a conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes

This article was downloaded by: [Ams/Girona*barri Lib]On: 10 October 2014, At: 02:06Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Studies in Higher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

A conceptual framework for theteaching and learning of genericgraduate attributesSimon C. Barrie aa University of Sydney , AustraliaPublished online: 31 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: Simon C. Barrie (2007) A conceptual framework for the teaching andlearning of generic graduate attributes, Studies in Higher Education, 32:4, 439-458, DOI:10.1080/03075070701476100

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476100

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03075070701476100

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070701476100

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Studies in Higher EducationVol. 32, No. 4, August 2007, pp. 439–458

ISSN 0307-5079 (print)/ISSN 1470-174X (online)/07/040439–20© 2007 Society for Research into Higher EducationDOI: 10.1080/03075070701476100

A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributesSimon C. Barrie*University of Sydney, AustraliaTaylor and FrancisCSHE_A_247487.sgm10.1080/03075070701476100Studies in Higher Education0307-5079 (print)/1470-174X (online)Original Article2007Society for Research into Higher Education324000000August [email protected]

In recent years universities have attempted to articulate the generic outcomes of the educationalexperiences they provide, beyond the content knowledge that is taught. These outcomes have cometo be known as generic skills or generic graduate attributes in Australia, although they are alsoreferred to by a range of other terms. Akin to some aspects of a mission statement, universities haveclaimed that these are the core outcomes of higher education and that every graduate of every degreewill possess these. A recent phenomenographic investigation into academics’ conceptions of thesegeneric attributes revealed that, far from a shared understanding of such attributes as coreoutcomes, academics hold a variety of disparate understandings of the nature of generic attributesand their place amongst the outcomes of a university education. This variation is described in theConceptions of Generic Attributes model. The present article extends this model by considering theway academics understand the teaching and learning of such attributes. The various pedagogicalintentions and understandings identified in the present analysis are related to the conceptions ofgraduate attribute outcomes reported in the earlier study. The relationships between these twoaspects of academics’ understandings of generic attributes (what it is that is taught/learnt and howit is taught/learnt) are seen to be internally consistent. The conceptions identified in this analysisprovide a way of making sense of the range of curricula approaches reported in the literature. More-over, these integrated conceptions of generic graduate attributes provide a tool to support currentattempts to implement systematic curriculum reform in universities.

Universities around the world are increasingly concerned with ensuring that theirstudents develop attributes which will better equip them for the world of work, andas members of society. For example, the Higher Education Funding Council forEngland (HEFCE, 2003) has identified a shortfall between the skills students developduring their courses and the skills that employers need, and the Bologna agreementidentifies attributes graduates will require as future European citizens (European

*Institute for Teaching and Learning, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.Email: s.barrie@ itl.usyd.edu.au

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

440 S. C. Barrie

Ministers of Education, 1999). These generic outcomes are referred to by a variety ofterms, including graduate attributes, core or key skills, and generic skills. In Australia‘generic graduate attributes’ have come to be accepted as being the skills, knowledgeand abilities of university graduates, beyond disciplinary content knowledge, whichare applicable in a range of contexts and are acquired as a result of completing anyundergraduate degree:

Generic graduate attributes are the qualities, skills and understandings a universitycommunity agrees its students should develop during their time with the institution. Theseattributes include but go beyond the disciplinary expertise or technical knowledge that hastraditionally formed the core of most university courses. They are qualities that alsoprepare graduates as agents of social good in an unknown future. (Bowden et al., 2000)

While much of the literature presupposes a shared understanding on the part of theuniversity community as to the place of such generic learning outcomes amongst themore familiar discipline-based knowledge outcomes, recent research has found thatacademics hold qualitatively different understandings or conceptions of suchoutcomes (Barrie, 2004, 2006). These understandings, or conceptions, identifiedusing phenomenographic analysis of interview data, vary along several dimensions.They vary in terms of the nature of the outcomes, ranging from atomistic low-leveltechnical and personal skills, to holistic interwoven abilities and aptitudes forlearning. They also differ in terms of the relationship between these outcomes anddiscipline knowledge, and the additive or transformative potential of such attributes(Figure 1). The nature of this relationship has consequences for the degree of special-isation of generic attributes in discipline contexts, and for academics’ perceptions ofthe place of such attributes amongst university learning outcomes.Figure 1. Academics’ conceptions of generic graduate attributes (GGAs) as outcomesThe four increasingly complex, qualitatively distinct understandings of genericattributes as outcomes are described as:

1. Precursor Conception;2. Complement Conception;3. Translation Conception;4. Enabling Conception.

Generic attributes can be conceived of as basic precursor abilities which provide afoundation, to which can be added the discipline knowledge of a university education.Other academics express an understanding of generic attributes that goes beyond thisconception to encompass university learned, general functional abilities and personalskills that can usefully complement the discipline-specific learning outcomes of auniversity education. Other academics understand generic attributes to be more thanuseful additional general skills. Rather, they are specialised variants of such generalskills that are essential in the application of discipline knowledge, and the translationof university learning to unfamiliar settings, thus usefully transforming the products ofuniversity learning. Some academics express a still more complex understanding ofgeneric attributes as enabling abilities and aptitudes, that lie at the heart of all scholarlylearning and knowledge, with the potential to transform the knowledge they are partof and to support the creation of new knowledge and transform the individual.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Generic graduate attributes 441

This variation in what academics understand generic attributes to be helps in partto explain the reasons for the limited implementation of graduate attributes withinuniversity courses. For instance, if academics do not understand their institution’sespoused generic attributes of graduates to represent relevant, important universitylearning outcomes, they are unlikely to incorporate them in their courses or teaching.The finding of such variation points to the need to clarify with members of the univer-sity community the nature of these espoused outcomes, as a precursor to institutingcurriculum development or reform strategies. While such a clarification of the natureof the intended outcomes is a necessary starting point, it is not sufficient in thecontext of universities’ intentions to develop teaching strategies to effectively promotethe development of generic attributes.

