there is nothing generic about graduate attributes: unpacking the scope of context
TRANSCRIPT
This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]On: 26 November 2014, At: 01:29Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Further and HigherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjfh20
There is nothing generic aboutgraduate attributes: unpacking thescope of contextAnna Jones aa Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning, Glasgow CaledonianUniversity , Glasgow , UKPublished online: 07 Feb 2012.
To cite this article: Anna Jones (2013) There is nothing generic about graduate attributes:unpacking the scope of context, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 37:5, 591-605, DOI:10.1080/0309877X.2011.645466
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.645466
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 whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout 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
There is nothing generic about graduate attributes: unpacking thescope of context
Anna Jones*
Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning, Glasgow Caledonian University,Glasgow, UK
(Received 9 May 2011; final version received 27 September 2011)
This paper sets out to examine the situated nature of graduate attributesthrough using activity systems theory to explore their contextual nature.It builds on earlier work into graduate attributes by examining the rea-sons behind the significant variation in their interpretation, thus provid-ing an analysis of the contextual nature of teaching and the implicationsthis has for research and policy. The paper examines the local and indi-vidual factors which have a significant influence on the ways in whichgraduate attributes are understood by teaching staff. Rather than describ-ing graduate attributes as generic, this paper suggests that the teachingof graduate attributes is embedded in local meanings and highly situatedand this needs to be acknowledged in higher education policymaking,curriculum design and teaching.
Keywords: graduate attributes; teaching; activity systems; higher educa-tion; culture
Introduction
Graduate attributes are prominent on the higher education agenda with manyuniversities having established, or currently in the process of considering,strategies for implementation. There has been considerable work in the areaand yet there is still uncertainty, particularly in the area of the integration ofgraduate attributes into the curriculum and the ways this can best beachieved. This paper examines the reasons behind the range of interpreta-tions of graduate attributes, providing a more theorised analysis of the situ-ated nature of graduate attributes in particular, teaching more generally, andthe implications for higher education. It argues that graduate attributes arisefrom local meanings and hence are influenced by context, and this paperexplores some of the underpinning reasons and in doing so argues that it isthe very contextual nature of graduate attributes that explains their apparentelusiveness. Policy and practice regarding graduate attributes often imply
*Email: [email protected]
Journal of Further and Higher Education, 2013Vol. 37, No. 5, 591–605, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.645466
� 2011 UCU
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
that they are generic and transferable so this paper examines the reasonswhy this is problematic. Activity systems theory (Engeström 1999) is usedas a framework for analysing the ways in which graduate attributes are con-ceptualised. This paper builds on earlier empirical work (Jones 2006, 2009a,2009b) based on interviews with academics from history, physics, econom-ics, medicine and law in two research-intensive universities.
There has been considerable research into graduate attributes (Assiter1995; Barnett 1994; Barrie 2006, 2007; Bennett, Dunne, and Carre 2000;Candy, Crebert, and O’Leary 1994; De La Harpe, Radloff, and Wyber 2000;Drummond, Nixon, and Wiltshire 1998; Fallows and Steven 2000; Jones2007b, 2009b; Marginson 1994; Sumsion and Goodfellow 2004).1 Much ofthis research has been based on the assumption that graduate attributes aregeneric and transcend the disciplinary context. This is contested, in particu-lar the notion of simple transferability of skills and attributes from one con-text to another (c.f. Marginson 1994; Perkins and Salomon 1994).Specifically, there has been work which has examined the relationshipbetween graduate attributes and disciplinary culture (Jones 2007b, 2009b)and the barriers to the teaching of graduate attributes (Jones 2009a). Thedefinition of graduate attributes and their place in the curriculum has beendebated at length in the literature (Bennett, Dunne, and Carre 2000; Clanchyand Ballard 1995; Gibbs 1994; Golding, Marginson, and Pascoe 1996;Leveson 2000; Marginson 1993). In addition, there are a range of otherinfluences shaping the ways in which graduate attributes are conceptualisedand it is these which this paper sets out to explore.
