could be assisted by observations made by Hager (1999). He writes that generic competencies:

On competence, competencies and competence-based education

89

ƒ are overlapping/interrelated, rather than being discrete entities with their own clearly identifiable performance levels (cf. Rychen & Salganik, 2002);

ƒ must be contextualised in authentic or simulated environments (cf. Giddens & Stasz, 1999, cited in Lankard Brown, 2002);

ƒ should be viewed both as processes (involving acquisition of enabling or underpinning knowledge) necessary for higher order learning and workplace performance and as outcomes or products;

ƒ are developed throughout life and with lifelong relevance (cf. Ryan, 1997).

Various models exist for the development of generic competencies in educational programmes or courses. Nisbet (1990) makes a distinction in two approaches: specially designed (stand-alone) programmes and infusion of generic competencies throughout the established curriculum. The programmatic approach has the danger of placing generic competencies outside the discipline-based curriculum or treating it as another, extra discipline. This is also the comment of the report of the Dutch education Council (Onderwijsraad, 2002) on the use of 'key qualifications'. Transfer is very difficult and the development of transferring competencies will be enhanced when the development of generic competencies is integrated in as many disciplines as possible (Everwijn, 1996; Kegan, 1999; Kelly, West & Dee, 2001). Three approaches are mentioned by Drummond, Nixon and Wiltshier (1997) cited in Bennett et al. (1999) who distinguish embedded or integrated development, parallel or stand alone development – often called bolt-on courses, and work placements or work based projects. Bennett et al. (1999) refine this classification and introduce five elements of course provision in higher education: disciplinary content knowledge, disciplinary skills, workplace awareness, workplace experience and generic skills. Based on these five elements and research of the practices of 32 lecturers in 16 departments in 4 institutions of higher education they describe six patterns of 'generic skill provision'.

Kearns (2001) mentions that recent research has emphasised that not enough is known about how competence is acquired, so that it is not possible to give a definitive answer to the integrated or stand-alone question. Institutions ( in the UK) could be plotted on a delivery continuum based on the extent to which they are approaching key skills holistically or as a 'bolt-on' addition to their normal activity (Unwin et al., 2000, cited in Kearns, 2001).

Based on a literature search and a multiple case-study at three Institutions for Higher Education in the Netherlands, Timmers (2001) recommends to structure learning opportunities for the development of generic competencies along a 'learning trajectory' in which integration/infusion takes place together with stand-alone activities. Depending on the type of generic competency an 'interrupted learning

trajectory' could be chosen, e.g. for communication or information management, or a 'continuous learning trajectory', e.g. for problem solving, in which students are continuously stimulated to developed a certain generic competency.

Specially designed, stand-alone programmes may contribute to the development of 'general 'skills, but they are 'weak' when it comes to specific applications (Nisbet, 1990). In infusion, specific skills are taught which are 'strong' in their context but tend to be 'weak' in more general application. Cooper (2002) mentions the risk that skills that are embedded in the curriculum may become "invisible" (Dröge, 2001) or "dissipated" (Atkinson 2001; Jasinski, 1996). Brown (1998) states: 'Development of generic competencies is often seen as the responsibility of everyone, and hence in practice of no-one in particular.' (p. 166). Furthermore, teaching of generic competencies is often seen as a distraction in the drive for better research ratings (Gubbay, 1994). Even when the teaching of such skills is claimed, it is often not evident in course planning, teaching methods or assessment documentation (Bennett et al., 1999).

Another problem might be the semantic confusion amongst students when dealing with generic competencies (Kneale, 2001, cited in Cooper, 2002). Therefore, the use of a common language should be encouraged to help make transferable skills more visible to students. Such a language might be used in course materials, in making transferable skills more explicit in teaching delivery; in commenting on transferable skills in feed-back, and in engaging students in debate about problematical aspects of the transferability of skills.

Some examples of instructional approaches to the acquisition and development of generic competencies are (Nisbet, 1990):

ƒ Modelling, for example, the teacher talks aloud while working through a problem or composing a letter or report or poem.

ƒ 'Cognitive apprenticeship' (cf. Stasz et al., 1992). Paris (1988), cited in Brown (1998b) states: "Instruction should demonstrate what strategies can be used, how they can be applied, and when and why they are helpful" (p. 314).

ƒ Co-operative learning, in its many forms, that allows students to explain their reasoning to each other (and thus clarify it for themselves) and to learn from each other's errors (cf. Moy, Brown, Winchester, Stone & Schwenke, 1996; Oliver & McLoughlin, 1999).

ƒ Discussion is a well established method, but it must involve analysis of the processes of argument if it is to be effective in teaching thinking.

ƒ Forms of Socratic questioning (Why do you say that, can you explain, are there arguments against?).

On competence, competencies and competence-based education

91

Underlying all these methods is the principle of meta-cognition, or self-regulation (cf. Boekaerts, 1999; Pintrich, 1999).

An example of projects that aim to promote the development of meta-cognition in students is the project "Key skills: Connecting learning, development and work" of the British Open University

(http://www.open.ac.uk/StudentWeb/keyskills/connections_frame.html). In this project skills development is promoted through raising self-awareness and identifying opportunities for improvement within an individual's own context. Approaches to achieve this are

ƒ using problem-solving approaches to learning, promoting systematic ways of tackling tasks, making conscious links between previous experiences and bridge across contexts, thus connecting learning and experience;

ƒ stimulate monitoring and reflection on the way they learn;

ƒ encourage the challenging of own ideas through dialogue, monitoring and reflection.

The project advocates the use of a selective portfolio and professional dialogue as alternative forms of assessment.

Poortman (2001) when discussing the general structure of a learning trajectory for the 'design competency' mentions Romiszowski's (1996) general sequencing tactics (cf. Posner & Rudnitsky, 1997):

1. From simple to complex; 2. From know to unknown; 3. From particular to general; 4. From concrete to abstract.

Van der Sanden et al. (2001) advocate 'elaborative sequencing'. This starts with a simplified but complete and application oriented model of the content and competence-area. Then the complexity is increased and the already presented model functions as the thread throughout the course.

In a literature search Cotton (1993) summarised the findings of 63 documents on the development of "employability skills". In some cases employability skills are synonymous to generic competencies. For example, the Employability Forum of the British Keele University states: "Employability skills can also be referred to as 'key skills', 'transferable skills' or 'generic skills'. They can be defined as skills that can be utilised over a wide variety of tasks/situations within all degree subjects, jobs and life experiences."

http://www.kusu.net/clubs_RenderPage.asp?clubid=5263&pageid=5249). In other cases there is a more direct link to the world of work. For example: "Employability skills are those basic skills necessary for getting, keeping and doing well on a job."

(http://www.aces.edu/crd/workforce/publications/employability-skills.PDF). Cotton talks about 'non-technical abilities' and quotes a definition by Sherer and Eadie (1987): "Employability Skills are not job specific, but are skills which cut horizontally across all industries and vertically across all jobs from entry level to chief executive officer." (p.16).

Some of the conclusions of the analysis by Cotton (1993) were:

ƒ Employability skills are best learned when they are included among instructional goals and explicitly taught (cf. Marsh, 1997; Stasz et al., 1992).

ƒ In school settings employability skills are best learned when classrooms replicate key features of real work settings and student tasks approximate those performed by workers in those settings (cf. Marsh, 1997; Stasz, 1998; Stasz et al., 1992). Other authors want to bring the students to the workplace, promoting situating learning in meaningful contexts (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Stasz, 1998; Seagraves, Kemp & Osborne, 1996).

ƒ In classes that effectively teach employability kills, instructors assume the role of facilitators and coaches rather than lecturers and order givers, requiring students to take much of the responsibility for their own learning.