Research and Development in Higher Education ... - HERDSA

Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc

Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education Volume 33 Refereed papers from the 33 HERDSA Annual International Conference rd

6–9 July 2010 Melbourne, Australia

Bosanquet, A., Winchester-Seeto, T. & Rowe, A. (2010). Changing perceptions underpinning graduate attributes: A pilot study. In M. Devlin, J. Nagy and A. Lichtenberg (Eds.) Research and Development in Higher Education: Reshaping Higher Education, 33 (pp. 105–117). Melbourne, 6–9 July, 2010.

Published 2010 by the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc PO Box 27, MILPERRA NSW 2214, Australia www.herdsa.org.au ISSN 0 155 6223 ISBN 0 908557 80 9 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 © 2010 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.

Research and Development in Higher Education Volume 33

Changing perceptions underpinning graduate attributes: A pilot study

Agnes Bosanquet Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia [email protected] Theresa Winchester-Seeto Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia [email protected] Anna Rowe Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia [email protected]

The research discussed in this paper presents the preliminary findings of a comparative analysis of graduate attributes statements across Australian universities. Specifically, it addresses the change over fifteen years through a thematic and word frequency analysis of institutional definitions of and justifications for graduate attributes. An analysis of the scholarship around graduate attributes demonstrates four broad conceptions of their purpose: employability; lifelong learning; preparing for an uncertain future; and acting for the social good. Our findings reveal the emergence of a further three conceptions in the last five years: adapting to change, promoting change and community leadership. This is aligned with a shift in emphasis towards community and participation. This research demonstrates a number of assumptions embedded in attribute statements concerning the primacy of the individual, the future of work and life, and the privileging of particular moral and ideological perspectives or values. Keywords: graduate attributes, graduate capabilities, student outcomes

Introduction and background Over the last fifteen years, statements of graduate attributes have gained prominence in universities nationally and internationally (Barrie, 2006; Bowden, Hart, King, Trigwell, & Watts, 2002; Clancy & Ballard, 1995; Jones, 2009; Kemp & Seagraves, 1995). Frameworks for attributes typically refer to graduates in relation to employability, with a focus on the skills, characteristics and knowledge required to excel in a changing world of work, and also demonstrate a university’s commitment to a range of different concepts such as ethics, social justice, equity, accessibility, environmental sustainability and internationalisation. Rationales for attributes frequently emphasise a future that may include any or all of the following: rapid technological advancement, globalisation, interconnected economies and communities, climate change, resource constraints, political instability, social surveillance, and the need for graduates to possess creativity and flexibility to manage these complexities. Implicit in institutional and government justifications for embedding graduate attributes in the curriculum are values, beliefs and assumptions about higher education. These are evident in institutional plans and policy documents; national research projects (in Australia, the ALTC

Annual Conference 2010

105

National Graduate Attributes Project [GAP]; in Scotland, the Quality Enhancement Theme Graduates for the 21st Century); public discourse on the roles and responsibilities of higher education (see, for example, Macquarie University’s Vice-Chancellor’s debate on the “remoralising” of higher education: Schwartz, 2009); and reports from audit bodies (e.g. AUQA), stakeholders including the Business/Higher Education Round Table (B-HERT), and government (such as the Australian Government’s 2009 policy document Transforming Higher Education). As Barrie and Prosser put it: Graduate attributes seek to describe the core outcomes of a higher education. In doing so, they specify an aspect of the institution’s contribution to society and carry with them implicit and sometimes explicit assumptions as to the purpose and nature of higher education (2004, p. 244). Pitman and Broomhall (2009) argue that the use of the term “graduate attributes”, with an emphasis on abstract concepts rather than readily measurable skills, represents a demonstration of the value of higher education in a context of economic constraints, increasing external surveillance of universities and greater competitiveness within the sector. An analysis of the scholarship around graduate attributes demonstrates four broad conceptions of their purpose: employability; lifelong learning; preparing for an uncertain future; and acting for the social good. The first conception relates to an employability agenda that is evident in the frequently cited definition of graduate attributes as “the qualities, skills and understandings a university community agrees its students would desirably develop during their time at the institution that consequently shape the contribution they are able to make to their profession and as a citizen” (Bowden et al., 2002). Bridgstock builds on this definition, identifying employability as “the main impetus” for defining graduate attributes (2009, p. 32). She argues that graduates are increasingly required to self-manage career building within complex environments. Within this framework, graduates are described in relation to employability (making a contribution to a profession) and in terms of an obligation to a state or nation (making a contribution as a citizen). The second conception relates to articulating graduate attributes by emphasising lifelong learning and moves the focus from employability to a more holistic conception of the individual. Pitman and Broomhall (2009) argue that lifelong learning underpins the concept of graduate attributes, and strategically positions universities as the primary locus for the development of skills and knowledge. The third conception imagines a student entering an unknown and uncertain future. In this context, higher education develops the qualities and characteristics that enable students to manage ambiguity and complexity with flexible and creative problem solving. Graduate attributes are commonly described in transformational terms, holding the potential to transform the student, curriculum and the future (Bowden & Marton, 1998). Stephenson justifies graduate attributes with the statement that “a changing world needs people who can look ahead and act accordingly” (1998, p. 3). He refers to graduate attributes as teaching students to manage ambiguous problems in an unfamiliar context and so confront a changing world. Barnett refers to the unknown future as one of “supercomplexity” in which graduates