The earlier work on which this paper is based has been outlined in detailelsewhere (Jones 2009a, 2009b) as a qualitative study based on in-depth inter-views with 37 academic staff in five disciplinary areas (history, economics,law, medicine and physics) in two large, research-intensive Australian univer-sities. In addition to interviews, copies of particular assessment tasks, subjectoutlines, lists of generic skills or attributes included in subject objectives anddepartment versions of university graduate attributes were collected to informthe ways in which staff described their teaching and to provide concrete exam-ples of teaching and assessment tasks. Each interview was between 50 and 90minutes in length. Interviews were semi-structured to allow for exploration ofindividual thinking. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed in full.Analysis was emergent and coding involved re-reading and validation throughcross-checking across all transcripts. From this coding, themes or patternswere identified and refined. Hypothetical relationships identified in the initialcoding were confirmed, modified or rejected on the basis of this process. Themain themes into which the data were coded included disciplinary culture,departmental and institutional factors, definitions of generic attributes, theplace of generic attributes in the curriculum, ways of teaching genericattributes, and barriers to teaching generic attributes. This study found that theconceptualisation and teaching of generic attributes is influenced by the
592 A. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
disciplinary context in which they are taught (Jones 2006, 2009b). This paperextends the findings of this earlier work by examining it through the lens ofactivity systems theory in order to theorise the complexity of graduate attri-butes. The research was confined to academics’ conceptualisation of graduateattributes.
In exploring the situated nature of graduate attributes, this paper providesa way to understand teaching that acknowledges the significance of contex-tual practices. It argues that in order to understand teaching and to success-fully implement graduate attributes, it is necessary to understand the culturein which this occurs – the multiple and often conflicting influences and therange of perspectives. The central contention is that the teaching of graduateattributes is influenced by disciplinary epistemology and by factors such asuniversity and departmental culture. Along with this, the teaching of gradu-ate attributes is shaped by conceptual frameworks, language, assessmentpractices, technology, physical settings and social structures. Teaching grad-uate attributes is also influenced by individual beliefs about knowledge andbeliefs about teaching. Thus graduate attributes are at the nexus of a com-plex range of factors and it is these factors which this paper seeks tounpack.
Framework for analysis
The analysis is based upon activity systems theory (Engeström 1999, 2001;Engeström, Miettinen, and Punamaki 1999). A detailed account of the intel-lectual underpinnings of activity systems theory can be found in Roth andLee (2007). Activity systems theory is a framework for describing socialsystems as situated sociocultural practice. It has been used to discuss a rangeof cultural phenomena and is useful in understanding graduate attributes asit provides a framework which considers the relationship between the sub-ject (in this case the teacher or teaching community) and the object (teach-ing practice) which takes account of context, for example the artefacts ortools (physical and cultural), the community (institution, department, disci-pline), the rules (tacit and overt) imposed by the community and the waysin which labour is divided. Thus teaching and learning are located in a het-erogeneous network that is both physical and intellectual and this systemacknowledges the significance of setting, physical and conceptual tools,technologies, cultural norms and communities of practice and the interactionbetween these elements.
One of the strengths of activity systems theory is that it takes intoaccount conflict in social practice since it examines the tensions and transi-tions within and between activity systems, and the role of contradiction ordisturbance in creating change (Blackler, Crump, and McDonald 2000; Coleand Engeström 1997). Blackler, Crump, and McDonald 2000 argue thatactivity systems are disturbance producing systems and that incoherences
Journal of Further and Higher Education 593
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
and paradoxes are integral elements. The disturbance becomes apparentwhen people interpret situations in different ways and hence inherent dilem-mas become clear (Blackler, Crump, and McDonald 2000). Seen in thisway, inconsistencies can cause a reconceptualisation and hence help promotea new solution and these dilemmas can work in either destructive or con-structive ways.
In what Engström (1999) refers to as the third generation of activity sys-tems theory, joint activity within a network of systems is the unit of analy-sis. This is one of the potential weaknesses of activity systems theory, as ittends to gloss over the role of the individual within systems. Therefore thispaper departs to some extent from this interpretation of activity systems the-ory in framing the analysis. It considers the individual and the ways inwhich the individual is at once part of a system and yet not entirely deter-mined by it. Academics can be identified as members of several groups (dis-cipline or field, research group, teaching team, department etc.) and hold arange of views within each. Thus the present paper considers the both indi-vidual and the various communities and the potential discord therein, andhence graduate attributes are understood as a collective as well as an indi-vidual phenomenon.
