Higher Education Research & Development

ISSN: 0729-4360 (Print) 1469-8366 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Graduate attributes for 2020 and beyond:

recommendations for Australian higher education
providers

Beverley Oliver & Trina Jorre de St Jorre

To cite this article: Beverley Oliver & Trina Jorre de St Jorre (2018) Graduate attributes for
2020 and beyond: recommendations for Australian higher education providers, Higher Education
Research & Development, 37:4, 821-836, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1446415

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446415

Published online: 06 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1381

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cher20
HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT, 2018
VOL. 37, NO. 4, 821–836
https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446415

Graduate attributes for 2020 and beyond: recommendations

for Australian higher education providers
Beverley Olivera and Trina Jorre de St Jorreb
a
Deakin University, Geelong, Australia; bDeakin Learning Futures, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Given global uncertainty related to rapid technological developments Received 20 April 2017
and the world of work, alongside other equally (if not more) Accepted 29 January 2018
concerning social and political disruptions – the assurance of
KEYWORDS
graduate attributes of importance to employability and citizenship Graduate attributes; quality
are arguably more important than ever. In this paper, we assurance; employability;
investigate three areas of practice by Australian universities, and citizenship
non-university higher education providers who have been omitted
from past analyses of this kind. First, we examine the graduate
attributes most frequently published by institutions and discipline
groups and whether emphasis has changed over time. Second, we
investigate how graduate attributes are assured, including a scan of
the inputs put in practice by higher education providers, and
comparison of graduate and employer perceptions of achievement
gathered through recent national surveys. Third, we connect our
findings in the first two areas and make recommendations for the
attributes needed to equip 2020+ graduates for citizenship and
employability. Based on these analyses, we recommend that all
providers, university and non-university, and the discipline groups
within them: make graduate attributes more visible to the public
and especially to students; continue embedding them in the
assessed curricula, but also ensure that assessment is explicit and
that attributes are communicated and explained repeatedly
throughout the course; continue to use stakeholder perception
measures, but more consistently align skills in data collection
instruments to allow a more constructive comparison, and also
draw on more objective measures such as actual assessment of
achievement; continue to emphasise attributes associated with
global citizenship, teamwork and communication; give more
emphasis to independence, critical thinking and problem-solving,
and the fundamental foundational skills of written and spoken
communication. Most importantly, continue to revise the attributes
regularly to ensure fitness for purpose in the rapidly changing
environment within which we and our graduates operate.

Introduction
The term ‘graduate attributes’ refers to a range of skills beyond those that are discipline-
specific, such as those described as life-long learning, generic, transferable or ‘soft’ skills.

CONTACT Beverley Oliver b.oliver@deakin.edu.au Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education, Deakin University, Locked
Bag 20001, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
© 2018 HERDSA
822 B. OLIVER AND T. JORRE DE ST JORRE

Much of the emphasis on developing graduate attributes has emerged from a focus on
graduate employability (Oliver, 2011, 2015). However, the importance of preparing gradu-
ates to be life-long learners and engaged citizens has also featured prominently in this con-
versation (Arvanitakis & Hornsby, 2016; Candy, 2000; Star & Hammer, 2008). In fact, over
the past 20 years, the boundaries between terms such as graduate attributes, learning out-
comes and employability (linked with engaged citizenship) have become so blurred that
they seem to be used almost interchangeably. Overlap and links between these concepts
are demonstrated in the following three excerpts, which speak of similar matters under
three definitional headings: graduate attributes, employability and learning outcomes:
In 2000, Bowden and colleagues defined graduate attributes as:
the qualities, skills and understandings a university community agrees its students should
develop during their time with the institution. These attributes include but go beyond the
disciplinary expertise or technical knowledge that has traditionally formed the core of
most university courses. They are qualities that also prepare graduates as agents of social
good in an unknown future. (Bowden, Hart, King, Trigwell, & Watts, 2000)

In 2015, Oliver adapted Yorke’s widely accepted definition of employability (in which
ability is clearly linked to benefits for fellow citizens):
students and graduates can discern, acquire, adapt and continually enhance the skills, under-
standings and personal attributes that make them more likely to find and create meaningful
paid and unpaid work that benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the
economy.

