The research presented here concerns four focus groups made up of three groups of students in their second year of training at the Haute Ecole Pédagogique in Fribourg (primary teacher training), whose average age was between 19 and 25, and one group of students on a master’s degree course in specialized teaching at the Haute Ecole Pédagogique in BEJUNE. These teachers were already in post, with an age range of between 24 and 49.

The participants were in their usual classrooms, already knew each other, and were used to working in groups. The teacher participating in the research therefore proposed a protocol based on the discussion game method, framed by a semi-directive interview.

To initiate the reflection work and the discussion game, the teacher started by carrying out an inventory, in a plenary session, of the main problems facing the world today. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity, population migration, and various forms of pollution, particularly those caused by plastic in the oceans, were spontaneously mentioned by all the groups. A slide added to these initial ideas with less publicized issues such as the rural exodus, desertification, globalization, the exploitation of resources, child labor, etc. This activity highlighted the many complex issues which form part of our daily lives, and which are reported in the media.

Following this introduction, the teacher asked the following question: “In your opinion, what are the “qualities” that students in the 21st century should be able to demonstrate when they leave compulsory schooling in order to be able to face this kind of situation?”

The participants were given ten minutes to reflect on this question individually and write down the five “qualities” that they felt to be the most important. The choice of the term “qualities” was made in order not to limit the proposals, and not to lock the participants into overly conceptual and sometimes controversial definitions of the term “competence”; and also to allow for the possibility of naming knowledge, skills, competencies, and even performances. After this initial reflection, the participants were divided into groups of five or six. Individually, each person presented his or her proposals to the whole group. The group then had ten minutes to discuss and reach a consensus on the five most essential “qualities” that they would retain and present to the plenary.

Subsequently, each group put forward its proposals. As each group listed them, the other participating groups mentioned whether a particular proposal was also on their list. Interesting discussions arose when choosing the terms to define these qualities. In a spontaneous manner, the protagonists quickly eliminated problems relating to synonyms. Thus, the terms “collaboration” and “cooperation” were grouped together under the term “cooperate” in class 2, and under “know how to collaborate” in class 1. “Curiosity” was complemented by “desire to learn” in class 2, and by “tools enabling its development” in class 4, whereas it was mentioned without addition by classes 1 and 3.

The capacity for reflection was equated with a form of self-evaluation by class 3, and with “thinking about how to do things” in class 2. Autonomy, put forward by all the classes, was presented in greater detail by some groups. Thus, it took the form of “autonomous in being/doing” for class 2, of becoming “autonomous in work to meet one’s needs” for class 3, while class 4 associated autonomy with a form of responsibility that leads to mutual help. Only class 1 did not elaborate on this concept. This work of formulating and specifying these “qualities” was important, as it made it possible to group together the most similar ideas with the agreement of their authors (see Table 1).

In the compilation presented in Table 2, an identical process was used to group together elements that call for similar modes of thought or interpretations. In the end, 15 proposals were retained out of the 33 initially put forward by the 17 focus groups.

Once the “qualities” had been defined and presented on the board or flip-chart, the participants were asked to assess what they believed the school system was currently doing to develop them. The evaluation ranged from: “not at all” (−−) to “very much” (++), with intermediate forms equivalent to “a little” (+) and “very little” (−). The 0 meant that the school does not do anything specific with regard to this “quality”. This assessment was carried out with the help of the “Menti” application, which each participant downloaded onto their smartphone. This application allows each participant to give an anonymous opinion on a defined scale. A “/” was used when the results showed an equivalence in the opinions given. As not all the groups proposed the same “qualities”, some boxes are not filled in the summary table below.

The constituent elements of Table 2 are presented according to their frequency of appearance coupled with the evaluation, from the most positive to the most negative.

A first important point emerged from this the data presented in this table. Apart from familiarity with information technologies (IT), all the propositions can be considered as “meta-qualities”, and as such, they are not restricted to a particular discipline. At the end of this table there are three “qualities” with a particular status. Indeed, the three classes concerned specified that they did not mention them because they considered them indispensable for the 21st century student, but rather, because they thought that these objectives were part of the hidden curriculum of the school, and that they would therefore necessarily be part of this baggage. It is also interesting to note that these elements were only identified in the classes of pre-service teachers. As the aim was to focus solely on the “qualities” deemed necessary to tackle the problems of our century, these three elements were not taken into account in the rest of this work.