Graduate attributes as activity systems
Activity systems theory is a useful means of analysis as it takes intoaccount, and seeks to explain, the varying interpretations of graduate attri-butes and so is a way of examining inherent complexities and tensions.Within an activity system the object of the activity (in this case theteaching of graduate attributes) is both given and emerging. Hence at thesame time there is both a set of assumptions about graduate attributesand a developing understanding of what they might be, and the implica-tions of this. There is not necessarily any agreement regarding either theassumptions or the changing understandings. As a consequence of the
Figure 1. Activity systems (adapted from Engeström, 2001).
594 A. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
layers of meaning, the range of stakeholders and the forces acting ongraduate attributes (for example the various communities, rules, artefacts)they are a heterogeneous entity, having no fixed nor clearly definableidentity. These factors within a system – communities, rules, division oflabour, artefacts – and the tensions both within and between systems areconsidered in the remainder of the paper in order to explore the contex-tual nature of graduate attributes.
Community
There are numerous communities involved in the teaching of graduate attri-butes. These include the teaching unit, disciplinary or sub-disciplinary com-munity, department and institution. Each of these has differing aims andconstraints and interact or conflict in various ways around the teaching ofgraduate attributes. Within the disciplinary community the focus is on theepistemology, culture, research and practice of the discipline. This bothinfluences and is influenced by teaching practice and history – the waythings have always been done (Becher and Trowler 2001). However, aspectsof practice are also bound by departmental culture and rules, which may ormay not operate along disciplinary lines. For example physicists in one uni-versity resided in two different departments – the physics department andthe mathematics department, for historical rather than disciplinary orpedagogical reasons. Each department had their own set of rules and prac-tices but the physicists’ primary identification was with their discipline orsub-discipline. The consequence of this split for the teaching of graduateattributes was that physics students in one department took a subject focusedon communication, ethics and professional skills whereas students in theother department (in the same university) did not.
The departmental culture is significant in the construction of graduateattributes since it is at this level that the attributes are operationalised, in theform of lists, descriptors, course outlines and curriculum structures. Further-more, it is the departmental culture that can influence attitudes to teachingand hence affect the ways in which graduate attributes are conceptualised.The following sections will tease out some of the other (albeit closely con-nected) influences upon the multiple nature of graduate attributes.
Another element of the community which was not tackled directly bythis research is the student body. However, student reaction to graduate attri-butes is an important factor in the ways in which academic staff discussedtheir teaching. Examples of this include concern voiced by some academicsthat students were not interested in the development of broader ranging attri-butes as they were increasingly instrumentalist and focused on a very nar-row view of content. Others discussed the difficulties of teaching graduateattributes such as critical thinking because it could be challenging both tothe student and to the academic.
Journal of Further and Higher Education 595
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Divison of labour
Division of labour refers to the hierarchies and structures of organisationwithin academic communities. Division of labour determines the number ofclasses taught by each academic, delegation of teaching and marking, delega-tion of organisational tasks and other roles such as administration and research.It is significant in considering the construction of graduate attributes as it takesinto account notions of power in the ways in which they are shaped.
In some subjects such as economics, where the student numbers werevery large (up to 1,500 students) the division of labour had a profoundeffect on teaching and on the construction of graduate attributes. Full timeacademic staff designed the courses and delivered lectures but the day-to-day smaller tutorials and management of students was conducted by part-time teaching assistants who had little influence over curriculum design.This is not an unusual model and means that those people who have mostface-to-face contact with students have least input into the design of theirteaching. In the case of graduate attributes, this meant that those with leastinput into curriculum design sometimes have more nuanced ideas about thecomplexities of teaching (Jones 2004).
In medicine the division of labour is pervasive because of the hierarchi-cal nature of medicine and the hospital culture. Medical academics wereclear that this hierarchy affected student (and sometimes staff) willingness tochallenge authority and so affected the ways in which attributes such as crit-ical thinking were understood and taught.
Artefacts
Artefacts are objects (concrete, virtual, textual, graphic) that are either usedby, or the product of, (human) individual or group endeavour (Hurcombe2007). Writers on activity systems theory have also used the terms ‘instru-ments’ or ‘tools’. Artefacts are significant in the examination of graduateattributes as they can inform us about the culture of their creators.