106


are witnessing a “new world order” that challenges their understandings of themselves and their place in the world (2004, p. 248). The fourth conception sees a commitment to social justice as the primary purpose of higher education and is closely related to the projection of an unknown future. Bowden et al. (2002) argue that graduate attributes prepare students to be “agents of social good” as does Barrie who frequently cites the social good agenda (see; Barrie, 2005; Barrie, 2006; Barrie & Prosser, 2004). Within this context, graduate attributes invoke a requirement for action within the broader community. The above conceptions of graduate attributes are frequently replicated uncritically in institutional and governmental policy and planning documents. This highlights the need for a scholarly evaluation of such documents. The research discussed in this paper presents the preliminary findings of a comparative analysis of graduate attribute and capability frameworks across Australian universities. Specifically, it addresses the change over a time period of fifteen years in institutional definitions of and justifications for graduate attributes. Our findings demonstrate changing agendas in the implementation of graduate attributes, which in turn reveal assumptions about the purpose of higher education. Methods This pilot investigation uses two lines of evidence. The first is a thematic analysis of publicly available graduate attribute statements, and the second involves a word frequency analysis of the same statements. The statements were sorted into three time slices according to the year they were formally adopted by their institution: 1996–2000, 2001–2005 and 2006–2009. A search of the websites of approximately one third of the 38 Australian universities yielded 13 current statements of graduate attributes, and a further three earlier versions. This gave a total of 16 sets of statements of graduate attributes for undergraduates. The universities were chosen largely at random, but included at least one from every state and territory and two or three from the more populous eastern states. For the purpose of this investigation a liberal interpretation was adopted and we included any statements of graduate attributes, graduate capabilities or graduate qualities; in this paper we will use the term attributes to refer to all similar statements although we acknowledge that there are subtle and not so subtle differences in the terms used, as pointed out by Barrie and Prosser (2004). In particular we targeted those statements that are easily accessed via university websites. An interesting facet of this research is that while some institutions feature their attributes prominently on websites and make the information readily accessible to students and the general public, others do not and it takes a great deal of searching to locate them. All pieces of information surrounding these statements were considered, including any extended explanations, as well as lists of “skills” or “values” that occur on the same pages as the attributes themselves. For the thematic analysis, each of the sets of graduate attribute statements was sorted under categories that emerged from the data, using a constant comparative approach (Thorne, 2000). This was an iterative process that grouped similar ideas, and looked for similarities as well as any major differences. Each time-slice was then considered separately to determine any timebased pattern.


107

In order to provide additional evidence, the language of attribute statements for each time slice was analysed via NVIVO word frequency query, to determine the 100 most frequently used words. These were displayed as tag clouds and a further comparison of words that were common in tag clouds for all three time slices was determined, as well as any that were restricted to a particular time-slice (names of universities and acronyms were removed before the word frequency analysis). This process was also undertaken for any “justification” statements that could be found, i.e. rationales given by institutions for their approach to graduate attributes. As only one rationale could be found for the time-slice 1996–2000, this period was not included in the analysis of justification statements. Findings Results of the thematic analysis are documented in Table 1. As the numbers of attribute statements is fairly small, especially for the earliest time-slice 1996–2000, care should be taken in interpreting this data, and it should only be used to indicate trends. Tag clouds of the attribute statements for each time-slice are presented in Figures 1 to 3, with a list of selected words that occur only within one time-slice in Table 2. The selection reflects words that we believe to show interesting aspects of the data, and that reveal some of the underlying assumptions, beliefs about the purpose of higher education, and future projections of those entrusted with developing the attribute statements. Table 1: Thematic analysis of graduate attribute statements from 13 Australian universities