This table shows that from the participants' point of view, the “qualities” most favoured at school are “collaboration/cooperation/good social skills”, to which we can add “Respect for oneself, for others, tolerance, benevolence”, since all the classes referred to group work, which is widely encouraged both at school and in wider society (Dutrévis and Rastoldo, 2020, p. 26). These “qualities” are also included in the Plan d’Etudes Romand (CIIP, 2010). Indeed, “collaboration” is an interdisciplinary ability, in relation to which one of the descriptors refers to “taking the other into account” (i.e., requiring respect and tolerance).

On the other hand, those qualities that appear to be little encouraged are “critical thinking” and “creativity/open-mindedness”. It should also be noted that creativity was only mentioned spontaneously by group 1, which evaluated it as “not at all (−−)” regarding the school’s participation in its development. The question was then proposed to the three other groups. The evaluation was also negative for group 3, barely better for group 2, and undetermined between −/0 for group 4, while at the same time being recognized as essential by all the participants.

Very different results were obtained for “critical thinking”, which was evaluated at a low level by the participants, and for “capacity for reflection”, which was favorably evaluated by the two classes that mentioned it. This difference in evaluation is explicable if we take into account the fact that it is exclusively linked to a form of self-evaluation. Thus, although “capacity for reflection” is also explicitly present in the PER (as the interdisciplinary capacity “reflective approach”), it benefits from a distorted interpretation among this population, which separates it from its critical functions decentred from the self and places it in a perspective which is more directed towards metacognition.

While general trends can thus be observed, we also noted a diversity of responses between classes, for example in relation to “curiosity/desire to learn”, and “autonomy in work, autonomy of being/of doing”. This variation can be attributed to the fact that the discourse collected from our sample is based on mixed representations of classroom practices, and therefore varies according to the personal and professional experiences of each individual.

Far removed from the notional knowledge on which pupils are usually assessed, we find in these proposals a certain unity, particularly with regard to their diversity, interdisciplinarity, and meta nature. More specifically, these qualities could be categorized either on a continuum or on a line ranging from those qualities that are closest to socio-emotional competences (e.g., the ability to collaborate/cooperate to develop good social relations, but also to respect oneself and others and thus to show tolerance and benevolence) along towards more cognitive skills (such as critical thinking, and even creativity). The latter qualities feed more strongly on notional or even academic knowledge, in contrast to the emotional qualities previously mentioned which are independent of such knowledge.

The qualities between these extremes of the continuum could include autonomy in work, which goes hand-in-hand with a certain personal commitments and responsibility for one’s own learning. To this can be added the particular vision given by some of the participants which is implicit in the concept of building a “capacity for reflection” in the sense of self-evaluation, of being able to look critically at one’s own work. But to be really effective in this learning of autonomy, and in developing harmonious social relations and managing one's emotions, it is important to be able to adapt or to show curiosity and flexibility in the face of the different situations a person encounters, as well as to develop a good knowledge of oneself in order to be able to “use all of one’s own capacities” in the way that the participants suggest.

It should also be noted that while the comparison between feeling, moods, and emotion makes sense in some more fundamental works, in which it has been stated that emotion is more intense and less diffuse in its duration and linked to a specific object (e.g., Sander, 2013; Sander and Scherer, 2019), for the sake of brevity here we will consider these terms to be almost synonymous, to the extent that the competencies assessed in relation to feelings, moods, and emotions relate to affective mechanisms in the overall sense of the term.

One crucial point remains to be defined: can these “qualities” proposed by the students of these different classes ultimately be considered as competencies? The term “competence” takes on different meanings depending on the authors using it and the context in which it emerges. Thus, as the HES-SO Teaching Glossary (HES-SO, 2017, p. 8) explains, “The notion of competence often overlaps with the notions of learning acquisition, knowledge, know-how (skills), educational objective, or learning outcome”, thus repeating, in other terms, the ambiguities already mentioned by Allal (2002) or (Perrenoud, 2004, p. 9), who stated that: “If knowledge is only worthwhile if one is capable of using it at the right time, in a good way, to solve problems, make decisions, guide action or accommodate new learning, we are very close to the problem of competencies”.