Artefacts include lists of graduate attributes generated in numerous ways.Lists of graduate skills and attributes exist in many forms in the literatureand while there are common themes and elements, there is a certain degreeof inconsistency. This in itself is an important feature of the artefact. Listsof graduate attributes can be derived from stakeholders such as employergroups or professional bodies and these have varying degrees of influenceover the content of a degree. Artefacts also include the university’s aspira-tional graduate attributes, which are usually set out as a list of the attributesthat all graduates, regardless of discipline, will attain upon completion oftheir degree. At a more local level, some departments define graduate attri-butes to reflect their disciplinary culture, for example, one law schooladapted the university graduate attributes to take account of local factors.
596 A. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Learning and assessment tasks within subject or course outlines thatimplicitly or explicitly refer to graduate attributes are key artefacts. How-ever, while graduate attributes may be valued, this is not always reflected inassessment practices and there may not be alignment. As Barrie, Hughes,and Smith (2007) point out, while the strongest evidence of graduate attri-bute implementation is in the assessment activities, there are serious barriersto achieving this, such as clear and consistent definitions of outcomes, com-municating assessment standards to students, and the problems with defininggraduate attributes. Barrie et al. have developed a typology of assessmentthat reflects the barriers to graduate attributes (Barrie, Hughes, and Smith2007).
Artefacts also include explanations of graduate attributes in the literature,either theoretical or practical. There is a growing body of theoretical litera-ture around graduate attributes and also a growing set of practical resources(c.f. Fallows and Steven 2000; Jackson, Watty, and Yu 2006). Other arte-facts include policy documents regarding graduate attributes and these canbe produced at a number of levels – at the governmental level, by highereducation institutes, by the university, or individual departments. Each ofthese articulate (sometimes implicitly) the priorities of the authors.
Disciplinary epistemology, conceptual frameworks and language, i.e. thepre-existing corpus of research, pedagogical traditions and existing curricu-lum, constitute artefacts. These have an impact on the teaching of graduateattributes for both conceptual and historical reasons. For example, in thecase of physics the vast body of complex existing knowledge means there islong period required for students to reach disciplinary maturity and hence agreat deal of time and effort is devoted to mastering the basics, sometimesat the expense of the development of less technical attributes. In experimen-tal physics the use of laboratories and the organisation of experimental tech-nique and etiquette and the ways in which problems are structured affectsteaching practice and as such, certain approaches to attributes such as prob-lem solving are valued above others.
Other artefacts influencing how individuals teach are textbooks andteaching materials, and technology such as computers, PowerPoint and theInternet. Many of the academics in both economics and law argued thatstudents were expecting more and more elaborate notes and other resourcesto be available electronically. They argued that this increasing reliance onreadily available and very detailed notes was making it more difficult toenable attributes such as independence, criticality and initiative in students.
In the case of medicine, an artefact such as the existing Problem BasedLearning (PBL) curriculum (which some of the participants in the study hadbeen involved in implementing) was central in shaping the ways in whichteaching was conceptualised and had a profound impact on the teaching ofattributes such as problem solving, communication and critical thinking.
Journal of Further and Higher Education 597
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Other artefacts such as the extant body of research practices are important,for example the biomedical use of evidence-based medicine. Moreover, arte-facts such as medical and scientific technology, pharmaceuticals and the hospi-tal or clinical infrastructure, all greatly influence teaching. In history, primarysources, their type, availability and treatment as evidence are central to theways in which history is taught and the ways attributes such as critical think-ing are conceptualised. In law, cases and statutes and the legal conventions arefundamental in teaching, as are scholarly commentaries. Because teaching issituated, the conceptualisation of graduate attributes is highly contextual andan examination of teaching artefacts provide a clear example of this.
Rules
Rules are closely associated with artefacts and community as they oftenarise out of policy and practice. Rules can be overt or tacit and are followedto varying degrees. For example, one of the universities had a requirementthat a list of graduate attributes must be outlined in each subject description.There was a limited list of attributes/skills and subject coordinators wererequired to indicate the extent to which these skills were included in theteaching and assessment of the subject. However, this exercise was consid-ered by many staff to be merely a bureaucratic hurdle and was inclined toincrease resistance to the notion of graduate attributes rather than promotethem as it was considered to be a meaningless exercise. Other rules existedin the structure of courses, i.e. what could be taught, how it was taught, thesequencing of subjects, content and ways in which it was assessed. Much ofthis was often out of the control of the individual academic but affected theways in which graduate attributes were understood. For example in first yearphysics, the emphasis was on providing students with the skills in mathe-matics and foundation concepts. So while physics teachers considered criti-cal thinking to be an important aspect of physics, the form which criticalthinking took in the teaching of first year students who were mastering thefundamentals, and the form that it took in the teaching of postgraduates,who had a much more sophisticated understanding of physics, was quite dif-ferent. These often tacit rules exist as part of the disciplinary culture and areapparent in the interaction between the community and its rules.