1996–2000 (3 sets)

%

2001–2005 (7 sets)

%

2006–2009 (7 sets)

%

Discipline specific

2

67

4

67

6

86

Scholarship

0

0

1

17

0

0

International (or global) perspective for study

3

100

5

83

5

71

Graduate attribute categories

Interdisciplinarity

1

33

2

33

4

57

Professional practices

3

100

3

50

1

14

Application of discipline in workplace

0

0

2

33

4

57

(Effective) Communication

3

100

6

100

7

100

Information literacy/use of IT

3

100

6

100

6

86

Independence

2

67

5

83

3

43

Creativity, innovation

3

100

5

83

7

100

Research

0

0

3

50

5

71

Critical judgement

3

100

4

67

6

86

Problem-solving

2

67

4

67

5

71

Interpersonal skills

2

67

4

67

4

57

Teamwork

3

100

4

67

6

86

Planning/management skills

0

0

1

17

2

29

Ethics

2

67

6

100

5

71

Social and civic responsibility

2

67

6

100

5

71

Social justice

2

67

3

50

1

14

Global citizenship

0

0

1

17

3

43


108


1996–2000 (3 sets)

%

2001–2005 (7 sets)

%

2006–2009 (7 sets)

%

Sustainability

0

0

1

17

4

57

Adapting to change

0

0

0

0

3

43

Promote change

0

0

1

17

3

43

Life-long learning

1

33

5

83

5

71

Leadership

0

0

0

0

2

29

Cultural competence

0

0

1

17

4

57

Knowledge of other cultures

1

33

3

50

1

14

Cultural diversity

0

0

3

50

4

57

Indigenous

1

33

0

0

4

57

Knowledge of other historical times

1

33

2

33

1

14

1

17

4

57

Graduate attribute categories

Other

Thematic analysis The predominance of skills and knowledge throughout the three time slices is the most obvious feature. Though the language varies slightly, several skills stand out as being present throughout the 15 years covered by this study, these include: communication, information literacy and ICT skills, creativity and innovation, critical judgment (e.g. critical thinking, analysis, decision making), problem-solving, teamwork and interpersonal skills. These align with the lists of “competencies” that are often referred to as “generic skills” (Pitman & Broomhall, 2009). Proficiency in these areas, especially communication, features in many studies of the skills most highly valued by businesses and other stakeholders, both nationally and internationally (Billing, 2003; Pitman & Broomhall, 2009). There is variation in the popularity of some skills across the time slices. Independence (or autonomy) decreased in graduate attribute statements that were developed in the last five years, at least in the statements considered for this study. Planning and management skills show a small, but progressive increase over the three time slices. Mention of “research” displays an upswing over the last two time slices, with no mention in the late nineties statements. Interestingly, our data shows that the term “research” seems to be diminishing in the rhetoric of the institutional rationales and is now incorporated as a graduate attribute or as part of the explanatory statements that occur under the headline attributes. Attributes that cover “discipline specific knowledge” (or scholarship), ethics, and “social and civic responsibility” occur in most attribute statements across the three time slices, as does “international perspectives” (or “global perspectives” or similar). This parallels findings by Pitman and Broomhall (2009) in their study of various attribute statements from Australian universities. Concepts of “professional practice” have shown a major and progressive decrease over time, whilst “application of discipline to the workplace” has increased. This suggests a change in terminology, and probably has little other import. Ideas around “interdisciplinarity” have increased slightly in attribute statements into the latest time slice. An interesting parallel change has taken place with “social justice” exhibiting a progressive decrease in frequency over the three time slices, whilst “global citizen” (or citizenship) has shown a progressive