From the perspective of recent Australian initiatives (Bowden et al., 2000; Hageret al., 2002; Goldsworthy, 2003) seeking to establish more effective generic attributes

No aspect of GGAs in theforeground, they areignored. The relationshipto other learningoutcomes is as a backdrop

1: Necessary basicPRECURSOR skills butirrelevant as they are aprerequisite for universityentry

Stru

ctur

al (

inte

rnal

and

ext

erna

l hor

izon

)

GGAs are discrete fromother university learningoutcomes

Referential (what is meant)

GGAs interact with otheruniversity learningoutcomes

App

licat

ion:

Unr

elat

ed:

Irre

leva

nt:

In the foreground arespecialised clusteredabilities and skills ofapplication. Theseabilities are relevant todiscipline knowledgeIn the foreground areinterwoven abilities andaptitudes for learning.These aptitudes shapedisciplinary and otherknowledge

In the foreground areundifferentiatedfunctional atomisticpersonal skills that are notrelated to disciplineknowledge

Inte

gral

subs

trat

e:

2: Useful skills thatCOMPLEMENT orround out disciplinarylearning

3: These are the abilitiesthat let studentsTRANSLATE, make useof or apply disciplinaryknowledge in the world

4: They are ENABLINGabilities that infuseuniversity learning andknowledge

Additive: Transformative:

Figure 1. Academics’ conceptions of generic graduate attributes (GGAs) as outcomes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

442 S. C. Barrie

teaching and curriculum strategies, it is pertinent to ask how academics understandsuch attributes to be developed by students. From the phenomenographic perspectiveon learning taken in this article, conceptions of the learning of generic attributesincorporate two related aspects, ‘what’ is learned and ‘how’ it is learned (Marton &Booth, 1997). This article considers the second aspect. It summarises the findings ofthe original research described in the Conceptions of Generic Attributes (COGA)model (Barrie 2006), and then uses phenomenographic analysis to describe the vari-ations in academics’ understandings of the way students develop generic attributes.The results of this analysis are then related to the conceptions of graduate attributeoutcomes previously reported (Barrie 2004, 2006).

Methodology: a phenomenographic approach

The study adopts a phenomenographic approach consistent with the focus ondescribing variations in conceptions of learning. Phenomenography is a researchapproach which seeks to describe the qualitatively different ways in which peopleunderstand a phenomenon. It has been widely used in studies of university teachingand learning (Bowden & Marton, 1998; Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Phenomenogra-phy is based on the idea that a particular phenomenon can be experienced in alimited number of qualitatively different ways. A way of experiencing a phenomenoncorresponds to a particular ‘structure of awareness’. A particular structure of aware-ness is made up of a number of aspects of a phenomenon, simultaneously presentand related in a particular way. Some aspects are in the foreground and some in thebackground, depending on their experienced relevance and context. A different wayof experiencing a phenomenon involves more or fewer aspects of the phenomenonsimultaneously present in awareness and/or aspects related in different ways (Marton& Booth, 1997).

Data collection involved the use of individual in-depth, semi-structured, phenom-enographic interviews. Interviewees were selected from amongst a group of academ-ics who had been involved in contemporary curriculum development at anAustralian university over the previous two years. Invitations were sent initially tothree academics in each of the following five disciplinary domains: the basic sciences(e.g. chemistry), the humanities (e.g. history), professional disciplines (e.g. engi-neering), professional medical disciplines (e.g. nursing) and the social sciences (e.g.sociology). Additional invitations were sent until 15 responses agreeing to partici-pate were received, reflecting the intended disciplinary diversity. Prior to commenc-ing the interviews a set of questions and a range of predetermined follow-up probeswere developed. While each interview included a set of key questions (for example:Thinking about the course and teaching you have just described; can you explain to mewhat you understand by the term ‘generic attributes of graduates’? How do you thinkuniversity students acquire generic attributes in your course?), the process of the differentinterviews varied somewhat depending on the issues raised by the interviewee. Thisis typical of the phenomenographic interview process. All interviews were conductedin the interviewee’s work setting, with each interview lasting between 45 and 70

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4


minutes. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim for subse-quent analysis.

The analysis was completed according to the principles for phenomenographicanalysis outlined by Marton and Booth (1997) and guidelines for reliability(Sandberg, 1997). In analysing the transcripts of the interviews, the distinctionsbetween individuals were initially ignored, and the separate interview transcripts werecombined and treated as whole, although the statements in the resultant pool of state-ments were coded to identify the individual transcript each statement originatedfrom. The first stage of the analysis was to identify which statements were relevant tothe analysis on the basis that they expressed a way of experiencing how studentsdevelop generic attributes.

The second stage was to identify an initial draft set of categories. This involved thesorting of statements from the transcripts by identifying and grouping the expressedways of experiencing the teaching and learning of generic attributes. The sorting wasachieved by focusing on similarities and differences in the meanings expressed, andgrouping statements expressing similar meanings.