Rules also include teaching practices that can either foster or hinder theteaching of graduate attributes – for example in one university there was sys-tematic use of collaborative problem-based tutorials in first and second yeareconomics subjects which influenced the ways in which academics expectedto teach and structure their courses. This meant that they encouraged studentsto work together in groups and develop communication and problem-solvingskills. In the case of medicine, the departmental expectations around the useof an integrated curriculum and PBL also fostered the development of gradu-ate attributes as these were overtly built into the curriculum.
598 A. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Requirements of the professional body – the conventions of professionaland ethical practice and hospital requirements – also constitute rules. Allthese influence teaching as they are part of the culture into which studentsare apprenticed. In both medicine and law this is explicitly taught, for exam-ple the notions of professional conduct and ethics. In law the legal conven-tions around the analysis of law were crucial and influenced the ways inwhich notions of critical thinking and problem solving were understood(Jones 2009b). In contrast, departmental expectations around high scores onstudent evaluation surveys mean that teachers often became risk averse asthey tend to teach in ways they believed would give them higher scores(Jones 2007a) and this does not necessarily foster attributes such as auton-omy or critical thought.
Disturbances
Disturbances (Blackler, Crump, and McDonald 2000) are the tensions andinconsistencies that occur both between and within systems. The tension inthe construction of graduate attributes evident in both the varying conceptu-alisations and in the resistance to graduate attributes can be seen by utilisingEngeström’s notion of multiple activity systems. Using the multiple systemtheory it is possible to see ways in which the disturbance can occur withinand between systems (for example research community, teaching commu-nity, department and institution) and their varying agendas and interpreta-tions of graduate attributes. Graduate attributes are complex and hencegenerate disturbance because they can be understood in multiple andnuanced ways (Barrie 2006; Jones 2009b). Furthermore there are a numberof stakeholders with a range of agendas. Through a systems theory lens it ispossible to see the inherent tensions.
Cole and Engestrom (1997) suggest that contradictions or disturbancescan occur at four levels: Firstly contradictions that are internal to a funda-mental entity – for example an inappropriate measure or tool that isdesigned for one thing causes something else to occur; secondly a contradic-tion between two entities – for example rules negate an object; thirdly acontradiction between objects in two or more systems – for example theconflicting objects of both ‘getting by’ and yet creating a system of sophisti-cated graduate attributes; and finally a tension between a central activity andneighbouring activities – for example the object of teaching graduateattributes and the possibly conflicting object of concentrating on research.
The potential for tension is evident in the differing perspectives of eachcommunity. So for example in one university, there was a general statementof graduate attributes which was broad-reaching, unspecific and open tomultiple interpretations. At the faculty level, in commerce for example, therewas a requirement that all subjects demonstrate evidence of a very narrowrange of ‘skills’ such as analysis or critical thinking which were not directly
Journal of Further and Higher Education 599
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
aligned to the university-wide graduate attributes. Then at the disciplinarylevel there were very particular ways of understanding and teaching attri-butes such as critical thinking, problem solving and communication (Jones2009b). Given that each community has a differing perspective on graduateattributes – a different set of assumptions, needs, constraints and aspirations– and given that each academic is likely to be a member (formal or infor-mal) of a range of communities and that there may not be internal agree-ment within each community, the reasons underlying the contextual natureof graduate attributes start to become apparent.
One disturbance is the clash between notions of graduate attributes ascomplex entities valued as integral to the disciplinary epistemology, juxta-posed against managerial requirements for simple and measurable skills.Graduate attribute policies and in some cases prescribed lists of graduateattributes are often introduced top-down. Hence they are at the intersectionof competing priorities between: a requirement for definable or quantifiableattributes; complex disciplinary understandings; research priorities; andteaching practicalities (Jones 2009a). One example of this is many of theacademics viewed the lists of graduate attributes promoted by the universityas separate from what was essential to their disciplines and hence perceivedthem to be imposed by ‘the educationalists’ in the words of one person.