109

increase. Similarly “knowledge of other cultures” shows a sudden decrease in the last time slice, but “cultural competence” shows a progressive increase from 2001–2005 to 2006–2009. Several attribute categories did not appear at all in the statements we examined from 1996– 2000; these include sustainability, research, cultural diversity, cultural competence and planning and management skills. Each of these, however, shows a substantial upward trend from 2001–2005 into 2006–2009. Three attributes first emerge in the latest time slice, or show a significant increase. These are: “adapting to change”, “promoting change” and “community leadership” (as opposed to leading a team). “Adapting to change” includes ideas around flexibility and adaptability, whilst “promoting change” involves making “a positive difference for the common good”, “initiating and implementing constructive change”, or creating “a better and wiser society”. This notion of being an agent of change for the betterment the society fits well with third emerging attribute of community leadership. Attributes 96-00

ability

actio ns

an

area

aural aware

ana lysis apply

appreciate

appropriate

appropriately

aware ness between capable capa city change citizen collaboratively

comm itm ent com munica tion com munities co mmu nity con flict consider considered context contexts creative critical cultural culture current decisions define

demonstrate diversity

depth

develop men t

discipline

displa y

ec onom ic e ffectively e thical ethics e valuate field glo bal groups have ideas in cluding indigenous inform ation innovation international

identify ie im pact im portance

knowledge

learning life limita tions local logical m aintain m em bers m utual needs negotiate negotiation oral other others own personal perspectives prac tice problem problem s issues judgem ent justice

professional re le vant

respect responsibility

team

te amw ork und ersta nd

skills

range recognise

social

understanding

use

solving

w ithin wo rk w riting

Figure 1: Graduate attributes word cloud 1996–2000


110


Attributes 01-06

ability able an

analyse apply appreciation appropriate

act

awareness both can capacity civic clearly communicate

create creative creativity economic effective

critical critically cultural cultures decisions

group has

how

learning lifelong literacy make might new other

research respect responsibility self

value

implement

informed initiative integrity international issues

knowledge

standards

fields following

ideas identify

others own personal perspective present problem problems range

contexts

define demonstrate depth discipline diversity

graduates have information

independent independently

judgement

community confidence

effectively ethical ethics evaluate expected field

global graduate including

communication

aware

study technology thinking

professional

skills social

through

solving

understanding understood university use

work workplace written Figure 2: Graduate attributes word cloud 2001–2005

A ttrib u te s 0 6 -1 0

a b le

a b ility

a n a p p ly a p p r o p r i a t e a w a r e c a p a b l e c a p a c i t y c h a lle n g e s

a c r o s s a c tiv e

a w a r e n e s s b ro a d c a n c o m m u n ic a te c o m

c i t iz e n s

m u n ic a t i o n c o m m u n itie s c o m m u n ity c o n tr i b u t e c o n t r i b u t i n g c r e a t i v e c r i t i c a l c r o s s c u l t u r a l c u lt u ra lly c u l t u r e s d e m o n s tr a te d e v e lo p m e n t d iffe r e n t d i s c i p l i n a r y d i s c i p l i n e d i s c i p l in e s d iv e r s e

d iv e r s ity

e f f e c t i v e ly

e f f e c t iv e

e n v ir o n m e n t s e q u i t y e t h i c a l e v a l u a t e f o r m s f r o m g e n e r a t e

g ra d u a te s in f o r m a tio n ju d g e m e n t ju s tic e

in i t i a t i v e

in n o v a t iv e

g lo b a l

id e a s

in c lu d in g

in d ig e n o u s

i n t e r i n t e r n a t io n a l i n t e r p e r s o n a l

k n o w le d g e

le a r n in g p a r ti c i p a t e

have

ha s

e n g a g e d e n v iro n m e n t

p e rs o n a l

l e v e l l i m i t a t i o n s l i te r a c y l o c a l o p e n o t h e r p e r s p e c tiv e s

p ro b le m

our

o th e rs

p r o b le m s

p ro fe s s io n a l

r a n g e re le v a n t r e s e a r c h r e s p e c t re s p o n s ib ility r e s p o n s ib le s e n s e s h o u ld s itu a tio n s t h i n k in g w o rld