As the sorting of the statements occurred, there was a concurrent shift in thefocus of attention from the separate statements to the emerging groupings of state-ments. Attention began to be paid to the relationships between the provisionalgroupings of statements. This process assists in identifying the groupings, andfocuses the analysis on identifying the key characteristics of the categories intowhich the statements are being grouped. The focus is on identifying the criticalfeatures that differentiate the groups, and the features that are common to differentgroups in terms of the structures of awareness and associated referential (meaning)aspects that characterise each emerging category. These distinguishing featuresprovide the basis for developing the ‘categories of description’ (Marton & Booth,1997). The distinguishing features of the categories were examined and refined asthe first attempt at identifying the logical relationships between the emerging cate-gories of description. The process of reading and sorting the statements wasrepeated several times, with intervening critiquing of, and reflection on, the robust-ness of the emerging categories by the researcher, often in conjunction with otherresearchers. This process of phenomenographic data collection and analysis hasbeen widely reported in the educational research literature over recent years(Bowden & Walsh, 2000, Akerlind 2005).

From the phenomenographic perspective, a phenomenon such as the learning ofgeneric attributes can be understood in terms of two interrelated aspects: ‘what’ theact of learning is aimed at (outcome) and ‘how’ the act of learning is approached(process). For each aspect of the phenomenon (the ‘what’ and the ‘how’) a finitenumber of qualitatively distinct understandings can be identified and described interms of the structural and referential dimensions of each unique structure of aware-ness (Marton & Booth, 1997). The structural aspect identifies what is in the fore-ground, and how what is in the foreground relates to the rest of the structure ofawareness. The dialectically constituted referential aspect identifies the meaningascribed, or how each structure of awareness is understood.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

444 S. C. Barrie

The results of such a phenomenographic analysis are presented as a set of catego-ries of description, in an outcome space representing the range of qualitativelydifferent understandings identified in the pooled data set. The outcome spacedescribes the observed variation in the group’s understandings of the phenomenon.The structural and referential aspects define the logical relationships between thecategories of description in the outcome space.

Results: conceptions of how generic graduate attributes are developed

Six, increasingly complex, qualitatively distinct, categories of description wereidentified from the analysis of the pooled interview data relevant to academics’ under-standings of how students acquire generic attributes.

1. Remedial2. Associated3. Teaching Content4. Teaching Process5. Engagement6. Participatory

Some academics do not express an understanding of the teaching of generic attributesas being part of usual university teaching at all. Instead the development of genericattributes is understood to be the responsibility of earlier education experiences. Theonly role of the university in teaching generic attributes is in terms of remedial teachingfor those students who have not already developed these skills. Other academicsunderstand the development of generic attributes to be part of the university’s teach-ing role. For some academics this role is fulfilled through the provision of an addi-tional separate curriculum in association with the usual university curriculum. This isnot a remedial curriculum; rather, it is a curriculum for all students. Academics canalso understand generic attributes to be acquired as part of the taught content of usualuniversity courses. Rather than an additional curriculum, the generic attributescurriculum is included as an integral part of the teaching content of the discipline.Other academics understand the development of generic attributes not in terms of thetaught content of the usual university course, but to be achieved through the teachingprocess of usual university courses. Other academics express yet another perspective,and understand the development of generic attributes not as a part of what is taught,or the way it is taught, but rather in terms of the way the student engages in learningin her or his usual university course. Some academics expressed yet another under-standing. Rather than perceiving the development of generic attributes to be throughthe way a student learns in a course, it is through the way the student participates inthe broader learning experiences of university life.Figure 2. Academics’ conceptions of how students develop generic graduate attributesWe will now consider each category of description in more detail and, in doing so,consider the structural and referential aspects of each distinct way of understandingthe phenomena that determine the logical and internally consistent relationshipsbetween the categories.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4


1. Remedial: generic attributes are not part of usual university teaching

Some academics expressed an understanding of the development of generic attributesas not being part of university teaching. The development of such attributes was notunderstood to be within the purview of mainstream university education, or theresponsibility of university teachers. Rather, the teaching of such attributes wasconsidered to be the responsibility of previous (education or otherwise) experiences,and only relevant in a remedial context at the university level.

In this conception, the development of generic attributes was a function of teaching,and the role of the teacher was in the foreground in this structure of awareness.

Referential (what is meant by the structure)How generic attributes are

developed Supplementary

Integrated

1.REMEDIAL: Not usuallypart of university teaching

A secondarycurriculum

2. ASSOCIATED Genericattributes are taught as adiscrete subset of theteaching in universitycourses

3. TEACHING CONTENT:Generic attributes are taught inthe context of teaching thedisciplinary knowledge

4. TEACHING PROCESS:Generic attributes are taughtthrough the way the coursedisciplinary knowledge istaught

Courseexperience

5. ENGAGEMENT: Genericattributes are learnt through theway students engage with thecourse�s learning experiences

Stru

ctur

al (

inte

rnal

and

ext

erna

l hor

izon

)

Universityexperience

6. PARTICIPATORY:Generic attributes are learnt bythe way students participateand engage with all theexperiences of university life

Not part of anycurriculum

DisciplinaryCurriculumcontent

DisciplinaryCurriculumprocess

Foc

us o

n L

earn

er a

ndL

earn

ing

Foc

us o

n T

each

er a

nd T

each

ing

Figure 2. Academics’ conceptions of how students develop generic graduate attributes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

446 S. C. Barrie

However, the teacher was not typically the academic responsible for the curriculumof the discipline, or even necessarily a university teacher or academic. In thisparticular structure of awareness, the teaching of generic attributes was seen to beessentially unrelated to the teaching of disciplinary content. It was as an adjunct tothe university curriculum for those students that needed it.

The meaning ascribed to this structure of awareness was one of a process of devel-opment of generic attributes, which was distinctly supplementary to other universityteaching and learning.

2. Associated: generic attributes are taught as a discrete subset of the teaching in a university course

Another understanding expressed was that the development of generic graduateattributes involved the teaching of these skills and attributes as an isolated subset ofthe teaching of the discipline or course. This generic attributes curriculum wasincluded as an addition to the usual curriculum. Unlike the previous conception, theteaching of such attributes was seen as relevant, and ideally was included in thecurriculum for all students. However, the teaching of such skills remained secondaryto, and less important than, disciplinary teaching.