Disturbances occur because there is a clash between idealised notions ofgraduate attributes and teaching practice. So for example there is a tensionbetween an aspiration for graduates to have (for example) the ability to thinkcritically and creatively, have the skills of leadership, be attuned to culturaldiversity, be socially responsible, have the ability to contribute to their com-munity and so on, and a more instrumentalist desire on the part of studentsto pass or on the part of teaching staff to balance other demands such asresearch, administration or student expectations.
By considering the interaction between and within systems, for examplethe institutional and disciplinary systems, it is possible to see the ways inwhich new understandings can be formulated or resisted. In some cases, dis-turbances can create a new and positive outcome. In both the medical schoolsin this study, the notion of graduate attributes was taken seriously for a num-ber of reasons: there was an overwhelming sense that the old curriculum wasunsatisfactory; these attributes were valued by the central organising body,the Australian Medical Council; they were interpreted as being integral to thedisciplinary epistemology and culture and to clinical practice; the ProblemBased Learning Curriculum enabled teaching that was embedded in content.As a consequence, notions of graduate attributes in each of the medicalschools are integrated with content and considered an essential part of whatis required in the conceptual and practical skill set of doctors. There was noassumption in either medical school in this study that graduate attributes weregeneric across all contexts in medicine, let alone outside of medicine and thisis reflected in the medical education literature (Elstein 1995) as well as in my
600 A. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
conversations with academics. Thus these attributes were taught within acontextual framework and with an expectation that skills would not necessar-ily be transferable without students having the opportunity to extend andpractise their knowledge in a range of contexts.
Graduate attributes in medicine became the metaskills that were requiredby medical practitioners, skills such as communication in a range of clinicalsettings, clinical problem solving, a questioning frame of mind that willexamine the evidence, and a professional attitude that critically considers themoral and social dimensions of a situation. This notion of metaskills is per-haps a useful one in considering graduate attributes as it remains groundedwithin the disciplinary or professional context and does not carry with itproblematic assumptions about transferability.
An example of disturbance in which the outcome is less positive is inhistory where there is a clash between the structure of the degree and theeffective teaching of graduate attributes. While attributes such as criticalthinking and writing are valued, historians from both universities argue thatthe curriculum structure is not ideal for facilitating the development of theseattributes as there is no clear notion of progression. At one university, sec-ond and third year students are taught together, however, often they do nothave the same skill level. At the other university there were concerns thatthere was no common first year subject and so no systematic way to ensurethat students developed the necessary foundation skills to enable the devel-opment of more sophisticated attributes.
Implications for policy and practice
This paper explores a means for theorising graduate attributes as contextualentities. However, the next step is to explore the ways in which this can beutilised in the teaching of graduate attributes in particular and in teaching inhigher education more generally. What this research demonstrates is thatnotions of graduate attributes succeed when they are conceptualised as inte-gral to the ‘community’, for example when they fit with the disciplinary anddepartmental culture, with the epistemic frames and with teaching practice.However, if they are considered as external to this they are treated asperipheral and largely ignored. This is not to suggest that change is not pos-sible or desirable. As can be seen in the case of medicine, curriculumchange occurred, in part because attributes such as critical thinking, problemsolving and communication were considered as central to disciplinary andprofessional knowledge and hence to the practice required of graduatingdoctors. In this case disturbance created new practices.
In terms of policy, what is required is an environment that will foster cre-ative disturbance that causes sufficient tension to promote the developmentof innovative approaches to the development of graduate attributes while atthe same time acknowledging the importance of local cultures, be they
Journal of Further and Higher Education 601
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
institutional, departmental or disciplinary. This is not an easy balancing actand requires an understanding of the context alongside a drive for changethat is grounded in sound pedagogical research. Further, it requires anunderstanding of graduate attributes that takes into account the full range ofstakeholders and the possible conflicts of interest between them. Developinggraduate attributes policy and programmes at this level requires a moveaway from the oversimplification which is present in some statements ofgraduate attributes and partly explains academics’ resistance to them (Hus-sey and Smith 2002).