Similarly, Australia’s 2015 Higher Education Standards Framework stipulates that:

on completion of a course of study, students [must] have demonstrated the learning out-
comes specified for the course of study, whether assessed at unit level, course level, or in com-
bination. . . [and] the learning outcomes for a course (degree) must include generic skills
important to employment and further study, and independent and critical thinking skills
suitable for life-long learning. (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015)

Despite clear links between the concepts of employability and citizenship, some commen-
tators have put these aims in opposition: suggesting that the development of graduate
attributes clearly linked to employability risks erosion of the higher purpose of universities
and is to the detriment of students’ social and personal development (Review: Star &
Hammer, 2008). We contend that classifying citizenship and employability as a binary
opposition is unnecessary and unhelpful. For a start, there is much crossover, if not
total overlap, between the broad categories of attributes identified as important to employ-
ers and industry bodies (Hajkowicz et al., 2016; NACE, 2015; National Network, 2015) and
those that have been identified as necessary to develop citizen scholars (Arvanitakis &
Hornsby, 2016). There are also many parallels between pedagogies that focus on employ-
ability and citizenship as motivational contexts within which to promote the development
of graduate attributes (or learning outcomes). For example, pedagogies using service- and
work-integrated learning to engage students and contextualise the development of gradu-
ate attributes have been shown to be similarly effective (Star & Hammer, 2008). Just as the
development of generic graduate learning outcomes need not be at the expense of disci-
pline-specific skills and knowledge (Candy, 2000; Yorke, 2006), the development of
employability need not be at the expense of global citizenship.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 823

In Australia, numerous national projects have sought to identify the graduate attributes
(using a range of terminology) that are most important to higher education providers and
the strategies they adopt to foster and assure their achievement (Barrie, Hughes, Crisp, &
Bennieson, 2014; Barrie, Hughes, & Smith, 2009; Bowman, 2010; Freeman & Ewan, 2014;
Oliver, 2011; Radloff et al., 2009). Given recent changes to the government policy and
quality assurance requirements related to higher education, and broader economic and
social change at a global level, it is timely to consider how projects such as these have con-
tributed to the practice of Australian higher education providers.
In recent years, there have been major shifts within – and beyond – higher education.
The demand-driven funding system has increased the number and diversity of students
accessing higher education (Norton, 2013), and the number and diversity of providers
have subsequently increased, especially non-university providers. At the same time, the
revised Higher Education Standards Framework has tightened requirements: all higher
education providers must now provide evidence that learning outcomes including skills
important to employment and life-long learning have been achieved (Commonwealth
of Australia, 2015). Beyond higher education, geopolitics and technology developments
have accelerated the disruption of nation states, voting patterns and predictable labour
supply and demand. With these collective developments in mind – and seventeen years
into the twenty-first century – we consider it timely to revisit previous studies, and ask
these three pivotal questions about how we are collectively preparing graduates from Aus-
tralian institutions by 2020 and beyond:

(1) Which attributes do Australian providers – university and non-university – and dis-
cipline groups emphasise, and has the emphasis changed to mirror the massive
societal changes we are experiencing?
(2) Beyond embedding these attributes into assessable curricula, is there any evidence that
we are any better at assuring graduate outcomes?
(3) Given growing concerns about employability, the unknown future of work and global
challenges, which attributes should we be emphasising to equip 2020+ graduates?

For brevity, we use the term ‘attributes’ as communicated in the Australian Higher Edu-
cation Standards: generic skills important to employment and further study, as well as
independent and critical thinking skills for life-long learning. We will also refer to cat-
egories of attributes by their abbreviated titles.

Which attributes do Australian providers emphasise?

Australian universities have traditionally published the learning outcomes and attributes
that differentiate their (more employable) graduates. These claims about attributes some-
times bleed into the marketing of courses, and are frequently interrogated as part of quality
assurance. More broadly, discipline groups have sought consensus on the ‘threshold learn-
ing outcomes’ or standards of achievement that should be expected of students at different
levels across different disciplines of study, regardless of the provider (e.g., Jones, Yates, &
Kelder, 2011; Kift, Israel, & Field, 2010; Phelan et al., 2015). Much of this work has been
achieved through the Learning and Teaching Academic Standards project funded by the
Australian Learning and Teaching Council, and subsequent projects funded by the Office
824 B. OLIVER AND T. JORRE DE ST JORRE

for Teaching and Learning to extend that model to other disciplines (Freeman & Ewan,
2014). Freeman and Ewan (2014) note that non-university higher education providers
(NUHEPs) have rarely been represented in projects related to assuring learning outcomes
and standards.
The ways in which graduate attributes are prioritised, described or clustered varies
between individual institutions, groups and commentators. However, broadly speaking,
the categories of attributes emphasised by providers and disciplines are remarkably con-
sistent. We confirmed this by repeating a mapping exercise first reported in 2011: that
mapping exercise aimed to capture a snapshot of the attributes that Australian universities
said they aimed to have their students achieve (Oliver, 2011). In addition to discipline
knowledge, the most common attributes at that time were:

(1) Written and oral communication

(2) Critical and analytical (and sometimes creative and reflective) thinking
(3) Problem-solving (including generating ideas and innovative solutions)
(4) Information literacy, often associated with technology
(5) Learning and working independently
(6) Learning and working collaboratively
(7) Ethical and inclusive engagement with communities, cultures and nations.