Once again there was a strong teacher focus present in this structure of awareness,with the role of the teacher and teaching in the foreground. In common with theprevious conception, the teaching may or may not have been the province of the disci-plinary teacher.

This structure of awareness differs from the previous one primarily in terms of theinclusivity of the foregrounded teaching of such attributes. This teaching is a (small)part of the curriculum for all students in this conception, as opposed to the remedial,deficit-model teaching approach that characterised the first category of description.

The meaning ascribed to this structure of awareness is still one of the process ofdevelopment of generic attributes being separate from other elements of the curricu-lum. Even though the teaching of generic attributes is understood to be a componentof a university course, it is a discrete component and unrelated to the teaching ofdiscipline content. It is included in the curriculum for all students as an additionalelement. The referential aspect of this conception is characterised as supplementary, asit was in the previous category, and reflects an understanding of the development ofgeneric attributes as requiring the provision of an additional curriculum.

Such teaching might be included as an extra session in the course, or it might beincluded as a parallel module or workshop for students run by either the teacher or ageneric skills ‘expert’. It might also be through the addition of a separate learning taskor teaching process. In these cases, while the choice of teaching process is perceivedto be related to the intended generic skills outcomes, the choice of teaching strategyhas little to do with the content of the course or the nature of the disciplinary learningoutcomes. It appears instead that the teaching strategy is included as an additionalstrategy, with only the generic skills target in mind. The teaching process itself appearsto be understood as being quite secondary and unrelated to the usual university

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4


curriculum. While the teaching process is within the confines of the normal curricu-lum, it is seen as an independent strand within the curriculum, unrelated to theachievement of the disciplinary learning outcomes. Thus, in much the same way thatthe development of generic attributes themselves are seen as a curriculum with sepa-rate secondary learning aims in this category of description, the choice of teachingprocess can also be perceived as providing a secondary curriculum for the develop-ment of such attributes unrelated to the teaching of the disciplinary curriculum. Thisis quite different to the level four teaching process conceptions we will consider later.

3. Teaching content: generic attributes are taught in the context of teaching the disciplinary knowledge

Some academics considered that generic graduate attributes were taught by teachersin the context of teaching disciplinary knowledge. Conceptions in this categoryinvolved teaching by discipline teachers or non-discipline teachers in collaborationwith discipline experts. The teaching of the generic attributes was integrated with theteaching of discipline content. The focus remains on teaching rather than learning.The role of the teacher is again at the forefront of this structure of awareness. As in theprevious conceptions, generic attributes are understood as something that is taughtrather than something that is learned. Unlike the previous conception, the fore-grounded teaching of generic attributes is related to the teaching of discipline content.And in this conception the teacher of the discipline content perceives the teaching ofgeneric attributes to be part of their normal teaching role, not something extra orseparate to this.

The teaching of such attributes is linked closely with other university teachingpresent in awareness. In this conception, the teaching of generic attributes is seen tobe part of the teaching of discipline knowledge. Rather than being a separate supple-mentary curriculum, the course curriculum is perceived to include the teaching ofboth the discipline content and the generic attributes. This marks a significant differ-ence between this structure of awareness and the previous one. The meaning given tothe structure of awareness in this conception differs from the supplementary meaningof the earlier conceptions. In this conception generic attributes are understood to bean integrated component of the course curriculum, rather than being a supplementarycurriculum. The referential aspects of this structure of awareness are of an integratedprocess of development of generic attributes, rather than a supplementary or ‘bolt-on’addition to the usual course curriculum.

4. Teaching process: generic attributes are taught through the way the course disciplinary knowledge is taught

Some academics expressed an understanding of the development of generic attributesas being through the way the disciplinary knowledge was taught. The process ofteaching disciplinary knowledge provided the opportunities for students to be taughtgeneric attributes. They were not necessarily taught as part of the content, as in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

448 S. C. Barrie

preceding conception; however, the way the content was taught facilitated the teach-ing of the attributes. The process of teaching was the focus of this conception.

As in the previous structures of awareness, the focus in this conception is still onthe teacher. However, rather than a focus on what is taught, the focus is on the waythe curriculum is taught—a focus on the teaching process of the curriculum ratherthan the taught curriculum content. Implicit in this conception is the idea that genericattributes are developed by students through the learning opportunities provided byparticular teaching processes. This is the first structure of awareness that implicitlyincludes an active learner, although the focus remains on the teacher.

In this structure the teaching process is in the foreground and the foregroundedteaching process is a part of the repertoire of teaching strategies used in teachingdiscipline content. This structure of awareness includes both curriculum content andthe way this content is taught. This is a departure from the way that awareness isstructured in the previous category of description, where teaching was perceived onlyin terms of content.

The meaning ascribed to this particular structure is again one of an integratedcurriculum. The integration is not in terms of content as it was in the precedingconception; rather, it is in terms of the teaching process. It is not a separate orsupplementary teaching process as we saw in the level two ‘Associated’ category ofdescription. It is the teaching process that is employed in the teaching of disciplinarycontent that provides opportunities for students to develop generic attributes.

5. Engagement: generic attributes are learnt through the way students engage with the course’s learning experiences

This category is similar in many ways to the preceding category; however, the focusis no longer on the teacher or teaching. In this conception the development of genericattributes is understood as (being about) something that is learnt, not something thatis taught, with the learner rather than the teacher being in the foreground. This shiftin focus from teaching to learning is a fundamental difference between this categoryof description and the previous four, and marks a distinction between teacher-focusedand learner-focused conceptions (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999).