s k ills

u n d e r s t a n d in g

s o c ia l u s e v a lu e s

s o l v in g s u s t a i n a b i l i t y

w ant w e

th e m

w o rk

w o rk p la c e

Figure 3: Graduate attributes word cloud 2006–2009


111

Table 2: Words that occur in one time slice only 1996–2000

2001–2005

2006–2010

area

act

broad

aural

both

challenges

change

civic

contribute/ing

collaboratively

confidence

cross

commitment

expected

different

conflict

following

engaged

current

implement

environment/s

display

independent/ly

equity

impact

informed

generate

logical

integrity

interpersonal

mutual

lifelong

level

needs

new

open

negotiate/ion

present

our

oral

self

participate

practice

standards

sense

recognise

study

should

team/work

technology

situations

university

sustainability

use

went we world

Word frequency analysis Word frequency analysis can provide clues of the prominence of certain ideas. The 100 most frequently used words can be used as a proxy measure of the significance of concepts, and comparison of different time slices will be able to provide insight into the changes in prevailing ideas over the entire period. Examination of tag clouds made from word frequency analysis generally tends to support the results of the thematic analysis. From the 100 most frequently used words, several are common across the entire time frame: communication (or communicate), creative (creativity) critical, evaluate, information, problem solving, skills, judgement, discipline, learning, ethics (ethically), culture (cultural), social, and personal. The late nineties time slice shows an emphasis on skills, and incorporates words such as “oral”, “aural” and “logical”; these do not appear in the 100 most frequent words in the later time slices, indicating a shift in emphasis. Similarly words associated with teamwork feature prominently, e.g.: collaboratively, conflict, mutual, negotiate (negotiation), team and teamwork.


112


The time slice covering the period 2001–2005 features skills-based language in the most frequent words, but to a lesser extent than previously. Specific to this period are three foci:  the individual, with words such as independent (independently), self, confidence, and, perhaps integrity;  lifelong learning, with words such as lifelong, informed and study; and  action, with words such as act, implement and use. Other interesting words that occur frequently only in this period are civic, standards and technology. One interesting change is the decrease in use of the word “economic” from the 1996–2000 time slice into the 2001–2005 time slice and its subsequent disappearance from the last time slice. In the last five years there has also been a perceptible shift in language. While still maintaining a spotlight on skills, discipline and knowledge, the words specific to this time slice indicate three new foci:  environment and sustainability;  community, with words such as engaged, equity, participate, our, we, world (the word “community” also has a higher frequency in this time slice than in the other periods); and  imperative and obligation, with words such as should, participate, contribute. Word frequency analysis of the rationales provided by universities for their choice of attributes also reveals changes across the time slices. For the two time slices used in this study we found that the words “global” and “research” moved from the top 100 most frequent words in the justification statements and into the attribute lists themselves. The word “society” appears in the 2001–2005 list, but only as “social” in the 2006–2009 list. The word “community” increases slightly in the latter frequency list. In the 2006–2009 time slice the terms “dispositions” and “values” appear, which may correspond to the change to a more community focus we noted previously. “Environment” appears, but is relatively less significant, whilst “engaged” or “engagement” starts to make a small impact, perhaps matching the notions of participation and community focus detected in the attribute statements. Interestingly the word “distinctive” features as frequently as the word “employability” and “contribute”, which may provide a clue about why universities are pursing the development of attribute statements. Discussion Consistent with the scholarly literature, the following frameworks for graduate attributes are evident in varying degrees across the three time periods: employability, lifelong learning, uncertain future, and social good (Barnett, 2004; Barrie, 2006; Bowden et al., 2002; Bridgstock, 2009). There are a number of assumptions embedded in these statements concerning the primacy of the individual, the future of work and life, and the privileging of particular moral and ideological perspectives or values. Within the first time slice, there is an emphasis in the attribute lists on the employability of the graduate and the development of measurable skills. The following example, adapted from a statement in the first time period (1996–2000) includes the common attributes of ethics and international perspectives with a focus on applied learning and professional practice:


