This paper argues that much contemporary educational policy makes assumptions about learning that are directly contradicted by the best research and theorising of learning that has occurred over the last decade and more. This worrying mismatch is largely attributable to adherence by policy makers (and other key stakeholders such as employers), to 'common sense' notions of learning transfer. In fact, these 'common sense' notions of transfer have increasingly been discarded even in the learning transfer literature. However, we go further in arguing that transfer is a totally inappropriate metaphor for thinking about most learning, but especially for vocational learning. Accepting that thought about learning inevitably involves metaphors, we consider the merits and otherwise of various other learning metaphors including participation and construction. We conclude that the conceptual flaws of transfer can be avoided by employing alternative metaphors. The value of our recommended alternative is illustrated by its power to illuminate data on learning collected from various research projects.Learning transfer is an extraordinarily narrow and barren account of how knowledgeable persons make their way among multiply interrelated settings.

There has been a tendency for people to think about competence in a narrow way that undermines any possible benefits to be gained fiom adopting competency standards. This paper will attempt to clarib exactly what competence is. It will be found that the logic of the concept of competence is itself such as to support a broader view about competency standards rather than the narrow one that is so often taken for granted. Second, the benefits of recognizing and employing a broader, richer conception of competence will be outlined and discussed. Conceptions of competenceSince there are several very different ways of thinking about competence, how competence is conceived will make a big difference to the ways competency standards are used and assessed. Because competency-based assessment centres on performance, and since a common view is that performance is constituted by a series of tasks, competency standards are often thought of as simply a series of discrete task descriptions. Even where work is relatively routine, this 'checklist' approach is dubious since the broader aspects of competent performance, such as planning or reacting to contingencies, are left out of the picture. Thus, the task view of competence omits higher level competences from the standards. Hence they are also omitted from any training programs and assessment strategies that are based on these narrow competence standards.One response is to view competence instead as possession of a series of desirable attributes including knowledge of appropriate sorts, skills and abilities such as problem solving, analysis, communication, pattern recognition, etc. and attitudes of appropriate kinds. On this generic The integrated approach to competence and its implicationsThe integrated approach to competence is supported by the logic of the concept of competence. According to the Concise Oxford Dictiona y , competence (or competency) denotes the "ability to do" something or the "ability for a task". The Macquarie Concise Dictionary defines competence as "the quality of being competent", where competent means "properly qualified" or "capable". Significantly, in both of these dictionary definitions the prime focus is on competent people having the ability or

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract