Abstract: The “key competences”has been a mainstream discourse in the field of basic education in our country.However,whether it is in theoretical research or practical work,the misunderstanding and misuse of this concept is common,which has caused a lot of confusion,and even affected its function.By comparing the “key competences”used in China with the “key competences” used abroad,we found that the Chinese “key competences”crossed the boundaries and limitations of “key competences”itself in logic,time and space and teaching practice.Firstly,the “competence”should be translated as “Sheng Ren Li”rather than “Su Yang”:the Chinese educators interpreted it without real meaning and loaded it too many meanings to break the logic limit of the “key competences”itself,and it caused confusion in understanding the Chinese “key competences”.Secondly,the “key competences”is essentially the result of the change of times and the change of occupation fields,while the Chinese “key competences”has surpassed the boundary of “key competences” and broken through the scope of time and space.Finally yet importantly,the “key competences” advocates interdisciplinary teaching mode,while the concept of “the key competence of Discipline”derived from the Chinese “key competences”follows a disciplinary logic,lacking of interdisciplinary interaction and deviating from the limitation of the “key competences”in teaching practice.In addition,the “key competences”itself also has some limitations in terms of the function,which puts too much weight on the external occupational demand but ignores the internal demands of education,which resulted in an ineffective manifestation of the essential educational mission of “individual's full development”.

Key words: key competences, the key competences of discipline, individual's full development;