Search

Employability features more prominently on the agenda of higher education institutions when the economy falters or changes: the majority of students, and their families, expect a degree to deliver a career pathway as well as an education. This paper explores some of the trends and predictions in the rapidly changing world of work and proposes a re-worked definition of employability (based on Yorke's widely-accepted definition from 2006): that employability means that students and graduates can discern, acquire, adapt and continually enhance the skills, understandings and personal attributes that make them more likely to find and create meaningful paid and unpaid work that benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy. Likewise, work-integrated learning requires sharper definition than an 'umbrella term'. This paper proposes that work-integrated learning includes a range of learning tasks that either resemble those expected of working graduates in their early careers, or are proximal to the workplaces or spaces, physical or digital, where professional work occurs. Determining the appropriate spread of tasks across a degree is best done by mapping assessments, ensuring there are more high level tasks in the latter years so that students are prompted to focus on the skills, understandings and personal attributes that make them more likely to find and create meaningful paid and unpaid work that benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy.

The higher education sector in Australia is moving rapidly towards greater accountability in regard to graduate employability outcomes. Currently, data on new graduates' self reported 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.

Given global uncertainty related to rapid technological developments and the world of work, alongside other equally (if not more) concerning social and political disruptions--the assurance of graduate attributes of importance to employability and citizenship are arguably more important than ever. In this paper, we investigate three areas of practice by Australian universities, and non-university higher education providers who have been omitted from past analyses of this kind. First, we examine the graduate attributes most frequently published by institutions and discipline groups and whether emphasis has changed over time. Second, we investigate how graduate attributes are assured, including a scan of the inputs put in practice by higher education providers, and comparison of graduate and employer perceptions of achievement gathered through recent national surveys. Third, we connect our findings in the first two areas and make recommendations for the attributes needed to equip 2020+ graduates for citizenship and employability. Based on these analyses, we recommend that all providers, university and non-university, and the discipline groups within them: make graduate attributes more visible to the public and especially to students; continue embedding them in the assessed curricula, but also ensure that assessment is explicit and that attributes are communicated and explained repeatedly throughout the course; continue to use stakeholder perception measures, but more consistently align skills in data collection instruments to allow a more constructive comparison, and also draw on more objective measures such as actual assessment of achievement; continue to emphasise attributes associated with global citizenship, teamwork and communication; give more emphasis to independence, critical thinking and problem-solving, and the fundamental foundational skills of written and spoken communication. Most importantly, continue to revise the attributes regularly to ensure fitness for purpose in the rapidly changing environment within which we and our graduates operate.

The ability of graduates to proactively develop, adapt and repackage their capabilities (or attributes) is an essential aspect of employability. This study was conducted at Deakin University, where graduate capabilities have been recast as graduate learning outcomes, and employability is frequently referenced. In light of significant curriculum reform to make graduate capabilities prominent, we investigated student perceptions of graduate capabilities and associated learning outcomes, as well as preparation for employment, to better understand how we can engage students in developing and showcasing their employability. We interviewed 45 students across 10 focus groups and qualitatively analysed their responses for commonly recurring themes. Focus groups were completed in two stages with data analysis and adjustment of questions between stages to enable validation and greater depth of understanding. Our analysis suggests that even with capabilities renamed as learning outcomes, students find graduate learning outcomes too generic to be meaningful and are most likely to engage with learning outcomes that are contextualised and assessed. Our case study illustrates ways to combat this--particularly the importance of assessment design and consistent, student-focused communication in engaging students in the development of capabilities and in the curation of evidence for employability. Students also suggest that advice from employers, professionals and recent graduates, and exposure to industry-related experiences could help make graduate capabilities more meaningful.

Curtin University's Curriculum 2010 (C2010) initiative aimed at ensuring degree programs were excellent and sustainable. Before C2010, graduate attributes were not universally emphasised and indicators showed room for improvement in generic skills. C2010 focused on embedding graduate attributes through three strategies. The first was embedding graduate attributes in degree programs and mapping for constructive alignment of outcomes and assessments. The second strategy was related: programs were reviewed drawing on evidence including perspectives of graduates, employers and program teams on the relative importance of graduate attributes and the extent to which they were generally demonstrated or developed. The third strategy was a university-wide eportfolio system enabling students' self- and peer-assessment of graduate attributes. Since completion of C2010, proxy indicators show improvement. However, this paper highlights the challenges associated with graduate attributes and renewal. These include: academic staff engagement, the time needed for innovations to come to fruition and evidencing achievement of graduate attributes. (Contains 5 figures.)

