Concept

Competencies are comprehensive in that they involve cognitive, evaluative, and practical aspects. This means that when addressing any content, the cognitive, evaluative, and practical dimensions must be worked on in a comprehensive and holistic manner.

This implies that if we want to develop argumentative competencies, as established by the SABER tests, we will necessarily have to work holistically. To do so, it is necessary, on the one hand, to understand what and why we argue. Ideas must be argued; otherwise, they would remain opinions. Whoever argues, supports, justifies, or supports an idea must find causes, evidence, or reasons that ratify their idea.

Likewise, arguments fulfill another main function: they are essential in life for investigating and evaluating different options in order to choose the best one. Therefore, as a social practice, argumentation implies a specific form of interaction when faced with a disagreement or conflict (Silvestre, 2001).

On the other hand, arguments are required to convince audiences of the appropriateness or fairness of a position, to produce or increase audience support for the theses presented (Perelman, 1998).

Consequently, it is necessary to work on the concept of argumentation and the rules for its use in order to understand what is being done, how and why it is done (cognitive dimension); at the same time, it is necessary to develop the general ability to argue appropriately, hierarchically, and convincingly in diverse contexts (practical dimension).

However, the training process would be incomplete if we do not also involve the evaluative dimension. Therefore, if we develop argumentative competence, we should ensure that, simultaneously with working on the cognitive and practical dimensions, young people do not resort to fallacies, deception, defamation, half-truths, or lies in order to convince their opponents. It is not enough for them to argue—which is already a great achievement—but it is also necessary to develop the skills necessary to develop arguments. We must also ensure that they do so in an ethical, responsible, and tolerant manner (Perelman, 1998; De Zubiría, 2006a). There is a principle of rectitude that underlies all communicative action, as formulated by Jürgen Habermas in his theory of communicative action.

_{Source: Prepared by the authors based on: De Zubiría, J. How to design a competency-based curriculum? Ed. Magisterio, Bogotá 2013}

In this context, it would be a very important goal of education if we could achieve with young people the understanding of the most important social, physical, biological, and mathematical concepts and categories—something that unfortunately has not yet been achieved in most schools in Latin America. But the work would remain unfinished if, in social science education, for example, young people were not prepared to transform the world; or if, after years of work, we were not outraged by injustice, abuse, inequity, racism, or violence. Education involves much more than the cognitive dimension, although the cognitive dimension is very important. The development we advocate involves the various human dimensions.

The first dimension is linked to thought; the second to affection, sociability, and feelings; the last to reflective action.

This is an education based on the "subject who feels, acts, and thinks," as Wallon (1987) said. Today, we must recognize the diverse human dimensions and the commitment that educational institutions must assume in their development. Competencies, understood from the perspective of human development, provide us with an opportunity to do so.

As educators, we are responsible for the cognitive development of our students, but we have equal responsibilities in developing ethical individuals who are outraged by abuses, socially sensitive, and feel responsible for their individual and social life plans. Given the above, considering education from a holistic perspective implies reclaiming the interdependence and holistic nature of competencies as a fundamental principle. Emphasizing the interwoven, the interrelated, and the complex over the partial, isolated, and fragmented. 6.5 The general nature of competencies

_{Source: Prepared by the authors based on: De Zubiría, J. How to design a competency-based curriculum? Ed. Magisterio, Bogotá 2013}

With current objectives focused on the reproduction and homogenization of human beings, competency-based work is not possible. With current content focused on disjointed and decontextualized information, competency-based work, evaluation, or mediation is also impossible. The pursuit of generalization as the guiding principle of competency-based work implies a clear and radical break with heterostructuring models and announces that an approach of this nature could represent the beginning of a paradigm shift in Latin American education. Even so, it is worth reiterating that this is only possible if we understand competencies from the perspective of human development.

Competencies are contextual in their origin and in their use. They are contextual in their origin insofar as the sociocultural, historical, institutional, and familial conditions a person experiences significantly influence the competencies they develop. Let's consider an example: the competencies developed in the Middle Ages were often different from those of individuals today, and those developed today in the East are likely different from those achieved in the West. This is because the historical, social, cultural, or geographical context has a very important impact on the type of competency to be developed, as has been carefully researched and analyzed by theorists such as Hymes, Van Dijk, Goddar, and Wierzbicka.

Competencies are also contextual in their use, since the learning they generate is flexible; that is, they can be adapted to the context. This implies that, when developing a competency, contextual conditions are necessarily taken into account. However, a clarification is in order. It should be noted that we use the verb "influence" and not "determine" when speaking of the relationship between the environment and individuals. This is because the latter do not play a passive role in the context. The individual interacts with the environment, engages in dialogue, reconstructs it, and enters into tension with it. They conflict, contradict, and transform each other. The environment affects the individual, and the individual affects the environment.

Competencies are learned. Their incorporation creates a structural and permanent transformation in the thinking, feeling, and acting structure of the individuals who develop them. Because of this, we can say that they are learned; that is, when incorporated, they generate profound modifications in cognitive structures, as formulated several decades ago (De Zubiría and De Zubiría, 1985).

If competencies are contextual, the learning they generate is necessarily flexible, as this would be the only way to transfer a competency to another context or situation. On the contrary, mechanical learning cannot be transferred. It may be useful, but only in a completely specific time and context. Learning a competency has a different nature and meaning than learning particular and specific information. When information is acquired, in the best of cases, it can be linked to a more general concept present in the subject's previous cognitive structure. However, this does not help them think more complexly and only marginally and specifically modifies their way of representing the world. Competence, on the other hand, is general and therefore generates a structural and permanent change in the subject's cognitive structure.

Competencies are developed and assessed at levels of increasing complexity, and it is always necessary to consider not only their presence but also their absence. Only by detecting the aspects that have not yet been developed, the weaknesses, or the shortcomings, can we foster modifiability. In this sense, Ausubel's (1983) contribution is fundamental when he states: "In our opinion, the importance of practice and exercises for meaningful learning and retention has been unjustifiably underestimated."