Competency mapping

Between the idea (breakfast/hungry) and the act (eating) there is porridge preparation, including some rest time for the warm porridge and water.

So, I am able to let my mind wander a bit, and make some other connections .. and this time with of Cognitive Edge and Thursday’s session with a workshop on graduate attributes at UoW, and a long term memory of a very nasty headache the last time I tried workshopping competency mapping (Award Restructuring in local government, about 1990).

Dave notes (interalia above)

So for me competence modelling is another of those confusions of symptoms with causes, and a failure to use apprentice and other experiential models which have more potential.

(somehow ‘mapping’ has morphed to ‘modelling’);

and for me to note later, (aka remember) and share a story about simulation and role play

a simulation environment is very different from reality when you are dealing with human systems

At the UoW workshop, run by a linguist (some of best analysts I know seem to be linguists), the competency mapping turned out to be at the big picture level, compared to the dissectional approach back in the 1990’s.

The workshop was part of UoW’s Prof & Organisational Development Services [http://www.uow.edu.au/about/teaching/index.html] (but you won’t get much further because need identity to access staff intranet) program.

The facilitator was an academic from LaTrobe Uni, Dr Ana Maria Ducasse [http://www.latrobe.edu.au/spanish/staff/ducasse.html].

For preparation, I chased the UK descriptors for Higher Ed, and UoW’s ‘graduate attributes‘; and UoW’s postgraduate attributes

[For UoW’s current graduate attributes see http://www.uow.edu.au/about/teaching/qualities/

http://www.uow.edu.au/research/rsc/hdrhb/UOW008956.html]

IT WAS A WORKSHOP. After the introduction, there was some one-on-one intros, facilitated around: who, what, where, why, when, how. This was followed by a quick overview of why Ana Maria was there and what she wanted us to do. We then broke into four by four syndicate groups to undertake the work set. It was a matter of using a grid Ana Maria had designed, when doing some work on assessing the development of language skills, identifying key questions to differentiate between levels of study, and to be the accomplishment barriers for progress.

I worked with a group looking at some core generic support services to electrical engineering /informatics students. We looked at what was involved in bringing students, through 4 years, to reach the attributes claimed. Another group focused around professional education/teaching; another around business& management and the fourth at international students and careers advising.

After we spent about 2hrs on the work, we regrouped and reported our findings back to the plenary. The results and grids are to be sent to us in pdf shortly.

In thinking about the plenary report some more, and taking yet another bigger picture abstraction of the findings, it appeared that what the groups were striving for was articulation of

* beingness, or
* acting appropriately

One group identified ‘cultural awareness’ as their one idea for all five categories; another group identified ‘agency’ as their one idea for all five categories; the third group was like our group and had different facets for each category:

UoW attribute category: Bus&Man gp/ Engineering Gp
‘informed’: perspective/ timely and appropriate
‘independent learners’: creating own scaffold/ learning to learn
‘problem solvers’: rationalxnonrational/ project management
‘effective communicators’: LRCLAWS (listening, reading, coherent, logical, articulate, written, speaking/ written-oral-visual appropriate to audience
‘responsible’: reflecting/ fair contribution

Yes Janis, and groupthink, and Johari, got muddled in my mind on Thursday … I couldn’t disengage, sufficiently, from the stressful discussion to release the necessary memory …