An institutional electronic portfolio called the "iPortfolio" had over 17,000 subscribers one year after its introduction at an Australian university. This paper reports on a study to determine how students use these "iPortfolio" accounts, and factors leading to uptake and effective use. Self-assessed competence with technology skills, factors motivating uptake, and barriers to adoption were examined using an online survey completed by 554 students. Of these, 339 had an "iPortfolio" at the time they completed the survey. Survey results were examined in the context of usage patterns based on data automatically collected for operational and administrative purposes. No statistically significant difference in prior technology use or self-assessed competence with information technology was observed when comparing students with "iPortfolio" accounts to those without. Assessment was found to be the principal driver of "iPortfolio" uptake. However, about two-fifths (42.9%) of students agreed that they were likely to use the "iPortfolio" in the future, even if it was not a course requirement. An additional 29.6% were neutral. Significant use of the "iPortfolio" to reflect on extracurricular activities was not observed. Improved employability outcomes were seen to be a benefit of "iPortfolio" adoption by about half (52%) of the students. Recommendations are made to promote "iPortfolio" uptake and encourage student reflection on "lifewide" experiences that enhance employability and augment learning within the formal curriculum. (Contains 7 figures and 6 tables.)

The "Assurance of Learning for Graduate Employability" framework is a quality assurance model for curriculum enhancement for graduate employability, enabling graduates to achieve "the skills, understandings and personal attributes that make [them] more likely to secure employment and be successful in their chosen occupations to the benefit of themselves, the workforce, the community and the economy" (Yorke, 2006). Of particular note is the framework's dependence on three foundations, including easy access to integrated and accessible tools for staff and student self-management. In other words, this approach to curriculum quality depends on staff and student access to tools that enable them to self-manage their learning. This paper examines two aspects which informed the design of a student e-portfolio system, "iPortfolio", intended for students' self-management of their learning, particularly recording evidence of their achievement of capabilities. The paper focuses on two particular considerations in the design of the "iPortfolio": adoptability and learning analytics. Adoptability means the phase preceding adoption, whether students have the devices, platforms and technology skills to be able to use such an innovation. The "iPortfolio" also facilitates learning analytics: it has the capability to gather data related to learning indicators for course quality assurance purposes. Both adoptability and analytics are very dynamic fields: new devices, platforms and applications constantly spark changes in user habits, and policy changes mean institutions need to be able to provide new data, often at short notice. In the conclusion, the paper suggests how tools such as the "iPortfolio" can be designed for "future proofing" and sustainability. (Contains 5 figures and 4 tables.)

In the current climate in Australian higher education, quality assurance in university teaching is a priority. In particular, the introduction of the Learning and Teaching Performance Fund (LTPF) has refocused attention on universities' internal student evaluation survey instruments. This paper reports the development, validation and implementation of a new unit survey instrument which prompts students to reflect on what helps their achievement of unit learning outcomes, and to report their levels of motivation, engagement and overall satisfaction with a semester-long course or unit of study. The instrument (eVALUate) was created from precepts reported in the research literature, current practices in evaluating teaching, and sound quality assurance practices appropriate to a university outcomes-focused education paradigm.

Higher education is moving rapidly towards more evidence-based accountability, and governments routinely collect data on graduate enrolments and completions. Graduates are expected to be equipped with a broad range of skills and attributes that enhance their opportunities for employment, enable them to perform well in the workplace, and engage as contributing citizens in a civil society. Currently, Australian indicators specifically measuring employability are very limited. The Australian Graduate Survey incorporates the Graduate Destination Survey (GDS) which reports graduates' uptake of full-time and part-time work or further study, their employer and salary. There is no routine Australian collection of employer satisfaction with university graduate skills in Australia, nor are there any national measures of academic staff perceptions or capacity around graduate achievement of attributes. The Graduate Employability Indicators (GEI), an outcome of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council project 'Building course team capacity to enhance graduate employability', were designed to supplement the Australian Graduate Survey and provide more comprehensive graduate employability data from a broader range of stakeholders at degree program level. Graduates, employers and academic staff are asked to indicate the capabilities that count for early professional success, and the extent to which they are demonstrated by new graduates. The fourteen capabilities in the GEI are drawn from the National Survey of Student Engagement. The Graduate Employability Indicators were created as part of the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Competitive Grant Building course team capacity for graduate employability, a joint initiative by Curtin University, University of Southern Queensland, RMIT University and Victoria University. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports research into undergraduates' adoption of handheld devices as supplementary learning tools. Students enrolled in Engineering and Business in Australia, Ethiopia and Malaysia volunteered to participate in a study of their use of the HP iPAQ from mid-2005 to late-2006. Researchers observed and analysed the participants' commencing levels of technology adoption, and then there subsequent adoption and perceptions of the usefulness of the iPAQ and its Web 2.0 applications to supplement their formal learning experiences. This research addressed three principal questions. The first was about students' commencing level of technology adoption in each location, and whether some students expressed greater interest than others in trying a new technology. The results show that internet access and ownership of all devices were similar for all groups. Some of the other findings were that female students were less likely to be interested in participating in the project (that is, trialling the new technology) than males; Engineering students were more likely to be interested than Business students; and students whose first language was not English were more likely to be interested than those for whom English was a first language. There was also a very marked difference in the level of interest in the three locations. The second and third questions focused on students' adoptive behaviours. For these students, the iPAQ was not a vehicle recommended for learning because, using Roger's reasons for adoption, it was trialable and observable but it failed to meet expectations. Finally, it had little relative advantage as its functions were already delivered somewhat better by desktops, laptops, and mobile phones. It is notable that it was the Ethiopian students who, despite undeveloped ICT infrastructure, were most open to continue to experiment and persist with the device regardless of trying circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]