Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Learning for Life and Work in a
Complex WorldVolume 38
Refereed papers from the 38th HERDSA Annual International Conference
6 - 9 July 2015 Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre (MCEC), Melbourne, Australia
Mayne, L.V., Choate, J.K. & Zahora, T. (2015) A pathway towards a holistic skills framework in Biomedical Sciences. In T. Thomas, E. Levin, P. Dawson, K. Fraser & R. Hadgraft (Eds.), Research and Development in Higher Education: Learning for Life and Work in a Complex World, 38 (pp 307-317). Melbourne, Australia. 6 - 9 July 2015.
Published 2015 by the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc PO Box 27, MILPERRA NSW 2214, Australia www.herdsa.org.au
ISSN 1441 001X ISBN 978-0-908557-96-7
This research paper was reviewed using a double blind peer review process that meets DIISR requirements. Two reviewers were appointed on the basis of their independence and they reviewed the full paper devoid of the authors’ names and institutions in order to ensure objectivity and anonymity. Papers were reviewed according to specified criteria, including relevance to the conference theme and sub-themes, originality, quality and presentation. Following review and acceptance, this full paper was presented at the international conference.
Copyright © 2015 HERDSA and the authors. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act, 2005, this publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside those terms should be sent to the publishers at the address above.
Annual Conference 2015 307
A pathway towards a holistic skills framework in Biomedical Sciences
Mayne, L.V. Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton VIC 3800
Choate, J.K. Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton VIC 3800
Zahora, T. Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton VIC 3800
We report on development of an analytical approach for governing curriculum innovation in Biomedical Sciences (BMS). This approach conceives skills as multidimensional and situational, and recognises the difficulty of meeting the employability agenda from within a higher-education setting. Our project began with an analysis of the Research Skills Development Framework (Willison & O’Regan, 2007), which provides an appealing structure for enhancing skill development within the undergraduate BMS curriculum. But as we deconstructed this framework, we identified skills that appeared to sit across a number of almost independent skills ‘agendas’, including ‘employability’, life long learning, research and discipline-specific skills. An attempt to map the different agendas and skills onto our curriculum resulted in a number of complex and often poorly defined notions of skills and attributes. The broad generic graduate attribute statements blurred boundaries between hard skills on one hand, and attitudes and behaviours (attributes) on the other, and obscured the underpinning pedagogy around how we define and assess intangible attributes within a higher education setting. We recognized that skills were complex domains and that simply teaching a skill in one context (e.g. a discipline setting) did not ensure that skill was then transferable (e.g. to the work place). To successfully transfer skills to different contexts required additional learning steps. This paper provides a foundation for re-visualising how personal and academic development is configured within the curriculum, as well as strategies for supporting and assessing skills development and graduate capabilities.
Keywords: Skills framework, employability, transferable skills.
Introduction The research reported here arose from a consultative process reflecting on the value and potential outcomes of implementing the Research Skills Development Framework (Willison & O’Regan, 2007) in undergraduate teaching in Biomedical Sciences (BMS) as part of a wider institutional initiative to enhance the research and teaching nexus. In deconstructing the framework, we began to question and evaluate the academic and political pressures for
Annual Conference 2015 308
articulating skills in the curriculum and consider the relationship between the different skills agendas e.g. research, employability, lifelong learning and discipline based skills. Furthermore, as we explored the drivers for curriculum change we became aware of a wider sense that “education was broken” or in some way failing. A quick internet search finds wide reference to ‘universities in crisis’, troubled and turbulent times in education and so called ‘disruptive forces’ acting on education. What is this crisis and the drivers for curriculum change? This led us to seek out a rational evidence-based strategy for an over-arching BMS undergraduate skills framework that would enhance students’ learning and university experience in the context of their educational needs in the the 21st century. While degrees from research intensive universities in the UK and Australia had traditionally been taught within a specific discipline and