Conclusions
This paper has examined the ways in which a concept such as graduate attri-butes is at the nexus of a number of complex and often contradictory forcesand this can operate in either creative or negative ways. The paper caninform both policy and pedagogy since currently graduate attributes sit atthe intersection of the two as they are promoted through policy and enactedthrough pedagogy. To date policy has driven pedagogy without a detailedcritical examination of either. Graduate attributes policy has often beenimplemented without a careful consideration of the contextual basis withinwhich it is positioned. This paper has argued that on close inspection, higherorder graduate attributes are in fact highly complex and worthy of moredetailed scrutiny than they have received in the past. It demonstrates how asituated learning perspective based on the ways in which teaching and learn-ing occur can provide a more robust theorising of graduate skills and attri-butes. This analysis points to the multiple dimensions of graduate attributesand in doing this provides an interpretive space within which these dimen-sions can be explored and hence outlines a new structure for the theorisingof graduate attributes.
This investigation of graduate attributes examined teaching, departmentaland research communities as a form of social practice with particular formsof knowledge creation, verification and transmission. These communities arecomprised of the methodologies, forms of argument, mechanisms and inmany cases languages. Central to this is the knowledge and practices that areintegral to the ways laboratories and clinics are organised and the waysteaching is organised through lectures, tutorials, seminars and practical clas-ses. This culture is present in and reproduced by departmental cultures, bythe professional persona, curriculum content, assessment practices, attitudesto teaching, the ways in which research is structured. The findings presentedhere provide new insights into the complexity of graduate attributes. Throughan examination of the relationship between the ways in which academic staffdescribe the landscape of their practice and through an examination of theirconceptualisation and teaching of graduate attributes it has been possible tobring into focus the importance of teaching as contextualised practice.
602 A. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
One notable omission in the factors influencing notions of graduate attri-butes in this paper is that it has not considered them from the perspective ofthe student and there is a need in the literature for work that places the lear-ner in a central position and considers how graduate attributes are under-stood and learnt by students. To date there has been some work which hasconsidered this (Barrie, Hughes, and Smith 2009) but it is an area in needof further investigation. What the present paper does, however, is to exam-ine the influences on teaching practice, including epistemology, the scholarlycommunity, institutional and pedagogical traditions. It conceptualises teach-ing as shaped by what is being taught and the environment in which teach-ing occurs. This does not imply an absence of principles that areeducationally sound across many contexts, nor does it suggest disciplinaryisolationism but rather proposes an examination of what is to be taught inits context and an examination of teachers’ accounts of their teaching andan acknowledgement of what is important in their scholarly, research andprofessional communities. If teaching is to become more learning-centred, itis necessary to understand the influences which shape teaching practice andthis paper is one step in this direction.
AcknowledgementsMy thanks to Gabriel Reedy, Po Li Tan, Sharon Markless, Emma Medland andSimon Lygo-Baker for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.
Note1. Graduate attributes have been referred to by a number of names, for example
generic skills, generic attributes, key skills, core skills, transferable skills. Eachterm reflects a differing set of assumptions. However, the term used here isgraduate attributes as it does not carry with it the suggestion that these entitiesare generic, nor as precise or technical as skills.
Note on contributor
Anna Jones is Reader in Education at the Centre for Research in LifelongLearning at Glasgow Caledonian University. Before that she worked at King’sCollege, London, and at the University of Melbourne. Her research interestsinclude graduate attributes, disciplinary cultures in higher education, theorisingacademic development practice, academic identity and the role of higher educa-tion in society. She has extensive experience in both teaching and academicdevelopment.
ReferencesAssiter, A., ed. 1995. Transferable skills in higher education. London: Kogan Page.Barnett, R. 1994. The limits of competence. Knowledge, higher education and soci-
ety. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education / OpenUniversity Press.
Journal of Further and Higher Education 603
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Barrie, S. 2006. Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of gradu-ates. Higher Education 51: 215–41.
Barrie, S. 2007. A conceptual framework for the teaching and learning of genericgraduate attributes. Studies in Higher Education 32, no. 4: 439–58.
Barrie, S., C. Hughes, and C. Smith. 2009. The National Graduate Attributes Pro-ject: Integration and assessement of graduate attributes in the curriculum.Strawberry Hills, Australia: Australian Teaching and Learning Council.
Becher, T., and P. Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectualenquiry and the culture of disciplines . 2nd ed. Buckingham, UK: Society forResearch into Higher Education / Open University Press.
Bennett, N., E. Dunne, and C. Carre. 2000. Skills development in higher educationand employment. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education/ Open University Press.
Blackler, F., N. Crump, and S. McDonald. 2000. Organising processes in complexactivity networks. Organisation 7, no. 2: 277–300.