Rather than a focus on the way the teacher taught, in this structure of awarenessthe focus is on the way the student learns. The development of generic attributes isunderstood to relate primarily to the way students interact with the learning experi-ences of the course. The focus is not on the teaching of either the disciplinary contentor generic attributes, or on the teaching process; rather, it is on the way the studentsengage in learning in the discipline. This focus on the way the learner engages with thecourse reflects an awareness that the way a student learns is a function of more thanjust the way the teacher teaches (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999).

The relation between the foregrounded learner and the rest of the structure ofawareness is also characterised by this shift from a teacher focus to a learner focus.Rather than being made up of the discipline content of the curriculum or the teachingprocesses of the curriculum, this structure of awareness is made up of the learners’

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4


perceptions of these aspects of the curriculum. For example, rather than the teacher’sstated intended disciplinary learning outcomes, the learner’s understandings of theseoutcomes are present.

The meaning given to this structure of awareness is clearly not as a supplementarycurriculum, as in the first two categories of description. Rather, the meaning given isone of an integrated curriculum, as in the level three and four conceptions. However,in this conception the integration of generic attributes is in terms of the way thelearner engages with the curriculum, rather than in terms of the teacher’s integrationof attributes in the curriculum through either content or teaching method. Thecharacterisation of this conception as integrated reflects the understanding that thedevelopment of generic attributes is not a separate process of learning; rather, it is aproduct of the way the learner engages with the usual course curriculum.

6. Participatory: generic attributes are learnt through the way students participate in the experiences of university life

As with the preceding category, the learner is the focus of this conception rather thanthe teacher, and students’ perceptions and approaches to learning are perceived tosignificantly influence the development of generic attributes. As in the previousconception, what is foregrounded is the way the learner engages in learning. However,in this structure of awareness the learner’s engagement in learning is not restricted tothe way the learner engages in the formal teaching and learning experiences of thecourse. Instead, what is foregrounded in this conception is the way the student partic-ipates in the broader experience of university life. Academics with conceptions in thiscategory perceived that generic attributes were developed though the student’sengagement in the learning experience of belonging to both the intellectual and socialcommunity of the university, of which the formal course was only one part.

A focus on the learner was present in all aspects of the structure of awareness ofsuch conceptions. It was not simply the opportunities afforded by the university envi-ronment, but the way the student chose to engage with and participate in these oppor-tunities that was perceived as relevant. The nature of this participation linked theforegrounded experiences of belonging to a scholarly community, and being engagedin learning on a course, with other university and life experiences. In this way theother aspects of the university experience—such as social activities, extra-curricularstudy, and out of class learning—were present within this structure of awareness.

The meaning ascribed to the structural aspects of this conception is again one ofintegration. The development of generic attributes is integrated within the ‘curricu-lum’ of the overall university experience.

A hierarchy of increasingly complex understandings

The relationship between the six categories of description is logical and hierarchicaland is defined by the variation in the structural and referential aspects of eachcategory. The outcome space is a ‘nested’ or ‘inclusive’ hierarchy, in that each

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

450 S. C. Barrie

increasingly complex category of description subsumes elements of the precedinglower level understandings. Thus, conceptions in the fifth category of description canalso include elements of level one and two understandings of how generic graduateattributes are developed. As an example of the inclusive hierarchical nature of theoutcome space, let us consider the example of approaches to teaching a biologystudent communication skills discussed by one respondent:

● Level Three—Teaching Content. Specific technical laboratory report writingconventions and formats are taught in the first laboratory session. Students areprovided with a biology practical report template and given anonymous examplesof good and bad reports from previous students to illustrate desired features oflaboratory reports in the subject ‘Plant Genetics’.

● Level Two—Associated. All first-year science students attend a workshop run bythe student learning support unit. This workshop covers general scientific writingskills which includes the basics of structuring writing to communicate clearly, andscientific referencing conventions, which may provide the basis for developingspecific technical writing skills

● Level One—Remedial. All first-year science students sit a diagnostic writing testdesigned by the student learning centre. All first-year students who ‘fail’ the testare sent a letter by the faculty advising them to access the Academic EnglishSupport Courses offered by the learning support unit.

The hierarchical nature of the categories means that a lower-level conception doesnot encompass higher-level understandings. To provide another example, consider alevel one understanding of how computer literacy skills are taught:

● Level One—Remedial. In the unit outline there is a statement that students areexpected to be able to use computers to search for references in the library, and tolog onto the lecture notes posted on the department’s website. Students who areunfamiliar with computers are advised to attend one of the ‘Introduction toComputers’ sessions offered by the university computing centre.

Such an approach does not encompass the higher-level conceptions reflected in strat-egies described by other respondents, which included:

● Scheduling a session by the computing centre staff for the whole class to introducestudents to the use of the university intranet, and to familiarise students with useof the browsers and software packages available to students through the universityserver (Level Two—Associated).

● Teaching computer literacy skills by providing a handout of Internet ‘screengrabs’, showing a worked example of how to search a specialised database of biol-ogy research publications relating to the topic of this week’s lecture on plant genet-ics (Level Three—Teaching Content).

● Changing the usual essay on ‘genetic modification of food crops’ to include apreliminary laboratory exercise, where students research the topic and in theprocess are taught how to undertake an online search to obtain relevant informa-tion from a range of online sources (Level Four—Teaching Process).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4


How do academics’ understandings of process relate to understandings of outcomes?

So far we have seen that, within the group of academics interviewed, there are quitedistinct and different understandings of both what sort of things generic attributesare and how these sorts of things might be developed through a university educa-tion. How do these understandings relate to each other when we consider theunderstandings expressed by the individual academics in the context of these inter-views?