research setting, much of the recent discourse in skills development centered around a need for formal articulation of employability skills along with building attributes that would support lifelong learning. The driver for this skills agenda was linked to emergence of the concept of the knowledge economy, defined in terms of the trend towards a “greater dependence on knowledge, information and high skill levels, and the increasing need for ready access to all of these by the business and public sectors” (OECD, 2005). Though the role of universities and their contribution to the national economy and civic good were debated since their inception, publication of the Dearing Report in the UK entitled Higher Education in the Learning Society clearly articulated the now widely held belief that higher education (HE) must be responsive to employment needs and that HE was “central to the economic well being of nations and individuals.” (Dearing, 1997, 4.2). Dearing declared that state funded education was “fundamentally a response to the development needs of the economy” (1997, 6.5) and noted that state investment in education was historically linked to changes in the national and global economy. Dearing also linked the changing context of HE to economic globalization and integration between nations and the future economic threat posed by emerging less developed countries with strong commitments to education. Dearing believed there was a need for high quality, relevant HE provision to anchor the operations of global corporations in the UK through both research capability and a highly skilled workforce. The Dearing Report firmly established what can now be seen as the core beliefs which drive the current HE employability skills agenda. To remain economically competitive, a major economy and to survive in a global market place requires higher skill levels and a highly educated, well trained work force. To achieve this means that learning (education) must be responsive to employment needs. As well as recognizing the need for higher skill levels in the workforce, Dearing flagged the need for a lifelong learning agenda which recognized the rapid pace of technological change, emergence of new technologies and the need to develop “generic competencies” to enable workers to adapt to support a modern competitive economy. However the wider social (and political) importance of lifelong learning was established in several European Community publications (CEC 2001; European Commission, 2007) that recognized the value of life long learning for personal fulfilment and active engagement in society as the rapid pace of globalization, combined with the digital revolution, risked alienating and marginalizing sections of society if left behind. (European Commission, 2007). Social inclusion and active
Annual Conference 2015 309
citizenship were therefore dependent on increasing knowledge, skills and aptitudes that enabled people to actively participate in a rapidly evolving world of technology. The response to the belief that knowledge and skills were essential for economic competitiveness, wealth creation and quality of life opened up the widening participation (massification of education) agenda. Developed countries around the world instituted policies to drive up the numbers entering post secondary education setting long term targets of 50-60%. In the UK in 1990, 77,163 people left education with an undergraduate degree (Bolton, 2012); in 2014, that number reached 425,000 (HESA, 2015). Subsequent periods of recession and the 2008 global economic crisis refocused the dialogue around HE (OECD, 2005; Pegg et al., 2012) driving a major ideological shift in governments’ views around the role of universities, challenging their autonomy and independence (Biesta, 2011). HE was now seen as an “engine for economic growth and innovation” directly linked to prosperity and quality of life (UNESCO, 2009) with policy documents pushing for HE funding to be “aligned with wider national policy objectives” and for institutional strategies to be “defined and aligned with national priorities” (O’Connor et al., 2013). With stronger accountability to the needs of the economy came greater accountability to government funding agencies on HE standards and performance, with close scrutiny of university retention rates, socio-economic status of students and education standards. HE quality assurance agencies were established in the UK (Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), in 1997) and in Australia (Teaching and Education Quality Standards Agency, in 2011), and are responsible for maintaining quality frameworks that set expectations for all HE awards including development of generic, transferable skills (Bowman, 2010) and for assuring compliance with standards. Universities are also assessed by their international rankings, based on measures of research and teaching which may set them in conflict with national quality assurance processes. A high performing internationally ranked UK university recently refused to