Moreover, while the evaluation of competencies seems to have become established in vocational training circles, it is still in its infancy as far as the evaluation of pupils in compulsory schooling is concerned. This may partly be explained by the fact that competencies seem to be integral within a complex experience, and in a professional context (Tardif, 2006). The idea of action in full-time schooling seems to us to be of little relevance in the sense that it is initiated by the teacher. In fact, even when pupils are (to some extent) autonomous, as may be the case when they carry out an independent or group project, the action has still requested, expected, and programmed in a way, and is part of the role assigned to the pupil since a mark, or at best an appreciation, will sanction it.

On reflection, therefore, we abandon the idea of action within the school, as it cannot be totally spontaneous, nor can it emanate solely from a personal choice. However, we place action as a fundamental objective, following the example of the EDD (to our knowledge, no author or body has previously mentioned this objective). Without any claim to exhaustiveness, see, for example, CIIP, 2010; Pellaud, 2011; Kyburz-Graber et al., 2013; Education21, 2016; Unesco, 2017), because, as Bourdieu (1984) reminds us, by influencing people’s knowledge of the world, we can influence society as a whole; this is a central element of complex thinking (Morin, 1977, Morin, 1990, Pellaud, 2000, Pellaud, 2011, Pellaud et al., 2012).

Following the examples of Perrenoud (1997), Allal (2002), Scallon (2004) and many others, we believe that it is necessary to move away from the paradigm of acquiring knowledge in order to be able to mobilize it in a given situation, which is equivalent to envisaging competencies of what these authors call “general culture”. Using these authors’ definitions as well as those of Gillet (1991), Roegiers (2000), Beckers (2002), Tardif (2006), and Lebrun (2013), we have developed the following definition of what a competence for compulsory schooling can be, which is as follows: a competence is demonstrated at the moment when an individual mobilizes an integrated, interdependent, interlocking and functional network of cognitive, emotional, social and sensorimotor resources in order to effectively perform a complex task for him/her, within a family of identified situations.

Our intention here is to develop tools enabling the evaluation of competence, and the form its expression takes is important to us, hence the idea of observing the moment when competence is expressed. Several terms need to be clarified in order to understand what is at stake in such a definition, which integrates complexity at different levels.

In his semantic analysis, Jonnaert (2014) showed that synonymous relationships often appear between the terms “competencies” and “capabilities”. However, the author had previously demonstrated that “these two concepts, capability, and competence, are at different semantic levels. Competence encompasses capability, but the reverse is not true. Capabilities are constitutive of a competence, but the reverse is not true either” (Jonnaert, 2014. pp 674–675; cited in; Jonnaert, 2014). Further: “To confuse competence and capability by placing them in a synonymous relationship is to confuse an end, the development of a competence, and one of the means used to achieve it: the mobilization of the cognitive resources that are capabilities” (Jonnaert, 2014, p.6). We take the liberty of supplementing these quotations by adding that capabilities are not only cognitive, but also social and emotional, as are the competencies they enable us to achieve. Referring to this definition, we can therefore state that the “qualities” proposed by our participants can be considered as competencies for some of them, and for others as capabilities. “Curiosity” is the exception, as although it can be considered a facilitating element, it does not by itself enable someone to face up to a complex task.

Are these “qualities” that we can now call “competencies” shared by international bodies such as the World Economic Forum, 2018, the OECD, or Unesco, 2017, three international bodies which influence educational policy, notably in Switzerland?

