The relationship between core competencies and three-dimensional goals

The relationship between three-dimensional goals and core competencies is not equidistant or equivalent. The former is transitional and conflicts with each other; the latter is progressive, and the two have a high degree of internal consistency.

The development and transcendence of three-dimensional goals by core competencies is mainly reflected in the further "deepening" of curriculum reform. "Beyond" does not mean "beyond", and core competencies cannot therefore replace three-dimensional goals. Now, there seems to be this understanding that with core competencies, three-dimensional goals can be downplayed or even eliminated. This is obviously a misunderstanding.

The doubts about three-dimensional self-standardization are mainly based on the old view of knowledge, that is, knowledge is objective and objectified, and all knowledge is human knowledge. Without people, there is no knowledge. Once knowledge is produced, it is difficult to escape the fate of objectification. This is humankind's strategy for preserving and spreading knowledge.

The subject of knowledge is, after all, people. Education and learning are to promote the "return to the homeland" of knowledge, give knowledge the "personal nature" it should have (Sato Gakushu), and then make learning enter the state of knowledge generation. This is the essence of three-dimensional goals as a curriculum concept.

The three-dimensional goal is a whole. The expression of the three dimensions is only analytical. Each dimension contains the other two dimensions. From the perspective of the analyst, the knowledge and skill dimensions are presented as three-dimensional goals. The "solid" state contains the potential energy of the other two dimensions that "leads without emitting, leaps like water", and the process and method dimensions appear as the "liquid" state of the three-dimensional target.

It manifests as the state of students’ thinking and action when learning knowledge, as well as the dimensions of emotion, attitude and value. It is presented as a “gas” state of three-dimensional goals and manifests as the physical, psychological, perceptual and physical aspects that permeate students’ learning behavior. The spiritual element of rational blending.

As for "core competencies", the "Core Competencies for Chinese Student Development (Draft for Comments)" is described as "the necessary character and key abilities that students should possess to adapt to the needs of lifelong development and social development." This definition combines both "character" and "ability" and is relatively comprehensive.

The academic community has very different opinions on whether the corresponding English words competencies, Competences, skills.capabilities, etc. can be translated into Chinese "competence". Some experts believe that it is more appropriate to translate it into "capacity".

First of all, looking at the framework, dimensions and elements of the core literacy systems of various countries and international organizations, its connotation is obviously not something that can be covered by the Chinese word "ability".

Secondly, the definitions of each core literacy system are not single and have a significant practical orientation, providing considerable space for interpretation for thinkers and practitioners. The Chinese word "literacy" consists of the two words "Su" and "Yang", which has unique educational and curriculum value. It combines "people" and "education" and implements them in "people".

So, you don’t have to worry about whether the translation of the word “literacy” is appropriate, but you should see the accuracy and richness of the expression of the word “literacy” in Chinese. We cannot objectify and objectify "literacy". "Literacy" is the internalized state and level of knowledge and skills (of course not only this), and has distinct embodiment and integrity. This is highly consistent with the value pursuit of three-dimensional goals.

From the perspective of the advancement of curriculum reform, core competencies are the deepening and concreteness of three-dimensional goals. From the perspective of conceptual extension, three-dimensional goals are wider than core competencies, because in addition to core competencies, there are more non-core competencies.

From the perspective of conceptual connotation, core literacy tends to be "internal", that is, the educational content is inherent in the person's state and level; the three-dimensional self-standard tends to be "internalized", that is, the mechanism of internalization of educational content. The two are integrated into one, and both provide a structural and holistic explanation of learning behavior and the quality of the educated.

Faced with the question "should we not mention three-dimensional goals if we have core competencies?", we can answer: to form core competencies, we cannot do without three-dimensional goals. On the other hand, because of the inherent nature of "literacy" When learning towards the future, it can radiate the potential energy of three-dimensional goals and move towards more abundant core competencies.