In 2011, very few Australian universities failed to mention attributes associated in some
way with these clusters. Others mentioned less frequently were associated with leadership
(by eight universities), self-reliance and confidence (10), scholarly integrity (4) and numer-
acy (4) (Oliver, 2011, p. 9). It is important to acknowledge that this type of mapping is sub-
jective and that institutional lists of attributes are often decided by committees and often
include sub-lists. Acknowledging these caveats, we repeated the same mapping exercise in
2015 but extended it to include 82 NUHEPs (based on those authorised to offer Bachelor
degrees at the My University website) and 28 discipline groups that had published threshold
learning outcomes at that time. The data were collected in May 2015.
In 2015, we found information about attributes on the websites of nearly all (41 of 42)
Australian universities. In contrast, we were able to find published attributes on less than
half the NUHEPs websites (32 of 82). We also found and mapped 28 sets of threshold
learning outcomes reported by disciplinary groups. These threshold statements are deter-
mined at a discipline level and so represent overlap between universities and NUHEPs.
The results appear in Table 1.

Universities and their published attributes

We observed that the broad categories of graduate attributes most commonly published by
universities had become more consistent and comprehensive. Attributes such as Infor-
mation literacy, Global citizenship and Problem-solving appeared more frequently and
Global Citizenship had become ubiquitous. ‘Other attributes’ that universities mentioned
less frequently than the seven categories above included leadership, which continues to be
emphasised at approximately the same level, and interdisciplinarity, which was not pro-
minent in 2011 but was listed by nine universities and 10 discipline groups (discussed
later in this paper) in 2015 (Table 2). Interdisciplinarity is a term which we understand
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 825

Table 1. Ranking (and percentage frequency) of attributes most commonly mentioned by universities,
NUHEPs and threshold learning outcomes (TLOS) articulated by disciplinary groups.
2011 2015
Universities Universities NUHEPs TLOs
(n = 38) (n = 41) (n = 32) (n = 28)
Abbreviation Category Rank (%) Rank (%) Rank (%) Rank (%)
Communication Written and oral communication 1 (89) 2 (95) =3 (63) 2 (82)
Critical thinking Critical and analytical (and sometimes =2 (87) 3 (93) 1 (78) 1 (96)
creative and reflective) thinking
Global Ethical and inclusive engagement =2 (87) 1 (100) 2 (72) =4 (75)
citizenship with communities, cultures and
nations
Teamwork Learning and working collaboratively 4 (82) 4 (90) =3 (63) =4 (75)
Independence Learning and working independently 5 (76) 7 (83) =3 (63) 3 (78)
Problem-solving Problem-solving (including 6 (74) =5 (85) 6 (47) 6 (71)
generating ideas and innovative
solutions)
Information Information literacy, often associated 7 (71) =5 (85) 7 (38) 7 (46)
literacy with technology

Table 2. Percentage frequency of ‘other attributes’ mentioned by universities in 2011 and 2015.
Category 2011 universities (n = 38) 2015 universities (n = 41)
Self-reliance and confidence 26% 7%
Leadership 21% 22%
Scholarly integrity 10% 2%
Numeracy 10% 5%
Interdisciplinarity 0% 22%

(through analysis of the statements of institutions and discipline groups) to refer to the
capacity to acquire knowledge and understanding of fields of study beyond a single disci-
pline or to understand one’s discipline across interdisciplinary contexts. This greater
emphasis may coalesce with similar rising emphases on creativity, entrepreneurship and
sustainable development in wider society.
Self-reliance and confidence, and numeracy seemed less prominent in 2015 and only
one university listed academic (scholarly) integrity. However, other universities had
included statements about professional standards or application of ethics in professional
contexts within broader statements about ethical and inclusive engagement. Likewise,
some universities specified that students should engage in sustainable or environmentally
aware practices, or made specific mention of knowledge of and/or respect for indigenous
Australian and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but these attributes were more commonly
clustered within a broader category or statement about ethical and inclusive engagement.

Non-university providers and their published attributes

In addition to published attributes by 32 NUHEP providers, four made reference to attri-
butes, but did not specifically list them; a further eight providers published teacher-
focused mission statements or referred to the values of the organisation but did not
specify the outcomes that graduates were expected to achieve. NUHEPs’ lesser focus on
publishing graduate attributes is perhaps unsurprising; Freeman and Ewan (2014)
noted the absence (or invisibility) of non-self-accrediting and private providers in projects
826 B. OLIVER AND T. JORRE DE ST JORRE

related to assuring learning outcomes and standards and the need for greater collaboration
between public and private providers, given the impetus of national regulation (Freeman
& Ewan, 2014). The 32 providers who did publish attributes most commonly mentioned
Critical thinking (78%) and Global citizenship (72%). Two-thirds listed Communication,
Teamwork and Independence. Other attributes included Christian values (22%) and lea-
dership (19%).
While the graduate attributes emphasised by universities have become more similar,
alignment between NUHEPs and universities is not obvious. We observed the following
differences between universities and NUHEPs: Global citizenship was listed by all uni-
versities, but only about three quarters of the NUHEPs who published these sorts of
statements. Communication and Teamwork were mentioned by the vast majority of uni-
versities but only by two thirds of NUHEPs. Similarly, Independence was mentioned by
more than three quarters of universities but only by two thirds of NUHEPs. Problem-
solving and Information literacy were mentioned by NUHEPs a lot less frequently
than universities.

Discipline groups and their published attributes

Critical thinking (96%) and communication (82%) were the attributes emphasised by
almost all disciplinary groups. In addition to the seven broad categories of attributes
listed above, about a third of the discipline groups (36%) recognised the importance of
interdisciplinarity. Recognition of the importance of interdisciplinarity was more empha-
sised by discipline groups than by universities (36% vs. 22%) and was not mentioned at all
by NUHEPs.

How achievement of attributes is assured

In a previous review, Oliver (2011) observed that it was rarely clear how Australian uni-
versities assured graduates’ achievement of the attributes they published: considerable pro-
gress had been made with institution-wide practices such as mapping of graduate
attributes across entire degrees. Recent reports suggest that ‘inputs’ such as coordinated
approaches to degree-wide analysis as part of curriculum enhancement have become
more prevalent (Lawson, Taylor, Herbert, Fallshaw, & French, 2013) since 2011, and
numerous approaches to curriculum mapping specifically focused on the development
of graduate attributes (not all successful) have been reported in the literature, including
systematic curriculum mapping across entire universities (Bath, Smith, Stein, & Swann,
2004; Oliver, 2013, 2015; Spencer, Riddle, & Knewstubb, 2012). Research suggests that
individual teachers need to understand how development of graduate attributes within
individual units of study (sometimes called subjects or modules) fit within the broader
degree curriculum so that the teaching and assessment of graduate attributes are
aligned and scaffolded throughout degrees (Barrie, 2004; Oliver, 2013; Radloff et al.,
2009). In addition to improving the curriculum itself, initiatives such as these can increase
collaboration and understanding among participating faculty members (Oliver, 2013;
Uchiyama & Radin, 2009).
Discipline groups have also sought national consensus on threshold learning out-
comes which articulate the ‘standards’ of achievement expected at different levels.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 827

The concept of threshold learning outcomes has been adopted by numerous discipline
groups, who report they have been useful for developing courses and improving net-
works and assessment practices (Freeman & Ewan, 2014). The list of disciplines
having defined threshold learning outcomes continues to grow, and the networks
formed have often expanded to provide academics with additional support for
course design, quality improvement, assessment and sometimes external review pro-
cesses (Freeman & Ewan, 2014). However, while threshold learning outcomes have
been described as standards, they are more likely to indicate the ‘must haves’ in a
degree, rather than the precise level of achievement that must be demonstrated;
that is, they broadly describe what graduates should be able to do, but they often
do not specify the level to be achieved, or the evidence required to demonstrate
achievement (where achievement of marks and grades for entire subjects or
modules is often taken as a proxy for the achievement of the collective learning out-
comes of that module).
Another mechanism that can lead to greater interrogation of comparable achievement
is calibration of marks and grades through the peer review of student artefacts (Krause
et al., 2014). Comparison of achievement across institutions or against standards will
undoubtedly increase the accountability of institutions to regulators and professional
bodies, and in doing so, should improve the quality of higher education provided by
institutions.
Finally, an integral part of assuring attributes is ensuring that graduates themselves are
cognisant of the capabilities that they develop during their degree, so that they can recog-
nise, develop and evidence them to realise their life and career ambitions (Bowden et al.,
2000; Oliver, 2013). We contend that, in addition to assuring that the curriculum is fit for
purpose, higher education institutions ought to also challenge students to take responsi-
bility for assuring their own achievement and success. A recent investigation of student
perceptions suggests that students share this view (Jorre de St Jorre & Oliver, 2018).
However, even where universities have invested significant time and resourcing into pro-
cesses to assure graduate attributes (such as course mapping), a gap that often remains is
development and consistent implementation of appropriate strategies for engaging stu-
dents (Jorre de St Jorre & Oliver, 2018).
There is much consensus that the development of graduate attributes is more enga-
ging in a disciplinary context (Bath et al., 2004; Oliver, 2011): contextualising learning
helps students to understand the interrelationships between concepts and to organise,
integrate and transfer their knowledge (Kuh, 2008). However, student perceptions
suggest that even where graduate attributes are taught in a disciplinary context, they
need to be made explicit and explained, or better still assessed, in order to facilitate
understanding and make them meaningful (Jorre de St Jorre & Oliver, 2018). That is,
teaching attributes are not enough, we also need to teach (and assess) students’ ability
to identify, self-assess, articulate and evidence attributes of importance to whatever it
is that they hope to achieve. Much has been done to identify the characteristics of assess-
ment that engage students in appropriate learning and develops their capacity to make
judgements about their own work (Boud, 2010; Tai, Canny, Haines, & Molloy, 2016).
This understanding now needs to be applied to the learning and assessment associated
with graduate attributes.
828 B. OLIVER AND T. JORRE DE ST JORRE

Measuring outcomes – do students achieve them?

Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) is a suite of national, higher edu-
cation surveys endorsed by the Australian government that covers student life cycle
from commencement to employment (https://www.qilt.edu.au/). Most universities use
the data for degree-level quality assurance, using proxy measures such as student com-
pletion, satisfaction or self-reported information on achievement of generic skills (in
the Graduate Outcomes Survey). While moderately informative at the institution level,
degree-level data are often based on low response rates and are therefore less helpful.
Two new surveys – the Student Experience Survey (SES) and the Employer Satisfaction
Survey (ESS, still in development) – provide measures potentially relevant to this paper,
albeit that their measures are at the national rather than at the institutional or degree
level. The Student Experience Survey asks selected commencing and later year under-
graduate students in participating institutions about their skills development (reported
as the Skills Development focus area):
To what extent has your course developed your:

(1) Critical thinking skills?

(2) Ability to solve complex problems?
(3) Ability to work with others?
(4) Confidence to learn independently?
(5) Written communication skills?
(6) Spoken communication skills?
(7) Knowledge of field(s) you are studying?
(8) Development of work-related knowledge and skills?

In 2016, 178,459 students from 95 providers (including universities and NUHEPs) pro-
vided responses (response rate over 45%) (QILT, 2016b). Table 3 shows the percentage
scores for the underlying items in the Skills Development focus area, for commencing
and later year undergraduate students and in total.
It is important to remember that these are self-reported data rather than objective
measures, that data are collected at a single time point, and that the later year students
are not the same as commencing students several years on, rather, both are subgroups
of the entire cohort in their institution. For both survey periods (2015 and 2016), students
were more likely to agree that their course developed their confidence to learn indepen-
dently and their knowledge, and later students were more likely to agree that their
Table 3. Commencing and later year students’ percentage rating of skills development items from the
2015 and 2016 Student Experience Surveys (QILT, 2015, 2016b). Shading highlights scores ≥ 70%.
Item 2015 – universities only 2016 – universities and NUHEPs
Commencing Later year Total Commencing Later year Total
Critical and analytical thinking 68 73 70 68 73 70
Ability to solve complex problems 58 66 61 59 66 62
Ability to work effectively with others 61 67 63 62 68 65
Confidence to learn independently 71 77 73 71 77 73
Written communication skills 59 70 63 60 70 64
Spoken communication skills 49 60 53 52 62 56
Knowledge of field studying 78 80 79 77 79 78
Work-related knowledge and skills 63 63 63 63 63 63
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 829

course developed their critical and analytical thinking and written communication skills.
Notably, there was little difference when NUHEP students were included in the 2016
survey. All students, including those well into their studies, were less likely to agree that
their course developed their abilities to solve complex problems and work effectively
with others, their work-related skills and knowledge, and most notably their spoken
communication.
Based on these broad results, it might be advisable for course designers to focus more
on experiences and assessments that build confidence and ability in the following (noting
that even though these frequently appear in published lists of attributes, they potentially
need greater embedding in curricula):

. Solving complex problems

. Working effectively with others
. Spoken communication skills (with greater emphasis on written skills for commencing
students) and
. Work-related knowledge and skills (especially with later year students).

The Employer Satisfaction Survey was trialled extensively in 2016 (https://www.qilt.

edu.au/about-this-site/employer-satisfaction). This survey asks the direct supervisor of a
graduate who has supplied their contact details about a range of issues, and includes a
graduate attributes scale (provided in Table 4), asking:
For each skill or attribute, to what extent do you agree or disagree that < this graduate’s>
<degree in X > from < institution Y >prepared them for their job? If the skill is not required
by < his graduate> in their role, you can answer ‘Not applicable’.

Response categories are: strongly disagree; disagree; neither disagree nor agree; agree;
strongly agree and not applicable.
The 2016 Employer Satisfaction Survey attracted over 3000 responses (QILT, 2016a) –
even though this was the largest such response to date, the results must be treated
with caution, not only because of the representativeness, but because of the known
positive bias. Employer satisfaction with attributes is shown in Figure 1, and includes con-
fidence intervals (the Figure also includes Overall Satisfaction, not part of the Graduate
Attributes Scale).
More detailed results (supervisor per cent agreement, without confidence levels) are
shown in Table 5. Employers were satisfied with both the attributes of graduates and gradu-
ates overall. However, it is important to note that upward bias is a known issue with the
Employer Satisfaction Survey because graduates who have a higher sense of achievement
(as indicated in their own Graduate Outcomes Survey) are more likely to provide employer
contact details. For this reason, in Table 5, we have only highlighted scores of at least 90%.
These results suggest that employers are more positive about graduates’ foundation and
technical skills than their adaptive, employability and collaborative skills (these are elabo-
rated on in Table 4). Course designers may be well advised to use the results to focus more
on areas noted here.
It is notoriously difficult to measure achievement of attributes in an objective way. For
this reason, we often resort to perception measures of stakeholders (students, graduates
and their employers), as exemplified here. Notwithstanding the difficulties this causes,
830 B. OLIVER AND T. JORRE DE ST JORRE

Table 4. Graduate attributes scale utilised in the Employer Satisfaction Survey.

Foundation skills . Oral communication skills
. Written communication skills
. Numeracy skills
. Ability to develop relevant knowledge
. Ability to develop relevant skills
Adaptive skills and attributes . Broad background knowledge
. Ability to develop innovative ideas
. Ability to identify new opportunities
. Ability to adapt knowledge to different contexts
. Ability to apply skills in different contexts
. Capacity to work independently
. Ability to solve problems
. Ability to integrate knowledge
. Ability to think independently about problems
Teamwork skills . Working well in a team
. Getting on well with others in the workplace
. Working collaboratively with colleagues to complete tasks
. Understanding different points of view
. Ability to interact with co-workers from different or multi-cultural backgrounds
Technical skills . Applying professional knowledge to job tasks
. Using technology effectively
. Applying technical skills in the workplace
. Maintaining professional standards
. Observing ethical standards
. Using research skills to gather evidence
Employability skills . Ability to work under pressure
. Capacity to be flexible in the workplace
. Ability to meet deadlines
. Understanding the nature of your business or organisation
. Demonstrating leadership skills
. Demonstrating management skills
. Taking responsibility for personal professional development
. Demonstrating initiative in the workplace

Figure 1. Employer satisfaction with graduate attributes and overall satisfaction, 2016 (%) from the
2016 National Employer Satisfaction Survey (QILT, 2016a).

the usefulness of the data is even more challenged when the measures are misaligned. For
example, the Employer Satisfaction Survey reports results in new groupings: that ‘Foun-
dation skills’ mix communication, literacy and numeracy together makes it more challen-
ging to align intended outcomes with measures of outcomes.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 831

Table 5. Employer satisfaction with graduate attributes from the 2016 National Employer Satisfaction
Survey. Shading highlights scores > 90%.
Foundation Adaptive Collaborative Technical Employability Overall satisfaction
Type of institution Universities 92.1 88.6 84.7 92.3 83.8 84.3
NUHEPs 89.9 83.5 81.6 90.7 82.3 81.9
Course level UG 92.7 87.2 88.5 93.1 84.3 85.4
PG course 90.5 88.6 80.4 90.8 82.8 82.9
PG research 96.7 94.8 85.2 96.2 86.3 85.8
Total 92.0 88.4 84.6 92.2 83.8 84.3

Are the attributes we emphasise and would like to measure actually fit for
purpose?
In recent years, there has been a proliferation of commentary on change and disruption:
the disruptive effects of digital advancement, impact of robotics and artificial intelligence
on the unknown future of work; the impact and rising threat of climate change, terrorism
and cybersecurity; and the volatility of financial markets post Global Financial Crisis
(CEDA, 2015; Frey & Osborne, 2015; Hajkowicz et al., 2016; World Economic Forum,
2016). At the same time, unexpected political developments such as the UK’s departure
from the European Union (Brexit), the election of populist Donald Trump to the Presi-
dency of the US, the rise of other populist leaders and ideologies, and the associated back-
lash against political correctness have confounded commentators and the public at large
(‘The world in 2017’, 2017).
Graduates also face what has been described as a post-truth era, in which objective facts
have become less influential than appeals to emotion and personal belief (Gross, 2017). At
the same time, ‘fake news’ is able to be rapidly disseminated through social media: ampli-
fying the power of falsehoods or ‘alternative facts’. We also note the rise of entrepreneur-
ship in the wider business world across the globe, and the challenge of transforming
rustbelts into ‘brainbelts’ where new industries flourish (Packer, 2013; van Agtmael &
Bakker, 2016). Predicting the future has become increasingly difficult. Even so, the
broad themes might be boiled down to the following overlapping challenges:

(1) Rising populism and a backlash against globalisation, often linked to terrorism aligned
with jingoistic or fundamentalist ideologies
(2) Rapid disruption of business models, often associated with sharing economies,
enabled by digital platforms – and the associated need to create new businesses and
models through innovation
(3) A shortage of high skills, and the displacement of low skilled repetitive work by
machines
(4) Big data, analytics for everything, coupled with the threat of cyber security and the rise
of ‘fake news’
(5) More complex ‘wicked challenges’ (e.g., climate change, displaced populations) that
require collaborative and interdisciplinary solutions
(6) Mental illness and isolation, often associated with device dependence and social
media.

Former US Ambassador to Australia, the Hon Jeffery Bleich echoed these themes in his
recent keynote address to the Universities Australia Conference in his explanation of the
832 B. OLIVER AND T. JORRE DE ST JORRE

major challenges we face as we head into more uncertain times (Bleich, 2017). In a fast-
moving world, and one in which change is not always positive, we recommend that higher
education providers more regularly review, refresh and publish their graduate attributes.
In Table 6, we attempt to encapsulate the broad findings of the data in this paper, com-
paring what providers appear to cite most frequently as their attributes (based on our
mapping exercise in 2015) and what might a future world require (our suggestions);
what commencing and later year students say about which skills they develop in their
courses (QILT, 2015, 2016b) and what 3000 direct supervisors said about their graduate
employees in 2016 (QILT, 2016a). We encapsulate these data as an example of how

Table 6. Comparison of the attributes that providers most frequently emphasise, our suggestions for
the attributes that the world might need in future graduates, the attributes rated most poorly by
students (QILT, 2015, 2016b) and the attributes rated most poorly by employers (QILT, 2016a).
What providers emphasise
(shading indicates more
emphasis by providers; bold
italics suggest what the world
Abbreviation might need)
Communication Written and oral communication
and professional and
personal digital safety
Critical thinking Critical and analytical thinking,
with increasing emphasis on
creative and reflective
thinking
Global Ethical and inclusive
citizenship engagement with
communities, cultures and
nations, understanding
history, politics and
international relations
Teamwork Learning and working
collaboratively, including
across time zones and using
digital channels
Independence Learning and working
independently, highlighting
resilience and mental
wellbeing
Problem-solving Problem-solving (including
generating ideas and
innovative solutions) and
sustainable business models
Information Information literacy,
literacy emphasising the ability to
judge the veracity of
information
What students might need
(shading indicates lower
scores in the Student
Experience Survey)
Written communication skills
(especially commencing
students), Spoken
communication skills (all
students)
Critical and analytical thinking
Ability to work effectively with
others (all students)
Work-related knowledge and
skills (especially later year
students)
Ability to solve complex
problems (all students)
Not asked – should it be?
What employers might need
(shading indicates lower scores in
the Employer Satisfaction Survey)
Foundation (oral communication,
written communication,
numeracy skills, ability to
develop relevant knowledge
and skills)
Not asked – should it be?
Collaborative (working well in a
team, getting on well with
others in the workplace,
working collaboratively with
colleagues to complete tasks,
understanding different points
of view, ability to interact with
co-workers from different or
multi-cultural backgrounds)
Employability (work under
pressure, be flexible in the
workplace, meet deadlines,
understand business/
organisation, leadership,
management skills, take
responsibility for personal
professional development,
demonstrate initiative)
Adaptive (broad background
knowledge, develop innovative
ideas, identify new
opportunities, adapt
knowledge and apply skills in
different contexts, solve
problems, integrate
knowledge; work
independently)
Not asked – should it be?
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 833

providers might approach this task working at a much more granular level with their own
cohorts and within their strategic visions. We acknowledge that providers list other attri-
butes not listed here, and agree that providers should continue to ask ‘what else?’.
However, any new emphasis should not be at the expense of foundational areas that
will still be required.
While we have highlighted aspects of attributes that providers might emphasise more
for future graduates, of equal importance is communication and incorporation of these
attributes into the assessable curriculum so that students and those who teach them
take them seriously. We emphasise that, as suggested by the wording of the Australian
Higher Education Standards, graduate attributes such as those discussed here are not
co-curricular – they are core to the enacted curricula of degree courses.

Conclusions and recommendations for better practice

We acknowledge the extraordinary success of higher education providers in preparing
graduates, and equipping them for success in life and careers. An enormous amount of
hard work, especially by degree and discipline leaders, has led to a much greater emphasis
on assessing attributes beyond discipline knowledge in degrees at all levels. This has pre-
pared the sector for the requirements of the Higher Education Standards that require pro-
viders to demonstrate achievement of attributes at the degree and course levels.
Nevertheless, a volatile global environment requires providers to think carefully, and reg-
ularly revise their approach to attributes.
We recommend that all providers, university and non-university, and the discipline
groups within them, focus on seven key actions:

(1) Publish the attributes they focus on, aligning the emphasis with the needs of their stu-
dents, and the aims of their institutions
(2) Ensure that attributes are contextualised and communicated at a course level, includ-
ing in the curriculum, course handbooks and marketing materials
(3) Be more explicit with students: those who teach students and support their learning
should communicate intended outcomes and explain their importance repeatedly
throughout the course
(4) Continue to emphasise attributes associated with global citizenship, teamwork and
communication; give more emphasis to independence, critical thinking and
problem-solving, and the fundamental foundational skills of written and spoken
communication
(5) Draw on more objective measures to test achievement of the attributes by students,
inculcating them more explicitly into assessments in the curriculum
(6) Continue to use perception measures with stakeholder groups, and wherever possible
align skills in a similar fashion so that we can see where we are making headway, and
where we still need to improve
(7) Most importantly, continue to review and refresh the attributes regularly to ensure
fitness for purpose in the rapidly changing environment within which we operate,
and within which our graduates will increasingly create or find work.
834 B. OLIVER AND T. JORRE DE ST JORRE