This article does not pretend to offer a detailed analysis of this set of visions. Our intention is, instead, limited to exploring whether it is possible to observe convergences between these different bodies, what teachers want, the aims of compulsory schooling, and those of ESD. We do so in order to better target what could be proposed to students to respond to the challenges of the 21st century. We therefore looked at the second edition of the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Future of Jobs report (2018), which considers the competencies (soft skills) required for 2022, the “key competencies” as defined by the OECD in the framework of the PISA assessment (2005), and the UNESCO Education 2030 program (2017), and more specifically, the learning objectives which have been set with the aim of achieving the objectives for sustainable development (ODD). We organized these different elements according to the dichotomy “cognitive competences/metacognitive competences/socio-emotional competences” in order to compare them with the wishes of the teachers who took part in our study.

From the outset, despite some differences in the formulations, several points of convergence were evident, which we highlighted through the identification of competencies, defined through abilities that can be considered as elements that must be exercised, and potentially evaluated, in order to achieve mastery of the competence.

Table 3 enables the identification of six competencies, divided between the three types identified previously. Several observations can be made in light of this table. The first is that the most complete competencies for the three bodies are relational, whereas for our teachers, these are essentially limited to collaboration and respect for others. The international bodies also propose elements related to the ability to engage in dialogue, negotiate, or resolve conflicts; these aspects were not explicitly developed by our participants.

The second is that there is a significant difference in relation to cognitive skills. Highly developed at the level of UNESCO and the WEF, they are limited from the OECD’s perspective to an understanding of the impact of individual actions at the global level as far as complex thinking is concerned. It should be noted in this respect that our participants did not mention anything in connection with this aspect of cognitive skills.

The capacity for reflection, when it appears, is limited to “critical thinking”. Only UNESCO has developed this point, specifying that it refers to the capacity to question a certain number of elements (norms, practices, opinions, etc.). The OECD makes no mention of elements that can be linked to this competence.

Finally, creativity appears to be strongly linked to forward thinking both for the WEF and UNESCO, and was more focused on adaptation to change and a form of open-mindedness among our participants. Finally, for the OECD, creativity is limited to a reflection on the potential of technologies. This is reminiscent of “familiarity with IT” and the “ability to live with them” mentioned by our participants (see Table 1).

The third and final element revealed by this comparative table is that, despite the epistemological differences linked to the very varied contexts in which these competence frameworks have appeared, they all share certain fundamental elements. This is the case for:

• Complex thinking (which did not appear in the teachers’ statements);

Lastly, only the capacity for reflection, as has already been mentioned, is totally absent from the OECD’s targets.

The present study, which was qualitative and involved a limited number of focus groups, presented some general trends that deserve to be studied in greater depth. For example, it is not possible to know whether the concepts put forward by the teachers, such as tolerance, respect for others, or benevolence (see Tables 2, 3) in their view include the communicational aspects mentioned in the statements of the international bodies against which we have placed them into context. To do this, each item would have to have been taken up by the focus groups and developed in a more exhaustive manner.

Despite these shortcomings, it is nevertheless clear that, far from focusing on the knowledge which is taught and classically evaluated in class, the teachers took into consideration the complexity of the situations that their pupils will have to face once they leave compulsory schooling, by proposing ambitious objectives, formulated in terms of highly interdisciplinary competencies which correspond to a significant degree to the ambitions of an ESD. That said, this was not entirely the case, because this initial overview allowed us to see that certain elements were missing, particularly in terms of complex thinking, an essential aspect of an ESD (Pellaud, 2000; CIIP, 2010; Pellaud, 2011, Pellaud, 2013; Kyburz-Graber, Nagel, Gingins, 2013; Education21, 2016). A critical look at the objectives proposed by the school curricula, and additionally by the textbooks intended for students, should provide some answers as to the reasons for these shortcomings. Indeed, we are entitled to ask whether the latter chose to omit these elements in their objectives and in the exercises proposed to the students, or whether this absence of reference to complex thinking can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the objectives by the teachers themselves. We intend to continue our work in this direction.

Based upon this initial comparison with the global frameworks within which school programmes are developed, our work will continue with a comparison between these initial results and the Swiss school programmes, as well as with the national bodies involved, such as the Education21 Foundation, and the National Centre of Competence and Services for Education for sustainable development [ESD] for the whole of Switzerland. This broad perspective will provide more concrete answers about teachers' understanding of these objectives, and possible misunderstandings or misinterpretations.