[NLA] beyond competency (long)

[Eileen Eckert]

This has gotten long, so here's a summary: The ability to act skillfully, as 
a teacher or literate person, is not the result of adding up a sufficient 
number of "competencies." Proficiency is comprised of explicit and tacit 
knowledge and skills uniquely constructed to be effective for each person. 
Acting upon this view would have profound implications for policy and 
accountability. For one thing, it would mean getting rid of standardized 
testing and other measures of knowledge and skill that do not demonstrate 
real-life proficiency.

My message comes across as a lecture, but I really mean it as part of a 
conversation.

Here's the message I summarized:
In a recent message, Tom Sticht referred to the role of the SCANS skills in 
promoting contextualized instruction. I agree that was a huge step forward. 
Knowledge of learning and of the development of proficiency has advanced in 
ways that require a revision of thinking about competency-based 
contextualized instruction. It's time for the next step.

Competency-based instruction and assessment are likely to use lists of 
"competencies" that, when added up, are presumed to equal the ability to act 
competently.

Research into proficiency and/or expertise in a number of fields indicates 
that the ability to apply knowledge skillfully and effectively is not the 
result of having accumulated a sufficient number of competencies. Current 
theory reflects the thinking that proficiency is the manifestation of a 
"self-organized" network of both explicit and tacit knowledge and 
metacogntive skills based on the individual's "mental model" of the domain 
of expertise. I realize I'm slipping into jargon, so let me give an example. 
My own proficiency as a teacher is based on a mental model that includes the 
principles of personal development and social justice, reflection and 
action. I include those principles in my "self-organization" and use of 
knowledge and skills. I rely on knowledge of reading comprehension and 
metcognition, as well as my interest in and learning about economics and 
politics from the social justice perspective. My proficiency also includes 
"tacit knowledge," which Polyani said is "That which we know but cannot 
tell." Anyone who has ever tried to explain why they do something that just 
feels right knows what tacit knowledge is.

Others organize their proficiency around phonemic awareness, or around the 
scientific method, or something else. As long as practioners are using their 
knowledge effectively, they are proficient. "Competencies" that dictate a 
narrow definition of proficiency do us all a disservice by limiting the 
range of knowledge and skills available to programs and learners, and by 
ignoring the roles of individual self-organization (and therefore individual 
construction of meaning) and of tacit knowledge. I keep thinking of Jose 
Cruz's articulate case for including the strengths of everyone in the 
community in collaborative literacy work. We're tying our own hands when we 
narrowly define who is "competent" to be involved in literacy work.

Proficiency applies to learners, too. Viewing learner outcomes in terms of 
proficiency would mean instruction and assessment based on learners' 
interests, goals, and strengths, but those value statements have been so 
overused as to become meaningless. A proficiency-based understanding of 
assessment, for example, would render CASAS, TABE, and other standardized 
test obsolete. Learners would demonstrate their proficiency in ways that are 
meaningful to them in "real-life." Even tests that purport to measure life 
skills (like those CASAS questions based on a generic job application or 
utility bill) are not assessing what learners really know and do in 
situations in their own lives. A test involing a classroom and a #2 pencil 
and 50 minutes to complete 25 questions, and a test booklet (in which you 
better not write) and an answer sheet with rows of A, B, C, D is NOT the 
same as a kitchen table and a partner or friend and a cup of coffee and a 
discussion about how to handle a situation, and "what if" you tried this or 
that. The "right" answer on a standardized test does not necessarily equal 
proficiency in real life, and the "wrong" answer doesn't necessarily mean 
incompetence in real life.

A proficiency-based view of adult literacy would put learners and their uses 
of literacy back in the center. Validity, reliability, and other concerns 
that are about "representing" outcomes some degrees removed from actual 
learners and their uses of literacy would be irrelevant.

If we used student proficiency as the measure of programs' accountability, 
then when the accountability cops asked, "How do you know you're meeting 
learners' needs?" they would listen and accept the answers, "Because they 
tell/show us by doing _____ that is meaningful in their lives." Furthermore, 
they would know that means more than a reliable test score.

Does anyone else see a difference between competency- and proficiency-based 
education, and/or implications for policy?

Eileen



_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org