A bimonthly publication of AQU Catalunya

43

July 2009

If one had to choose the term most frequently used in the bibliography associated with the European Higher Education Area, the term competence would be high up there among the favourites (in a battle for first place along with terms such as Bachelor, Master's, student-based learning, ECTS, etc.). It is therefore not surprising that one of the most important challenges of the new scenario is the development of competence-based study plans.

In addition to being frequently used, the term competence is a complex one, and a lot of effort has been put into defining and analysing it and giving examples. This has not always served to clarify the situation in the eyes of the average teacher, and so all efforts made in this regard will therefore continue to be very welcome. This is the case of the teaching competence evaluation guidebooks for different disciplines, recently published by AQU Catalunya.

I also add my own contribution here (or add more confusion!) and, at the risk of being excessively simplistic, say that a list of competences is nothing more than the syllabus labelled with verbs (the subject of which is the student). In other words, it is the precise specifications for what the student must be able from the syllabus (course, degree programme, etc.). If one compares, for example, the guidelines for study plans started in the nineties with the guidelines for the new Bachelor and Master's study plans, one sees very quickly that the most important new development is precisely this, i.e. the appearance of verbs accompanying lists of topics.

From this point of view, even without any specified guidelines, the earlier study plans currently in force do develop competences because all graduates know how to do things from the syllabus. The problem is that quite often nobody has a very good idea of what they know how to do, given that it is an arbitrary and unknown product of a poorly coordinated effort by a group of teachers who have each interpreted the syllabus in their own way. And if effort is put into trying to deduce what the competences are, one quickly discovers that they are limited and unambitious, as a result of teaching methods (based essentially on classes of an expositive nature) and evaluation methods (based essentially on exams involving paper and pencils) that are limited and unambitious.

The challenge now is to state the competences from the very first moment and for everybody to be actively working on the study plan and developing them. Many teachers are appalled by this challenge, for at least three reasons.

The first is that stating the verbs (competences) and organising the learning process accordingly is a commitment and therefore limits the freedom that so many teachers enjoy. And if the students have to develop the abilities of oral and written communication, this obviously cannot be achieved by just giving master classes and making them take test-type examinations.

The second reason for their apprehension is that the challenge necessarily calls for improvements in teaching coordination skills, which were very undeveloped in the previous scenario where efforts were frequently aimed at clearly marking the boundary, in terms of the syllabus, between one subject and the next. It is obvious that one course or subject on its own is incapable of fully developing a competence. At all events, it may (and should) contribute to the development of certain competences when perfectly coordinated with the previous and following courses. In short, the scenario needs to resemble a relay race where the synchronisation of passing the baton is a key issue.

The third reason arises from the doubt that all of us have: "Are we prepared to teach competences if we, the teachers, are not the best example of some of these competences?" One student recently told me, "We are already learning to work as a team; now, if you lot started to learn it, that would be really great."

Reflecting on this issue and in the attempt to be positive so as to avoid any quandary, I realise that, in fact, in order to teach how a computer works, you yourself have to know how one works. However, is it possible for a teacher to organise an activity in which the students have to make an oral presentation, then define the criteria for the quality of such a presentation and draw up a report on each student with the aspects to be improved in the next presentation, according to the established criteria, and with the possibility that the teacher concerned is not the most brilliant orator? I believe it is. You only have to look at sports trainers whose physical appearance denotes that they haven't done too much physical exercise in their lives, but are nevertheless capable of coaching their athletes to beat speed records.

So, in short, there are many difficulties and apprehensions. The undertaking is worth its while, however, because the advantage of developing a study plan based on a collection of competences is that it makes it easier to set ambitious challenges, align the resources and therefore be more effective in teaching. This, more than anything else, is what the students need: ambitious plans for them, and for us teachers to be effective in our work.