When the individual interview transcripts are reconstituted, and each transcript isconsidered in light of the categories of description identified, it is apparent thatcertain understandings of what it is that should be learned relate to certain under-standings of how it might be learned. Such a relationship is to be expected, given thatfrom the phenomenographic perspective the two sets of categories describe variationsin two related aspects of the phenomenon under investigation. Figure 3 identifies thehighest level understandings of the two aspects of the phenomenon consistentlyexpressed by each of the 15 academics (numbered 1–15 in the shaded cells in Figure3) in the context of the interviews. The four distinct understandings of genericattributes as outcomes are listed on the vertical axis (A—D in Figure 3). The sixdistinct understandings of the process of development of such attributes are listed onthe horizontal axis (1–6). The key dimension of the variation in the referential aspectof each of the two sets of categories is indicated by the dark grid lines in the figure.The teacher-focused/student-focused variation in understandings of the developmentprocess is also highlighted by a dashed line in the figure, and this will be returned tolater in the discussion.Figure 3. Interactions between outcome spacesIf we consider the four quadrants defined by the key referential dimensions, it isimmediately apparent that there are two empty and two populated quadrants in thefigure. These represent internally consistent (populated quadrants) and internallyinconsistent combinations (empty quadrants) of understandings of the two aspects ofthe phenomenon of generic attributes.

In the first quadrant are individuals for whom the meaning given to the interactionbetween the various structures of awareness can be summarised as:

Quadrant 1: Generic attributes are unrelated and relatively unimportant outcomes thatgraduates might posses in addition to the usual learning outcomes of a university education;as such they do not form part of the usual university curriculum. If they are taught at univer-sity, it is in a separate supplementary curriculum.

The other interaction supported by the data was the fourth quadrant, where themeaning given to the different structures of awareness of the two aspects of thephenomenon might be summarised as:

Quadrant 4: Generic attributes are important outcomes that interact with and transform theother learning outcomes of a university education; as such they are an integral part of theusual university curriculum. They can be taught in a teacher-focused way (quadrant 4a) ora learner-focused way (quadrant 4b).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

452 S. C. Barrie

Fig

ure

3.In

tera

ctio

ns b

etw

een

outc

ome

spac

es

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Clearly there were some combinations of understandings that were not present—the empty quadrants. A consideration of the possible understandings that might berepresented by these ‘empty’ quadrants (quadrants labelled 2 and 3 in Figure 3)reveals that such understandings would be internally inconsistent; hence there wereno examples of these particular understandings in the transcripts:

Quadrant 2: Generic attributes are unrelated unimportant outcomes that graduates mightpossess in addition to the usual learning outcomes of a university education; as such they arean integral part of the usual university curriculum.

Understandably, in what is usually held to be an already crowded curriculum,academics are unlikely to include additional elements that are perceived to be unre-lated to disciplinary learning, and relatively unimportant in the context of a universityeducation, though, of course, such inclusions may conceivably be imposed by policy.

The understanding represented by the third quadrant is similarly internally incon-sistent and, again, no examples of such an understanding were apparent in the inter-views.

Quadrant 3: Generic attributes are important outcomes that interact with and transform theother learning outcomes of a university education; as such they do not form part of the usualuniversity curriculum I teach.

In the next section we will consider the implications of the particular approaches toteaching generic attributes represented by quadrants 1 and 4. In these two quadrantsthere were various combined understandings of the teaching and learning of genericattributes supported by the interview data (Table 1). Using the two key aspects of thereferential dimension of each outcome space and the additional teacher focus/learnerfocus dimension of the structural aspect, the fourth quadrant can be further divided,yielding three broad approaches. The three approaches in Table 1 are also indicated

Table 1. Approaches to teaching generic graduate attributes

Approach I: Additive outcomes taught in a teacher-focused way in a supplementary curriculum1. Generic attributes are basic prerequisite skills which students should already possess; they are only taught in remedial classes at university. (A:1)2. Generic graduate attributes are skills and abilities that can complement, but not modify, disciplinary knowledge and are taught to all students as an unrelated add-on to the existing curriculum. (B:2)Approach II: Transformative outcomes taught in a teacher-focused way in an integrated curriculum3. Generic graduate attributes make disciplinary knowledge relevant and are taught as part of discipline content. (C:3)4. Generic graduate attributes make disciplinary knowledge relevant and are taught through the process of teaching discipline content. (C:4)Approach III: Transformative outcomes taught in a learner-focused way in an integrated curriculum5. Generic graduate attributes make disciplinary knowledge relevant and are learnt through the way students engage with the course. (C:5)6. Generic attributes are complex abilities that infuse learning and knowledge and are learnt through the way students engage with the course. (D:5)7. Generic attributes are complex abilities that infuse learning and knowledge and are learnt through the way students engage with university. (D:6)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

454 S. C. Barrie

in the Figure 3: Approach I (quadrant 1 in Figure 3), Approach II (quadrant 4a inFigure 3) and Approach III (quadrant 4b in Figure 3).

While the academics’ explanations of generic attributes offered during the inter-views suggest a relationship between particular approaches to teaching genericattributes and the nature of the intended graduate attribute outcomes, the nature ofthe relationship itself is unspecified. The contribution of a teacher’s conception of theintended learning outcome to shaping or determining the conception of the teaching/learning approach (or vice versa) is not particularly relevant from a non-causal,phenomenographic perspective. The two aspects of the phenomenon are interrelated,not separate or causative in a linear or sequential sense. It is also important to notethat the understandings expressed by individuals relate to the particular context andsituation of the interview, and are not a stable cognitive feature.

The integrated understandings reflecting the relationship between particularconceptions of graduate attribute learning outcomes and process fall into three broadapproaches, and bring to the surface many of the assumptions and beliefs implicit inuniversities’ previous attempts and present efforts to address the development ofgeneric attributes. Some of these assumptions are considered in the following section.