accept QAA criticisms of their education provision (Grove, 2013). A university’s brand and reputation are important financial drivers for funding, and student recruitment and international rankings provide prestige which challenges QAA’s authority for academic standards. As Biesta observes, the measure of a ‘good global’ university is not based on a “substantive set of values and principles but is articulated in terms of how one institution is positioned in relation to other institutions. … a pseudo-substantive notion of ‘quality’” (2011, p. 4). Furthermore, “the ambition to strive for ‘quality’ is, in itself, vacuous” when quality is “defined in terms of a narrow set of comparative performance indicators” and when “indicators have turned into definitions of quality.” (pp. 4-5) Discipline focused degrees and skill building agendas in the 21st century Before considering how a strategic overarching skills agenda might be embedded into a BMS degree, it was necessary to consider the context of the University setting and the BMS programme purpose and design. In an internationally recognised research intensive School of Biomedical Sciences, the BMS curriculum is driven by the needs of the discipline and a traditional research mission: commitment to creating new knowledge, producing world class scholars and creating research capability (Boyer Commission, 1998). BMS degrees are delivered either as four year specialist degrees with a strong focus on BMS related disciplines (with honours as a separate research year) or as part of a B.Sc. degree with students studying
Annual Conference 2015 310
BMS units as part of a major and/or minor pathway, with wider elective choices outside traditional BMS disciplines. BMS degrees in Australia (unlike the UK) are not accredited by an external professional body and, as employment pathways are diverse, professional skills development is not driven by a clear vision of student destinations. Historically, curricula of research intensive universities evolved within a discipline context in line with their research mission. As noted by Nerland (2012, p. 27), “different disciplines are marked by distinct knowledge practices, modes of enquiry and principles for determining validity”. Curricular development was driven by the growing knowledge base of the discipline, evolving concepts and technological advances with reference to the discipline’s role in knowledge creation and a desire to build students’ research capability. Embodied in the original concept of university education was learning through enquiry (Boyer Commission, 1998) and intellectual skills were developed through engagement with the problems of the discipline and with academics who were experts in the field. Before widening participation and with a more elitist approach to university entry, readiness for employment and citizenship were seen as a natural progression of university led intellectual development. Despite widening participation and the greater diversity of student abilities and previous learning experiences, combined with the difficulties in supporting learning in large groups, the implicit assumption remained that undergraduate study effectively developed discipline skills that were transferrable to a work setting. What is ‘employability’? Based on earlier work of Yorke (Yorke and Knight, 2006), the UK Higher Education academy paper on Pedagogy for Employability defined employability as:
A set of achievements – skills, understandings and personal attributes – that makes graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen occupations, which benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy. (Pegg et al., 2012)
This definition distinguishes a capacity for successful employment from being ‘employed’ (which is dependent on wider economic factors), yet the predominate measure for employability of university graduates is the number of graduating students in work six months after graduation (e.g. Australian Graduate Destinations Survey). This measure does not take into account the level or type of employment and UK data suggest that a consequence of widening HE participation is an increase in the number of graduates in non-graduate jobs (47% in 2013) (Office of National Statistics, 2013). What are the “skills, understandings and personal attributes” essential for employability? This immediately touches on a wider discourse around terminology and on how skills, competencies and capabilities are defined, which goes beyond the remit of this paper, except to say that, in our experience, there is generally poor agreement on the definitions. Similar observations were reported around graduate attribute statements: “Australian teachers … do not share a common understanding of either the nature of these outcomes, or the teaching and learning processes that might facilitate the development of the outcomes” (Barrie, 2012). The question also appears simplistic in assuming that all workplaces have the same requirements and that all students can attain a single vision of work readiness.