113

A graduate of this university will apply content knowledge to solve workplace problems, communicate effectively and pursue excellence in professional practice, commit to social responsibility as a professional within business and industry, and demonstrate international perspectives as a professional. Restricted to this context, graduate attributes may be perceived as limited to a vocational perspective. Jones and Moore (1993) note the conflict between a vocational model of higher education and the liberal arts tradition of universities. Barnett, Parry and Coate (2001) characterise arts and humanities curricula as being weighted towards the domains of knowledge and self (subjectivity) with a smaller action or skills domain. Consequently, attempts to embed graduate attributes may be met with resistance and their impact on student learning limited. Second, life-long learning and the individual emerges as a strong feature of the second set of data (2001–2005), as demonstrated in this example: Graduates are expected to be independent self-directed learners with the capacity and motivation for lifelong learning; be aware of how they best learn; possess self-knowledge and the ability to think critically and accurately; and have an understanding of how to apply their knowledge and abilities to many different contexts and fields. Stephenson notes that students are expected to show “the drive, willingness and capacity to manage [their own] learning” (1998, p. 11). The concentration on the individual that is evident here, rather than a team-based or collaborative approaches to learning, can prove limiting for less able students (Michaelsen, Knight & Fink, 2004). An emphasis on preparing for an uncertain future is frequently evident in justifications for graduate attributes, as this example from the most recent time-slice demonstrates: Our students will enter a globalising world of major environmental change and resource constraints, of scientific and technological advance and ethical challenge, of continuing political stability and possible international conflicts, of unlimited creativity and increasing social surveillance. Writing in the context of the “digital natives” debate, Bennett, Maton and Kervin (2008) are critical of such sensationalist language, with its implied threats and proclamations for profound and urgent change. They note that this discourse pervades much of the literature on student learning in the 21st century. Finally, a commitment to social good is evident in the following statement from 2008: Our graduates embody a distinctive approach and commitment to social justice. When our students graduate, they will be equipped to live, learn, work and contribute globally. They will have been inspired by our internationally-focussed, research-led teaching and wish to use their talents to improve the world. Of particular concern in relation to the social good argument for graduate attributes is the lack of research-led and evidence-based interrogation of this category; there is a clear need for further research to address the assumptions and values demonstrated here (Barrie, 2005).


114


Our findings indicate that in the last time period three further categories have emerged: adapting to and promoting change, and community leadership. The following list of graduate attributes from an institution in the final time slice demonstrates these categories: Our graduates are leaders in communities, able to initiate and implement constructive change in their communities, including professions and workplaces. They mentor future generations of learners, and engage in meaningful public discourse, with a profound awareness of community needs. This focus seems to be aligned with a shift in emphasis towards community and participation. This is particularly evident in the institutional statements of graduate attributes, as well as the top one hundred words used in attributes lists and rationale discussions. Over the three time periods two significant trends emerge. First, there is a shift over time in the language describing graduate attributes from a focus on teamwork in the first five years, to a concentration on the individual in the middle period, and then towards a notion of community in recent years. Second, the emphasis moves from gaining skills for employability in the initial time-slice, to action-based approaches between 2000 and 2005, and finally towards a focus on participation, with a sense of imperative or obligation. UNESCO predicted and influenced these trends in the World Declaration on Higher Education for the 21st Century, which emphasises the role of higher learning and research in the “cultural, socio-economic and environmentally sustainable development of individuals, communities and nations … so that our society … can transcend mere economic considerations and incorporate deeper dimensions of morality and spirituality” (1998). The Australian government’s response to the Bradley Review (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent & Scales, 2008), entitled Transforming Australia’s Higher Education, is similarly explicit in its vision of the purpose of higher education: Self-fulfilment, personal development and the pursuit of knowledge as an end in itself; the provision of skills of critical analysis and independent thought to support full participation in a civil society; the preparation of leaders for diverse, global environments; and support for a highly productive and professional labour force should be key features of Australian higher education (2009, p. 4). Without closer critical attention, graduate attributes risk being rhetorical with limited impact on learning and teaching or on the student experience. The gap between teaching and learning practices and statements of graduate attributes has been noted in literature (Barrie, 2006; Winchester-Seeto & Bosanquet, 2009). Academic cynicism and resistance towards graduate attributes has also been well documented. Radloff, de la Harpe, Dalton, Thomas and Lawson (2008) describe academic beliefs about graduate attributes, and their impact on assessment in particular, as the “elephant in the room”: The beliefs that academic staff hold regarding graduate attributes has a major impact on their engagement in any institutional attempts to embed graduate attributes in the curriculum – especially when changes are initiated from the “top down” (2008, p. 3). One promising demonstration of changes in curriculum and teaching practice, and consistent with the inclusion of research in the lists of graduate attributes in the third time slice, is the


