Frameworks of competence: common or specific? Simon Grant Joint coordinator, JISC-CETIS Portfolio SIG Independent consultant … emerging from work in collaboration with Adam Marshall, Janet Strivens and others

Outline  Hoping for “real” workshop interaction  Constructivist approach to this workshop…  Constructivist approach to this workshop…  Discuss requirements of frameworks  How do / could you use them in practice?  Focus on common / specific tension  How does this match with our experience?  Explore the way forward  Note: “skill” – “competence” distinction may be important in other contexts, but less so here

How do you use frameworks?  managing skills and competences in an organisation or enterprise?  helping learners develop their own skills?  definition of learning objectives and educational outcomes?  any real / imagined use for public, international standard definitions of competence?  anyone involved with EQF? Used how?

SFIA  Skills Framework for the Information Age  Example of widely used industry skills framework (in UK, generic ICT skills)   Look at some materials

LUSID  Originally from University of Liverpool  Handouts available  E-PDP system; close to e-portfolio  Skills, activities, achievements, goals, …   Originally devised for generic or transferable skills  Can be easily customised

Transferable skills  Management of learning  Teamwork  Oral communication  Writing  Information accessing  Critical thinking / analysis  Numeracy  Information technology

e.g. Oral communication  Understanding instructions  Making notes from presentation  Assessing persuasive language  Recognise feelings of others*  Conveying information clearly  Explaining own opinions  Exchanging ideas  Preparing presentation  Using visual aids  Delivering presentation  Taking into account other people’s perspectives*

Common or specific?  Why should frameworks be common?  Why should frameworks not be specific?  discuss  Why should frameworks be specific?  Why should frameworks not be common?  discuss

SPWS  “Skills Profiling Web Service”     Articulates the common-specific distinctions   Proposes a way forward

Common and specific

Concluding…  Common where agreement wanted  Narrow, specific terms more likely to be agreed  Create common reference terms  Use level structures only if very common  Specific where diversity allowable  For specific implementations  Teaching, learning and assessment  Individual organisations and businesses  Links between common and specific  Overlap analysis then possible