Annual Conference 2015 311
Over the last decades, a large number of government, industry and academic reports have reviewed and outlined an extensive list of skills, personal attributes and behaviours considered essential by employers (e.g. Mayer Committee,1992; Nelson, 2003; Barrie et al., 2010; Bowman, 2010; Lowden et al., 2011). Intense debate around these lists questions whether and how these skills can be developed in HE setting (Brown, 2009; Pegg et al., 2012). Employability has often been described in terms of narrow, discreet skill sets/attributes yet research suggests that the ability to articulate learning and raising confidence, self esteem and aspirations seem to be more significant in developing graduates than a narrow focus on skills and competences.” (Pegg et al., 2012, p. 9). As there remains a continuing perception of a major mismatch between employers’ needs and the skills of graduates (Adecco, 2012; DIISRTE, 2013; Humburt et al., 2013) the evolving Australian Employability Skills Framework has moved away from a matrix of skills (DEST, 2006) towards a performance related, outcomes based description of the “non-technical skills, knowledge and understandings that underpin successful participation in work” (DIISRTE, 2013). These are broadly described as employability skills and are seen as sitting in “combination with technical or discipline specific skills and core language, literacy and numeracy skills.” The Core Skills Framework is outlined in Table 1 and we have deconstructed the performance measures in a limited way to relate them to previous discourse around more specific skills, aptitudes and behaviours. An important addition to the updated framework is recognition of the Dreyfus and Dreyfus ‘novice to expert model’ of skills acquisition (see Lester, 2005) which sees skill development as a graded transition depending on levels of knowledge and experience and recognizes that individual performance may vary against the different performance indicators. This framework aims to support understanding of workplace requirements across different contexts and work settings and support articulation of learning in education and training relevant to employability. Significant new insight into the key characteristics that employers consider when recruiting HE graduates and the skills that graduates should possess in order to be employable was recently obtained from a major European Union (EU) commissioned research project (Humburt et al. 2013). In a survey of more than 900 employers in nine different countries, the project took an innovative approach by simulating the job selection process using hypothetical applicants and quantifying the outcomes for interview selection and potential employment against the applicants’ skills and experience. Additional qualitative data was gathered during interviews with additional employers and from focus groups with a variety of stakeholders. The main findings are extracted below.
• Subject specific knowledge and expert thinking (professional expertise) were the most important skills that affected graduate employability.
• Interpersonal skills (communication, teamwork etc.) ranked almost as highly as professional expertise. All graduates must have at least average levels (relative to their group) of both professional expertise and interpersonal skills to be employable.
• Relevant work experience is important for getting a job interview and can compensate for lower grades or a less relevant field of study.
• In contrast, innovative/creative skills and commercial/entrepreneurial skills were not seen as essential as it was sufficient to have a few (but not all) individuals in a team or organisation with strengths in these areas.
• Recent HE graduates were not expected to demonstrate strategic/organisational skills, but these were seen as important for long term career opportunities.
Annual Conference 2015 312
• Employers expected graduates to have sufficient academic skills, and there was no indication that these skills were lacking in graduates.
• Underperformance of graduates in employment created significant cost to employers. Graduates in the top 25% of their group are 10-15% more productive compared to the average graduate. Those in the bottom 25% are, on average, are 20-30% less productive than the average graduate. Therefore employers used information on the study programme, reputation of the university and grades as indicators that the candidate possessed at least average skill levels. Having a low skill level in any domain severely reduced a graduate’s employability. (Humburt et al., 2013)
Lifelong learning and employability Though the lifelong learning agenda goes beyond employability, it has become deeply entangled within the employability agenda. Jobs are no longer seen as lifelong and, with the increasing working lifespan of individuals and rapid changes in technology and working practices, individuals must be flexible, adaptable and pursue further learning to remain ‘employable’. This requires strong independent learning skills and the motivation to learn. The EU definition of lifelong learning ‘competencies’ also embraces a range of essential skills (e.g. mathematics, digital) as well as personal attributes like initiative (see Table 2). BMS: curriculum design and purpose The political view of universities is now defined by a role in research, innovation and education to support success in a global economy (Humburt et al., 2013). These are the key drivers of a knowledge based society and for the development of new technologies and services to underpin the economy. The position of a university in this knowledge triangle becomes an important determinant of curricular design and purpose. This means that, for an internationally recognised research intensive School of Biomedical Sciences, the curriculum is driven by the traditional research mission of commitment to creating new knowledge, producing world class scholars and creating research capability (Boyer Commission, 1998), with the added pressure to translate this knowledge and capability into products and services for the benefit of society and the economy. In accepting large numbers of students into a research driven programme recognition must be given to the fact that only a small proportion of students will progress along a research pathway, and future academic job opportunities are limited. Furthermore, the number of BMS graduates will considerably exceed the number of specialist jobs where BMS discipline knowledge is critical to success. The challenge becomes how to enable students for wider employment through a discipline focused curriculum. The research mission appears to sit in conflict with the wider education of students, partly because of the large time commitment to developing the discipline knowledge base and the practical demands of lab based research, but there is also a fundamental belief that the needs of a research career are fundamentally different to work in business or industry. Yet universities have moved towards more corporate structures and business practices (Nelson, 2003) and the fierce competition for funding means the same ‘employability’ skills, communication, project management, and teamwork, for example, and international collaboration, are essential for research success. These needs mirror the world of work and indicate that the employability and lifelong learning agendas should no longer be seen as