Implications, applications and challenges

These three approaches (Table 1), and the variations in structural and referentialdimensions of the various understandings of generic attributes that they represent,provide a new insight into the diversity of universities’ past efforts to address genericattributes (consider, for example, the variety of case studies reported in Fallows andSteven, 2000). For some academics, generic attributes might have no place in theirclassrooms, while for others they are central. This difference in perspective reflectsfundamental differences in how these academics conceive of what generic attributesare and how they are developed. In light of the reliance in many universities onacademics incorporating the development of such outcomes within their usual teach-ing, the observation that universities’ previous efforts have met with only patchysuccess (Drummond et al., 1998) is perhaps understandable in light of the findings ofthis research.

The focus of the present study was on descriptions of the variations in conceptions,not the frequency of these variations. However, some initial observations are note-worthy as a preliminary to a larger-scale study using a survey tool currently underdevelopment, based on the findings of this research. The single most prevalentconception expressed by the academics interviewed was of generic attributes as rela-tively unimportant additive outcomes, taught as a supplement to the more importantdiscipline content (one-third of the academics expressed this B:2 conception). If thisapparent prevalence were to be supported in a survey of a larger population, thiswould represent a considerable challenge to any notion of a university communitysharing a view of generic graduate attributes as the ‘core achievements of a universityeducation … beyond the disciplinary expertise or technical knowledge’ (HigherEducation Council, 1992). Moreover, while Australian government and university

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4


policy statements would suggest the intention to develop ‘transformative’ outcomes,only a slight majority of the academics in this small sample expressed a transformativerather than additive conception of generic attributes. However, it is heartening tonote that these academics also expressed an understanding of the development ofgeneric attributes as being achieved in an integrated way. That is, they perceived thatgeneric attributes were developed in different ways within their courses, rather thanbeing solely the result of a supplementary process. This is consistent with theapproach espoused for the Australian higher education sector (Bowden et al., 2000;Hager et al., 2002).

The finding that transformative understandings of generic attributes were consis-tently associated with integrated teaching approaches is of particular interest. Thiswould suggest that academics do not perceive that such transformative outcomes canbe developed by supplementary strategies (such as ‘bolt-on’ courses) alone. Suchsupplementary approaches were instead consistently associated with the lesscomplex, additive conceptions of graduate attribute outcomes. The hierarchicalnature of the conceptions is relevant to consider here. Type I approaches (supple-mentary/additive) were still perceived to play a part in supporting the type II and IIIapproaches (transformative/integrated) by academics expressing higher-level concep-tions. However, on their own these type I approaches were not sufficient. That is,academics expressing understandings of generic attributes as higher-level outcomesperceived that type I supplementary teaching approaches could be built upon in theirown teaching, and would support the more integrated type II and III approaches.This hierarchical quality suggests a way of integrating the various strategies currentlyin place in universities. While lower-level ‘remedial’ or ‘associated’ curriculum strat-egies are not associated with intentions to achieve higher-level graduate attributeoutcomes, they can be understood to play a part in achieving such outcomes in typeII and III approaches. Many Australian universities have supported the developmentof stand-alone courses or other type I approaches to develop generic skills. Thehierarchical nature of the conceptions identified in this research underlines the valu-able contribution such initiatives can make, if they are employed in support of acomprehensive strategy, across a curriculum, utilising type II and III approaches.

Many institutions have engaged in curriculum audits or mapping exercises as partof their efforts to demonstrate that students’ experiences foster the development ofsuch attributes in all courses. These audits often identify ‘remedial’ initiatives, suchas university bridging courses in academic English skills, or ‘associated’ approachinitiatives, such as additional courses in library skills and essay writing offered by theuniversity library or student learning support centre, as evidence that genericattributes are being addressed. From the perspective offered by the hierarchy identi-fied in this research, such approaches alone may not be sufficient if the achievementof higher-level outcomes is the intention. However, these strategies can be built uponby academics teaching in the disciplines with the aim of developing higher-level grad-uate attribute outcomes through more integrated (Level 3–6) teaching approaches.

Of particular significance for universities’ efforts to develop effective strategies toachieve high-quality learning outcomes was the finding that learner-centred

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

456 S. C. Barrie

approaches to the development of generic attributes were consistently associated withthe intention to achieve higher-level transformative graduate attribute outcomes.This parallels the findings of other phenomenographic research, linking teachers’intentions and approaches and the relationship between learner-centred approachesto teaching and high-quality learning outcomes (Prosser & Trigwell, 1999). Theimportance of adopting learner-centred approaches to university teaching, forimproving the quality of student learning outcomes, is a key finding of much of thestudent learning research over the past decade (Biggs, 1999; Ramsden, 2003).Consequently, insights into the importance of learner-centred approaches underpinmany of the current academic development and curriculum reform initiatives inuniversities in Australia and the UK (Ramsden, 2003). Recently, this learner-centredperspective has also been explicitly applied to the quality assurance of universityteaching (Prosser & Barrie, 2003). The learner-centred features of the more complexapproaches to developing generic attributes, identified in this research, provide apotential link between more general teaching and learning initiatives in Australianuniversities, and initiatives specifically seeking to target generic attributes curriculumreform. The current focus on fostering learner-centred approaches to general univer-sity teaching may well parallel and contribute to the development of learner-centredapproaches in the context of a particular sort of university learning outcome—genericattributes.