115

recent emphasis on the research/teaching nexus and the development of research skills in undergraduate students (Brew, 2009). Conclusion Examining the change over time in graduate attribute statements across Australian universities raises some critical issues concerning the values, philosophies and ideological perspectives underpinning curriculum; the future of work and life; the policy and planning processes of the institution as a whole; and the impact of change in the higher education sector. The pilot study discussed in this paper undertook an analysis of the content and language of graduate attribute statements from thirteen universities, as well as any rationales provided by these universities. This process identified:  three additional attributes that have emerged in the last five years: adapting to change, promoting change and community leadership; and  two significant trends in the language used in graduate attributes through three time periods covering fifteen years; a change from teamwork to an emphasis on the individual and then a focus on the community; and a shift from gaining skills to action-based language and finally to an emphasis on participation and sense of obligation. To confirm these preliminary findings, we intend to undertake a more comprehensive analysis of graduate attribute statements and justifications using larger sample size, including some international universities to compare trends. Increased focus on the attributes of adapting to change, promoting change and community leadership, as well as a shift in emphasis to community, participation, sustainability and the environment have the potential to significantly affect the design and delivery of current and future curriculum. There are potential implications for student engagement, particularly with changes to student cohorts, such as an increase in numbers of students from lower socioeconomic populations (Bradley, et al., 2008). If graduate attributes are to successfully impact learning and teaching and student experiences, it may prove important for students to become more actively involved in contributing to the development and writing of graduate attribute statements as well as their implementation. References Australian Government. (2009). Transforming Australia’s higher education system. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved February 5, 2010, from www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/ Barnett, R. (2004). Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 247– 260. Barnett, R., Parry, G., & Coate K. (2001). Conceptualizing curriculum change. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(4), 435–449. Barrie, S. C. (2005). Rethinking generic graduate attributes. HERDSA News, 27(1), 1–6. Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51, 215–241. Barrie, S. C., & Prosser, M. (2004). Generic graduate attributes: Citizens for an uncertain future. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 243–246. Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775–786. Billing, D. (2003). Generic cognitive abilities in higher education: An international analysis of skills sought by stakeholders. A Journal of Comparative Education, 33(3), 335–350.


116


Bowden, J., Hart, G., King, B., Trigwell, K., & Watts, O. (2002) Generic capabilities of ATN university graduates. Teaching and Learning Committee, Australian Technology Network. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://www.clt.uts.edu.au/ATN.grad.cap.project.index.html Bowden, J., & Marton, F. (1998). University of learning: Beyond quality and competence in higher education. London: Kogan Page. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Sacles, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Pages/ReviewofAustralianHigherEducationReport.aspx Brew, A. (2009). Enhancing undergraduate experiences through research & inquiry. Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA), Darwin, NT. 6–9 July 2009. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.mq.edu.au/ltc/altc/ug_research/dissemination.htm Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through career management skills. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), 31–44. Clanchy, J., & Ballard, B. (1995). Generic skills in the context of higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 14, 155–166. Jones, A. (2009). Redisciplining generic attributes: The disciplinary context in focus. Studies in Higher Education, 34(1), 85–100. Jones, L., & Moore, R. (1993). Education, competence and the control of expertise. British Journal of the Sociology of Higher Education, 14(4), 385–397. Kemp, I. J., & Seagraves, L. (1995). Transferable skills: Can higher education deliver? Studies in Higher Education, 20, 315–328. Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus. Pitman, T., & Broomhall, S. (2009). Australian universities, generic skills and lifelong learning. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(4), 439–458. Radloff, A., de la Harpe, B., Dalton, H., Thomas, J., & Lawson, A. (2008). Assessing graduate attributes: Engaging academic staff and their students. ATN Assessment 08: Engaging Students with Assessment. Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://www.ojs.unisa.edu.au/index.php/atna/article/view/342/279 Schwartz, S. (2009). Re-moralising the university. Vice-Chancellor’s Inaugural Annual Oration, Macquarie University, 26 August 2009. http://www.vc.mq.edu.au/speeches.php Stephenson, J. (1998). The concept of capability and its importance in higher education. In J. Stephenson & M. Yorke (Eds.), Capability and quality in higher education (pp. 1–14). London: Kogan Page. Thorne, S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evidence Based Nursing, 3, 68–70. UNESCO. (1998). World declaration on higher education for the twenty-first century: Vision and action. Retrieved February 1, 2010, from http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm Winchester-Seeto, T., & Bosanquet, A. (2009). Will students notice the difference? Embedding graduate capabilities in the curriculum. The Student Experience, Proceedings of the 32nd HERDSA Annual Conference, Darwin, 6–9 July 2009 (509–518). Copyright © 2010 Agnes Bosanquet, Theresa Winchester-Seeto and Anna Rowe. 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 2010 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.


117