Annual Conference 2015 313
distinct from the research and discipline based agendas. What is different is the context in which these skills are learnt and applied. There is a misconception in HE around the idea of ‘transferable skills’. Skills are not discrete entities that are portable items of learning. Applying a skill in a different setting requires additional learning and a deep understanding of the principles and cognition that sit behind the skill (Eraut, 2009) and active learning is essential to translation. This may explain the success of workplace learning and internships in preparing students for employment. They offer more than learning about the workplace, but an opportunity to practice translating discipline skills to a new context. Perhaps the concept/label of transferable skills should be abandoned altogether and replaced with the idea of ‘learning to translate skills’ into different contexts. Though at first glance a minor play on words, it reflects a major change in the mindset around how we support skill development in a discipline setting and address the additional learning to enable students to succeed in the workplace and wider community. Educational strategies aimed at developing this dimension are likely to improve articulation of the skill in the discipline context in a way that invites a consideration of how to translate the skill into another context. A pathway to a holistic skills framework in BMS The importance of research and innovation to the economy provides strong justification for highly ranked research universities to prioritise curriculum development around the needs of the discipline. Indeed, the EU research reinforces the wider importance of discipline knowledge and skills for employers in general (Humburt et al., 2013). A strong discipline focus provides in-depth study to a level that allows students to experience the transitions from being a novice to an expert. The intervening transition stages enable learning that supports autonomy, increased understanding of implicit rules and acquisition of tacit knowledge, as well as higher order thinking skills built around a strong command of core knowledge and concepts of the field. The next challenge is how to maintain a structured but flexible degree that can deliver on both the needs of the discipline and the wider employability and lifelong learning agendas. Consistent with their age and lack of real world experience, many school leavers enter undergraduate study uncertain about their academic strengths and direction. Degree structures attempt to provide flexibility and breadth by concentrating the discipline aspects, leaving students free to explore and expand their knowledge. The realization that generic skills essential for success in the workplace are equally important for careers in research and academia provides motivation for ensuring these are developed in a BMS curriculum without sacrificing the discipline base. In this sense, the skills framework is holistic as we no longer see an artificial distinction between skills needed in the workplace and in the discipline setting. The Core Skills framework (DIISRTE, 2013; Table 1) provides a clear articulation of what these skills are in the workplace context. An immediate priority is to map the inherent skills/aptitudes/behaviours identified in this framework against those supported within the core BMS curriculum to identify important gaps. Gaps are likely to occur in areas that are not a traditional part of the curriculum (e.g. reflective practice) or where skill development is not formally (or adequately) supported through teaching and assessment.
Annual Conference 2015 314
The most significant issue between skills developed in a discipline setting versus those for success in the workplace is not the skills themselves, but the context and the way the skills are applied in the different settings. The most likely explanation for the discordance between our belief as educators (that we are already broadly developing employability skills within the discipline setting) and employers’ views that graduates are not ‘employable’ is the failure to recognise and support the additional learning that allows a skill to be transferred and applied in different settings. A strategic approach to BMS skills development therefore needs to consider how learning in a discipline setting can be enriched to enable students to transfer application of that skill to another setting. Evidence suggests that authentic assessments that reflect real world scenarios (case studies, professional settings) but retain the core discipline elements (knowledge, critical thinking, communication) may be effective (Pegg et al., 2012). These need to be combined with industry engagement in curriculum design and in teaching. Ultimately, to fully prepare students for the workplace will also require engaging them in a range of co-curricular and extra-curricular activities that offer informal learning experiences consistent with professional and workplace settings. Acknowledgements: This work was funded by a Faculty of Medicine, Nursing & Health Sciences, Monash University project grant. References ADECCO (2012). Educating for Employment—Unlocking Britain’s Potential Report. Retrieved 13 February
2015, from https://www.adecco.com.tw/edm/201205/whitepaper/html/files/assets/seo/page1.html. Barrie, S.C. (2012). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education
Research and Development Journal, 31(1), 79-92. Barrie S., Andrews, J., Dean, L. & Heimanis, I. (2010). Employability: realising the potential of a university
education. In S. Brown & S. Denton (Eds.), A Practical Guide to University and College Management: Beyond the Bureaucracy (pp. 283-302). London: Routledge.