Candy, P., G. Crebert, and J. O’Leary. 1994. Developing lifelong learners throughundergraduate education. Canberra: National Board of Employment, Educationand Training.
Clanchy, J., and B. Ballard. 1995. Generic skills in the context of higher education.Higher Education Research and Development 14, no. 2: 155–66.
Cole, M., and Y. Engeström. 1997. A cultural-historical approach to distributed cog-nition. In Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations,ed. G. Salomon, 1–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
De La Harpe, B., A. Radloff, and J. Wyber. 2000. Quality and generic (profes-sional) skills. Quality in Higher Education 6, no. 3: 231–43.
Drummond, I., I. Nixon, and J. Wiltshire. 1998. Personal transferable skills inhigher education: The problems of implementing good practice. Quality Assur-ance in Education 6, no. 1: 19–27.
Elstein, A.S. 1995. Clinical reasoning in medicine. In Clinical reasoning in the healthprofessions, ed. J. Higgs and M. Jones, 95–106. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Engeström, Y. 1999. Innovative learning in work teams: Analysing cycles of knowl-edge creation in practice. In Perspectives on activity theory, ed. Y. Engeström,R. Miettinen, and R.L Punamaki, 377–405. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.
Engeström, Y. 2001. Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoreticalreconceputalisation. Journal of Education and Work 14, no. 1: 133–56.
Engeström, Y., R. Miettinen, , and R.L. Punamaki, eds. 1999. Perspectives on activ-ity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fallows, S., and C. Steven, eds. 2000. Integrating key skills in higher education:Employability, transferable skills and learning for life. London: Kogan Page.
Gibbs, G. 1994. Developing students’ transferable skills. Oxford: Oxford Centre forStaff Development.
Golding, B., S. Marginson, and R. Pascoe. 1996. Changing context, moving skills:Generic skills in the context of credit transfer and the recognition of prior learn-ing. Canberra: National Board of Employment, Education and Training.
Hurcombe, L. 2007. Archaeological artefacts as material culture. London: Routledge.Hussey, T., and P. Smith. 2002. The trouble with learning outcomes. Active learning
in higher education 3, no. 3: 220–33.Jackson, M., K. Watty, and X. Yu. 2006. Inclusive assessment: Improving learning
for all. A manual for improving assessment in accounting education StrawberryHills, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
604 A. Jones
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014
Jones, A. 2004. Teaching critical thinking: An investigation of a task in introductorymacroeconomics.Higher Education Research and Development 23, no. 2: 167–81.
Jones, A. 2006. Re-disciplining generic skills: An examination of the relationshipbetween the disciplinary context and generic skills in higher education. PhDdiss, University of Melbourne.
Jones, A. 2007a. Looking over our shoulders: Critical thinking and ontological inse-curity in higher education. London Review of Education 5, no. 3: 209–22.
Jones, A. 2007b. Multiplicities or manna from heaven? Critical thinking and thedisciplinary context. Australian Journal of Education 5, no. 1: 84–103.
Jones, A. 2009a. Generic attributes as espoused theory: The importance of context.Higher Education 58, no. 2: 175–91.
Jones, A. 2009b. Re-disciplining generic attributes: The disciplinary context infocus. Studies in Higher Education 34, no. 1: 85–100.
Leveson, A. 2000. Disparities in perceptions of generic skills: Academics andemployers. Industry and Higher Education, June: 157–64.
Marginson, S. 1993. Arts, science and work. Canberra: Australian GovernmentPublishing Service.
Marginson, S. 1994. The problem of ‘transferable’ skills. Melbourne Studies in Edu-cation: 4–28.
Perkins, D.N., and G. Salomon. 1994. Transfer of learning. In The international ency-clopaedia of education. Vol. 11, 2nd ed., ed. T. Husen and T.N. Postlethwaite,6452–7. Oxford: Pergamon.
Roth, W.-M., and Y.-J. Lee. 2007. Vygotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-historicalactivity theory. Review of Educational Research 77, no. 2: 186–232.
Sumsion, J., and J. Goodfellow. 2004. Identifying generic skills through curriculummapping: A critical evaluation. Higher Education Research and Development23, no. 3: 330–46.
Journal of Further and Higher Education 605
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
FU B
erlin
] at
01:
29 2
6 N
ovem
ber
2014