Birenbaum (1996), some twenty years ago, identified aspects of the future learner in the light of change: What characterizes the era following the technological revolution … is pluralism and continual dynamic changes. As information is no longer considered finite and static but rather infinite and dynamic, the well-functioning person is likely to have to acquire new knowledge independently and use it to solve new unforeseen problems. Hence successful functioning in this era demands an adaptable, thinking, autonomous person, who is a self-regulated learner, capable of communicating and cooperating with others. The specific competences required of such a person include a) cognitive competences such as problem solving, critical thinking, formulating questions, searching for relevant information, making informed judgments, efficient use of information, conducting observations, investigations, inventing and creating new things, analyzing data, presenting data communicatively, oral and written expression; b) meta-cognitive competencies such as self-refection, or self-evaluation; c) social competencies such as leading discussion and conversations, persuading, cooperating, working in groups etc., and d) affective dispositions … for instance, perseverance, internal motivation, initiative, responsibility, self-efficacy, independence, flexibility or coping with frustrating situations. The need to develop these competencies expands the scope of education and this creates a challenging enterprise for educators. (p. 4) It takes little to realise that this long shopping list of competencies does not apply to every job or every type of work, or even to some occupations. However, what Birenbau’s list does highlight is that technical competencies are not in the foreground, rather we can assume that the types of competencies listed here are embedded in technical competencies. To state the obvious, technical competencies are also constantly changing, highlighting the need for well-developed “learning to learn” capabilities. With this and Birenbau’s list of competencies above in mind, it is not surprising that many authors highlight in one way or another the need for an integrated holistic approach to teaching and learning (see, for example, Barrie, 2007; Bound et al., 2015; Higgs, Barnett, Billett, Hutchings & Trede, 2012; Reid, Abrandt Dahlgren, Dahlgren & Petocz, 2011). However, Barrie suggests that teachers vary in their understanding of these generic skills and qualities, depending on the nature of the learning outcomes, ranging from “atomistic, low-level technical and personal skills, to holistic interwoven abilities and aptitudes for learning” (2007, p. 440). With this generic picture in mind, it is worth exploring a little further the nature of some of the major mediators of changes in work and what they might mean for the capabilities for today’s workforce, while bearing in mind the need for a nuanced understanding of change. In the following paragraphs we consider different forms of production, technological change and the growth of non-permanent work, and their implications for assessment. 2.1.1 Forms of production In terms of changes in forms of production, Victor and Boynton (1998) identify five historical and current types of work: craft, mass production, process enhancement, mass customisation and co-configuration. Engeström (2004) associates different kinds of knowledge with the different kinds of work (see Figure 2.1). For example: At present, the most demanding and promising developments are associated with the emergence of co-configuration work. A critical prerequisite of co-configuration is the creation of customer-intelligent products or services which adapt to the changing needs of the user (Engeström, 2004, p. 2).
21