Biesta, G. (2011). How Useful Should the University Be? On the rise of the global university and the crisis in higher education. Qui parle, 20(1), 35-47.
Bolton, P. (2012). Education: Historical statistics. House of Commons Standard Notes SN/SG/4252. Retrieved 13 February 2015, from www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04252.pdf.
Bowman, K. (2010). Background paper for the AQF Council on generic skills. South Australian Department of Further Education Employment Science and Technology. Retrieved 13 February 2015, from www.aqf.edu.au/wp.../06/Generic-skills-background-paper-FINAL.pdf.
Boyer Commission (1998). Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America’s Research Universities. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brown, A. (2009). Higher skills development at work: A Commentary by the Teaching and Learning Research Programme. London: Teaching and Learning Research Programme.
Candy, P., Crebert, G. & O’Leary, J. (1994). Developing Lifelong Learners Through Undergraduate Education. Commissioned Report No. 28, National Board of Employment Education and Training. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
CEC (2001). Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality. Communication from the Commission COM(2001) 678 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities. Retrieved 13 February 2015, from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/.
Dearing, R. (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society. Retrieved 13 February 2015, from http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/.
DEST (2006). Employability skills—from framework to practice: an introductory guide for trainers and assessors. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and Training.
DIISRTE (2013). Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education (2013) Core skills for work developmental framework: the framework. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Eraut, M. (2009). Chapter A2: How Professionals Learn through Work. In Jackson, N (Ed.), Learning to be Professional through a Higher Education (e-Book). Guildford, UK: Surrey Centre for Excellence in
Annual Conference 2015 315
Professional Training and Education. Retrieved 13 February 2015, from http://learningtobeprofessional.pbworks.com.
European Commission (2007). Key Competences for Lifelong Learning, European Reference Framework Luxembourg Grove, J. (2013). Southampton shows teeth and watchdog backs down. Times Higher Education, 16 May 2013.
Retrieved 13 February 2015, from http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/southampton-shows-teeth-and-watchdog-backs-down/2003862.article.
HESA (2015). Higher Education Student Enrolments and Qualifications. Cheltenham, UK: Higher Education Statistics Agency. Retrieved 13 February 2015, from https://www.hesa.ac.uk/sfr210.
Humburt, M., van der Velden, R., & Verhagen, A. (2013). European commission Final Report: The employability of higher education graduates: The employer’s perspective. Luxembourg: European Union.
Lester, S. (2005). Novice to Expert: the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition. Taunton, UK: Stan Lester Developments. Retrieved 13 February 2015, from http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/dreyfus.pdf
Lowden, K., Hall, S., Elliot, D. & Lewin, J. (2011). Employers’ perceptions of the employability skills of new graduates. London: Edge Foundation.
Mayer Committee (1992). Putting general education to work: The key competencies report. Canberra, ACT: Australian Education Council and Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training.
Nelson, B. (2003). Our Universities: backing Australia’s future. Canberra, ACT: Department of Education, Science and training.
Nerland, M. (2012). Professions as Knowledge Cultures. In Livingstone, D.W & Guile, D. (Eds.), The Knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning: A Critical Reader. London: University of London.
O’Connor, M., Patterson, V., Chantler, A. & Backert, J. (2013). Towards a Performance Evaluation framework: Profiling Irish Higher Education. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
OECD (2005). The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data: Oslo Manual. 3rd ed. Paris: OECD.
