We wondered if people’s ability to be critically autonomous
was the highest goal of learning in a social democratic system.
If so, transferability can be seen as the ability to integrate
skills and knowledge and to apply them to different situations
and is therefore essential to critical autonomy.
Transferability comprises many other aims of learning as well
as the development of personal qualities, confidence and social
opportunities. It includes procedural autonomy (the ability to
understand and do what is required, to make sense of systems,
to know what choices are on offer etc) and personal autonomy (insights
into one’s own strengths and weaknesses, potential and horizons
for action etc.). If transferability is a goal of learning, it
is something we attend to at the level of individual learners
(micro) and we assess transferability as well as all the low level
and high level skills, qualities and knowledge that it comprises.
Assessment of transferability requires valid, authentic and appropriate
methods which test a range of skills and qualities. However, systems
of assessment which emphasise reliability of results between learners
and over time, undermine the emphasis on validity. And, if we
don’t have valid assessment, we cannot capture the skills,
quality and knowledge which comprise transferability. To use a
quality assurance phrase, assessment has to be fit for its purpose.
In Finland, for example, tests are being developed to assess problem
solving, ‘learning to learn’ etc.
This does not mean that transferability, following Frank’s
interest in social learning, only happens ‘inside’
an individual; social processes are essential too. We might assess
individuals or groups. But we do not evaluate transferability
as such: however, we may evaluate an institution’s ability
to develop it in learners.
1. Flexibility
If transferability and critical autonomy are the ultimate goals
of learning, then a system’s responsiveness and ability
to foster these for as many people as possible, as flexibly as
possible, means we can see ‘flexibility’ as something
to consider at meso level. Modularisation, assessment and accreditation
of prior learning etc, are all system and institution level responses
to the need for flexibility. In addition, teachers require skills
and qualities to work flexibly.
We therefore evaluate (or inspect) flexibility but we do not
assess it. And we evaluate flexibility because we want a flexible
system to foster transferability and critical autonomy.
If, for example, modularisation makes qualifications and opportunities
for assessment more flexible, but prevents learners developing
the cognitive complexity and skills they need to transfer their
learning, then our evaluation would raise this concern. To address
this concern, we might have to build in learning and assessment
opportunities that integrate learning (eg. synoptic assignments/projects,
reflective records of learning etc).