The most complex integrated conception (D:6) identified in this research poses aparticular challenge for generic attributes curriculum reform initiatives in Australianuniversities. In this conception, generic attributes are understood to be interwovenaptitudes and abilities, such as academic inquiry and intellectual curiosity, the abilityto accommodate diversity and alternative perspectives, the ability to create anddefend ideas, and the ability to use communication as a vehicle for learning. Whilesuch outcomes might sit at the heart of formal scholarship and university courses (asin the D:5 conception), the processes by which students might develop such abilitiescan also be far broader than the familiar academic classroom learning environment,as in the D:6 conception. This raises the question of how universities might helpstudents harness the learning potential of their engagement with other facets ofuniversity life outside of their formal classes. The importance and value of such expe-riences are increasingly being recognised in Australia, for example in their role in thesuccess of students’ transition to university (McInnis et al., 2000), and have long beena focus of the American higher education system (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991).However, students’ experiences of belonging to a university community do notappear to be a focus of academic development initiatives in Australian universities,nor of academics themselves. To harness the educative potential of these contexts,Australian universities will need to identify strategies to link the broader experienceof university with ‘formal’ classroom learning. Recent work in the USA on studentengagement (Kuh, 2003), and in the UK on developing personal profiles andstudents’ records of achievement (Richardson & Ward, 2005), has the potential toarticulate this broader university experience in ways that might be helpful to studentsand staff in the Australian context.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4


Conclusions

This research has described the qualitative differences in the way a group ofacademics from diverse disciplinary backgrounds conceive of generic graduateattributes in the context of their own courses and teaching. In doing so it hasbrought to the surface some of the understandings that underpin academics’current efforts to ensure students develop valuable generic attributes as a result oftheir university experience. It is hoped that in making these various understandingsand approaches explicit, the findings of this study will provide a tool to facilitateongoing dialogue aimed at developing university curricula which comprehensivelyand effectively address the achievement of relevant and worthwhile graduateoutcomes.

The outcomes of this qualitative research are only the first step in the explorationof academics’ conceptions of generic graduate attributes. The next stage mightusefully involve the investigation of such understandings across a wider range of disci-plines and university cultures, using a quantitative survey tool based on the categoriesidentified in this study. Moreover, the focus thus far has been on teachers’ concep-tions of generic attributes, and it will be interesting to explore how students conceiveof the graduate attribute learning outcomes and learning process their teachersintend.

Acknowledgements

The section of this article describing the methodology of this study is based on apreviously published paper reporting on the findings of the analysis of the firstphenomenographic outcome space (Barrie, 2006).

References

Akerlind, G. (2005) Variation and commonality in phenomenographic research methods, HigherEducation Research and Development, 24(4), 321–334.

Barrie S. C. (2004) A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy, Higher Educa-tion Research and Development, 23(3), 261–275.

Barrie, S. (2006) Understanding what we mean by generic attributes of graduates, Higher Educa-tion, 51(2), 215–241.

Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for quality learning in higher education (Buckingham, Open UniversityPress).

Bowden, J. & Marton, F. (1998) The university of learning: beyond quality and competence (London,Kogan Page).

Bowden, J. & Walsh, E. (2000) Phenomenography (Melbourne, RMIT).Bowden, J., Hart, G., King, B., Trigwell, K. & Watts, O. (2000) Generic capabilities of ATN univer-

sity graduates. Available online at: http:/www.clt.uts.edu.au/ATN.grad.cap.project.index.htmlDrummond, I., Nixon, I. & Wiltshire, J. (1998) Personal transferable skills in higher education:

the problems of implementing good practice, Quality Assurance in Education, 6(1), 44–58.European Ministers of Education (1999) The Bologna Declaration. Available online at: http://

www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/bologna_declaration.pdf (accessed June 2006).Fallows, S. & Steven, C. (2000) Integrating key skills in higher education (London, Kogan Page).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

458 S. C. Barrie

Goldsworthy, A. (2003) Developing generic skills: examples of best practice, B-HERT News, 16,April. Available online at: http://www.bhert.com/documents/B-HERTNEWSNo.16_001.pdf(accessed May 2005).

Hager, P., Holland, S. & Beckett D. (2002) Enhancing the learning and employability of graduates:the role of generic skills. Business/Higher Education Round Table Position paper No. 9.Melbourne, Australia.

Higher Education Funding Council for England, (2003) How much does higher education enhancethe employability of graduates? Higher Education Funding Council for England. Availableonline at: http://www.hefce.ac.uk (accessed June 2006).

Higher Education Council, Australia (1992) Achieving quality. Higher Education Council,National Board of Employment, Education and Training (Canberra, Australian GovernmentPublishing Service).

Kuh, G. D. (2003) What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE [National Surveyof Student Engagement], Change, 35(2), 24–32.

Marton, F. & Booth, S. (1997) Learning and awareness (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).McInnes, C., James, R. & Hartley, R. (2000) Trends in the first year experience in Australian universi-

ties. Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Canberra, Australian GovernmentPublishing Service).

Pascarella, E. & Terenzini, P.T. (1991) How college affects students: findings and insights from twentyyears of research (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).

Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999) Understanding learning and teaching: the experience of highereducation (Buckingham, Open University Press).

Prosser, M. & Barrie, S. (2003) Using a student-focused learning perspective to strategically alignacademic development with institutional quality assurance, in: R. Blackwell & P. Blackmore(Eds) Towards strategic staff development in higher education (Buckingham, Open UniversityPress).

Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to teach in higher education (2nd edn) (London, Routledge).Richardson, H. & Ward, R. (2005) Developing and implementing a methodology for reviewing

e-portfolio products. Report of the Centre for Recording Achievement. Available online at:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/epfr.doc (accessed August 2006).

Sandberg, J. (1997) Are phenomenographic results reliable? Higher Education Research andDevelopment, 16(2), 203–212.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Am

s/G

iron

a*ba

rri L

ib]

at 0

2:06

10

Oct

ober

201

4

a conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of generic graduate attributes

Documents