Office of National Statistics UK (2013). Graduates in the Labour Market 2013. Retrieved 13 February 2015, from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_337841.pdf.
Pegg, A., Waldock, J., Hendy-Isaac, S. & Lawton, R. (2012). Pedagogy for Employability, Heslington, York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
UNESCO (2009) Trends in global higher education: tracking an academic revolution: a report prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved 13 February 2015, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183219e.pdf.
Willison, J. & O’Regan, K. (2007). Commonly known, commonly not known, totally unknown: a framework for students becoming researchers. Higher Education Research and Development Journal 26(4), 393-409.
Yorke, M. & Knight, P. T. (2006). Learning & Employability, Embedding employability into the curriculum. Heslington, York, UK: Higher Education Academy.
Copyright © 2015 Maynne, LV, Choate, JK, Zahora, T. The authors assign to HERDSA and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive license to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive license to HERDSA to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime site and mirrors) and within the portable electronic format HERDSA 2015 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.
Table 1 : ADAPTED FROM: CORE SKILLS FOR WORK FRAMEWORK (2013) Novice Advanced
Beginner Capable Proficient Expert
Skill Cluster Skill Area Focus Area - (Outcomes based) CATEGORIES OF RELEVANT SKILLS/ATTITUDES/BEHAVIOURS
1 Navigate the world of work
1a. Manage career and work life Identify work options; Gain work; Develop relevant skills and knowledge
Life long learning – Career management Self awareness, reflective capability, self directed learning
1b. Work with roles, rights and protocols
Work with roles and responsibilities; Operate within legal rights and responsibilities; Recognise and respond to protocols
Professional behavior, professional practice
2 Interact with others
2a. Communicate for work Respond to communication systems, practices and protocols; Speak and listen; Understand, interpret and act; Get the message across
Communication (in a work context),
2b. Connect and work with others
Understand self; Build rapport; Cooperate and collaborate Metacognition – self awareness, reflective capability Interpersonal skills, teamwork
2c. Recognise and utilise diverse perspectives
Recognise different perspectives; Respond to and utilise diverse perspectives; Manage conflict
Interpersonal skills Cultural sensitivity
3 Get the work done
3a. Plan and organise Plan and organise workload and commitments; Plan and implement tasks
Time and project management, manage workloads
3b. Make decisions Establish decision making scope; Apply decision-making processes; Review impact
Self awareness, reflection, critical thinking
3c. Identify and solve problems Identify problems; Apply problem-solving processes; review outcomes
Problem solving
3d. Create and innovate Recognise opportunities to develop and apply new ideas; Generate ideas; Select ideas for implementation
Creativity, innovation and risk taking
3e. Work in a digital world Use digitally based technologies and systems; Connect with others; Access, organise and present information; Manage risk
Information literacy, Digital Scholarship, Media literacy, ICT literacy, Career and Identity Management, Learning skills in technology rich environment, Communicate in digital networks
Influencing Factors
§ Existing skills and knowledge § Familiarity with context § Complexity of task
§ Nature and degree of support § Level of autonomy § External factors
§ Degree of motivation § Self-belief and resilience § Cultural and value-based factors
Table 2: Definition of Lifelong Learning
Key competencies for Lifelong Learning (European Commission, 2007)
Profile of a Life long Learner (Candy et al., 1994)
Communication (in mother tongue and in foreign language)
An inquiring mind: love of learning, curiosity, critical spirit, comprehension monitoring and self evaluation.
Mathematical competence and basic competences in science & technology (to solve problems and explain the natural world)
Helicopter vision (breadth of vision)
Digital competence : confident and critical use of ICT
Information literacy
Learning to learn: ability to pursue and organize one’s own learning.
A sense of personal agency
Social and civic competences (personal, interpersonal and intercultural competence)
Repertoire of learning skills
Sense of Initiative and entrepreneurship (Creativity, risk taking, achieve objectives)
