Teaching key competencies: Explicit and visible, or implicit and

In revisiting the concept of the key competencies as a site of struggle for a number of opposing theories and ideologies, this plays out not only between the agents in Bernstein’s (2000) fields of production and recontextualisation, but also in the field of reproduction, with the typical agents in this field; school leaders and teachers. If diverse students are expected to develop and apply the competencies across a wide range of predictable and unpredictable situations, it is not enough to design curricula and teaching methods for the various subjects and expect that the competencies will be a by-product. As Perrenoud (1999) notes in a DeSeCo experts paper, the

acquisition of competencies depends on learners being active. He argues that notion of the formal curriculum conflicts in this case with that of the real curriculum, the total learning which is a result of pupils’ experience in life and everyday work in school and of their relationship with their teachers, schoolmates and acquaintances. An approach which aims at the ‘acquisition’ of competencies risks adopting a short- cut approach, whereby it is thought that worthwhile skills and competencies can be acquired without an immersion and serious engagement with the relevant domains of knowledge and experience. Engagement depends on the value and meaning which pupils and students give to the activities and studies they are offered. With regards to ‘meaning, some people refer to motivation or interest, others of values, and yet others of emotional intelligence or moral purpose. But above all, it is important to emphasise that if rich experiences are required to develop the competencies, they must seem relevant and make sense to all pupils, and not only to teachers and school

leaders. “More often than not, difficulties and school failures are ‘breakdowns in meaning’ rather than intellectual inabilities to learn” (Hutmacher, 1997, p. 54). Takayama (2013) draws on Basil Bernstein’s (2000, 2003) notion of ‘visible’ and ‘invisible pedagogies’ and their associated class bias to highlight their implications for teaching and assessing the key competencies, and is of particular relevance to this research. According to Bernstein, ‘visible pedagogies’ (or ‘performance models’) are where the instructional context and the task requirements are explicit, and the teacher is at the centre. The focus is on the child’s performance, on “the text the child is creating and the extent to which that text is meeting the criteria’ and thus on the ‘the external product of children” (2003, p. 19). In contrast, ‘invisible pedagogies’ place the child at the centre and the teacher acts more as a facilitator of children’s self-directed enquiries which often encompass multiple disciplines. Pedagogies, task requirements and assessment criteria are less explicit and more diffused. Bernstein questions the equity consequences of that latter approach, particularly “ the tacit assumption that the procedures of acquisition are equally possessed by all learners, or what he calls ‘an in-built procedural democracy” (Bernstein, 2000, p. 43). He argues that the acquisition of the procedures and competencesare strongly

dependent on the how familiar learners are with the invisible pedagogic codes that are closely aligned with the cultural practices and values of the middle classes. Codes which remain obscured and uncontrolled for the economically and culturally

marginalised.

In the New Zealand context, employing what is perhaps the key element of

Bernstein’s pedagogic device (Sadovnik, 2001), the five key competencies appear to be both ‘weakly-classified and strongly-framed’ (see Bernstein, 2000, pp. 14-15).

Classification refers to the degree of differentiation and boundaries between

subjects. While it has been argued throughout this chapter that the key

competencies are context-specific, and require students to be able to utilise both knowledge and cognitive strategies in their learning, and to demonstrate they are developing the valued attitudes and behaviours as part of this process, the official curriculum does not provide specific guidance in the learning areas on what needs to be taught. Framing refers to how the knowledge is transmitted through pedagogic

practices, and the degree of control teachers and students have over the ‘selection, sequencing, pacing and criteria for what transmitted and received in the pedagogical relationship. With strong framing, control lies with the teacher, whereas with weak framing control lies apparently with the student (Bernstein, 2000, p. 99). As Bernstein (2000) notes, although the framing carries the message to be reproduced, there is always pressure on the pedagogic discourse and practice, and a struggle over the nature of the ‘symbolic’ control. As discussed throughout this literature review, there are a number of struggles for control of the pedagogic device, from sources both internal and external to the school. He suggests that where there is pressure to change the intent (or in Bernstein’s theory, ‘elaborated orientation’); classification, or framing, from strong to weak, or visa-versa, that the following questions need to be asked:

1. Which group is responsible for initiating the change? Is the change initiated by a dominant group or a dominated group?

2. If values [strong or weak] are weakening, what values still remain strong? (Bernstein, 2000, p. 15)

Takayama (2013) questions how much of the post-modern capabilities are actually shaped by the school’s pedagogic interventions, and sees them as much more

strongly influenced by children’s socio-economic backgrounds. He challenges the way that the concept of key competencies has been separated from the original lifelong policy discourse and the ability to achieving equitable outcomes when it becomes solely located in PISA and national educational policies. He sees this as side-lining the roles of ‘the family, voluntary associations, religious organizations, cultural activities, recreational activities, and the workplace’; contexts that Rychen and Salganik (2000a, p. 72) acknowledge as critical complements to school-based learning, and believes this as placing unrealistic expectations on the role of schools in equalising children’s competencies as learning outcomes. Takayama (2013) argues this ‘decoupling’ fundamentally undermines the potentially equitable implications of key

competencies, and reinforces the existing cultural hierarchy that demonises ‘other’ families and communities whose everyday social interactions with children differs from the desired social ‘norm’ (Bernstein, 2000, 2003). Bernstein (2000) believes that

the opportunity to acquire the desired values, attitudes and motivations can never be equally distributed to all students because those psychosocial resources are tacitly acquired in informal interactions in families and communities. Takayama (2003, p. 77), drawing on Bernstein, argues that the current OECD approach to key

competencies, referring specifically to the Japanese context but also beyond, “fails to recognize material conditions outside school walls as the basis of children’s

psychosocial development, and is likely to perpetuate the ‘deficit’ view of these children, parents and communities”. As the main authors of the OECD key competencies work, Rychen and Salganik (2000a, p. 67) do acknowledge that competency learning is not only a matter of personal effort but more importantly requires “a favourable social and ecological environment, which includes, but goes beyond the satisfaction of basic needs (food, housing, health, etc.)”.