Facing up to the challenge: why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes?Debate continues regarding the nature and desirability of graduate attributes, driven partly by stakeholder expectations that universities will prepare employees for the knowledge economy, and partly by higher education academics and learning specialists. While universities appear to have accepted their new vocational role, there is considerable confusion over how these things -graduate skills, attributes or capabilities -should be defined and implemented. Conceptual confusion, combined with a range of external pressures and internal management issues have the potential to derail this important project. To date, stakeholders such as government and business, as well as universities have seriously underestimated the kind of cultural, institutional and policy changes required to implement the graduate skills agenda. This paper outlines the issues that will need to be addressed by the higher education sector if universities are to play a proactive rather than reactive role in shaping the graduate attributes agenda.
The higher education sector in Australia is moving rapidly towards greater accountability in regard to graduate employability outcomes. Currently, data on new graduates' selfreported generic skills and employment status provide the evidence base for universities to make judgements about the effectiveness of curricula in preparing students for employment. This paper discusses alternative sources of evidence, namely the Graduate Employability Indicators (GEI) -a suite of three online surveys designed to supplement current indicators. They are designed to gather and report graduate, employer and course (teaching) team perceptions of the achievement and importance of graduate capabilities within specific degree programs. In 2009 and 2010, the surveys were administered to stakeholder groups associated with Accounting degrees in four Australian universities. In total, 316 graduates, 99 employers and 51 members of the course teaching teams responded to the surveys. This report presents the aggregated results from the trial. These suggest that the fourteen capabilities at the heart of the GEI are considered important, and that both quantitative and qualitative items facilitate the reporting of essential information. Both Accounting employers and teaching staff consider that important capabilities need to be better demonstrated by new graduates. The graduates themselves identified ways in which their courses can be improved to enhance their early professional success. An importance-performance analysis suggests prioritising particular capabilities for immediate attention in particular, work related knowledge and skills, writing clearly and effectively, thinking critically and analytically, solving complex, real-world problems and developing general industry awareness. This paper suggests that an enhanced industry focus might be effected through authentic assessment tasks, and clear identification of the capabilities developed through the curriculum.
While there appears to be broad acceptance that university graduates must have the capacity to think critically in an increasingly complex, information-rich world, there remains a gap between aspiration and teaching practice in many faculties. We examine this issue through our experience of designing assessment to develop critical thinking in a first year management unit. This case highlighted three important pedagogical considerations. First, there is the need to articulate a conceptualisation of critical thinking that is both discipline-and unit-specific. Second, there is a need to consider the crucial link between critical thinking and academic literacy. Third, there is a need to consider the relationship between the capacity for critical thinking, student learning progression and the development of disciplinary knowledge. These factors will all assist higher education teachers in meeting the challenge of designing developmentally appropriate assessment of critical thinking at each year level.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.