The grand challenge of education is to figure out what the successful learner will need,
and ensure it is evidenced and assessed in multiple ways and points in the journey. In our
turbulent world, the challenge has never been grander, or the urgency as great.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Siobhan Lenihan and Susan Bird who contributed to data collec-
tion and analysis.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Arvanitakis, J., & Hornsby, D. (2016). Universities, the citizen scholar and the future of higher edu-
cation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Australian Qualifications Framework Council. (2013). Australian qualifications framework. 2nd ed.
Canberra: Australian Qualifications Framework Council.
Barrie, S. C. (2004). A research-based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher
Education Research & Development, 23(3), 261–275.
Barrie, S. C., Hughes, C., Crisp, G., & Bennieson, A. (2014). Assessing and assuring Australian
graduate learning outcomes: Principles and practices within and across disciplines. Sydney:
Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
Barrie, S. C., Hughes, C., & Smith, C. (2009). The national graduate attributes project: Integration
and assessment of graduate attributes in curriculum. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching
Council.
Bath, D., Smith, C., Stein, S., & Swann, R. (2004). Beyond mapping and embedding graduate attri-
butes: Bringing together quality assurance and action learning to create a validated and living
curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(3), 313–328.
Bleich, J. (2017, March 1). Media release: Higher education conference keynote address ambassador
(ret.) Jeff Bleich. Retrieved from https://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/Media-and-Events/
media-releases/Ambassador-Jeffrey-Bleich--Keynote-address#.WOcpLvmGPRY
Boud, D., and Associates. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in
higher education. Sydney: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Bowden, J., Hart, G., King, B., Trigwell, K., & Watts, O. (2000). Generic capabilities of ATN univer-
sity graduates. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education, Training and Youth
Affairs.
Bowman, K. (2010). Background paper for the AQF Council on generic skills. Adelaide: South
Australian Department of Further Education Employment Science and Technology on behalf
of the Australian Qualifications Framework Council.
Candy, P. C. (2000). Knowledge navigators and lifelong learners: Producing graduates for the infor-
mation society. Higher Education Research & Development, 19(3), 261–277. doi:10.1080/
758484346
CEDA. (2015). Australia’s future workforce? Melbourne: CEDA – the Committee for Economic
Development of Australia.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Higher education standards framework (threshold standards).
Canberra: Australian Government.
Freeman, M., & Ewan, C. (2014). Good practice report: Assuring learning outcomes and standards.
Sydney: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
 HIGHER EDUCATION RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT 835

Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2015). Technology at work: The future of innovation and employment.
The Oxford Martin Programme on Technology and Employment. Retrieved from: https://www.
oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/Citi_GPS_Technology_Work.pdf
Gross, M. (2017). The dangers of a post-truth world. Current Biology, 27(1), R1–R4. doi:10.1016/j.
cub.2016.12.034
Hajkowicz, S., Reeson, A., Rudd, L., Bratanova, A., Hodgers, L., Mason, C., & Boughen, N. (2016).
Tomorrow’s digitally enabled workforce: Megatrends and scenarios for jobs and employment in
Australia over the coming twenty years. Brisbane: CSIRO.
Jones, S., Yates, B., & Kelder, J. (2011). Learning and Teaching Academic Standards project: Science
Learning And Teaching Academic Standards statement September 2011. Sydney: Australian
Learning and Teaching Council.
Jorre de St Jorre, T., & Oliver, B. (2018). Want students to engage? Contextualise graduate learning
outcomes and assess for employability. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(1), 44–57.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2017.1339183
Kift, S., Israel, M., & Field, R. (2010). Learning and Teaching Academic Standards project: Bachelor
of laws. Learning and Teaching Academic Standards statement December 2010. Sydney:
Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Krause, K.-L., Scott, G., Aubin, K., Alexander, H., Angelo, T., Campbell, S., … Vaughan, S. (2014).
Assuring learning and teaching standards through inter-institutional peer review and moderation:
Final report of the project. Sydney: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
Kuh, G. D. (2008). Why integration and engagement are essential to effective educational practice
in the twenty-first century. Peer Review, 4, 27.
Lawson, R., Taylor, T., Herbert, J., Fallshaw, E., & French, E. (2013). Hunters and gatherers:
Strategies for curriculum mapping and data collection for assuring learning NSW. Government
Office for Teaching and Learning.
NACE. (2015). Job outlook 2016: Attributes employers want to see on new college graduates’ resumes.
Author.
National Network. (2015). Common employability skills: A foundation for success in the workplace.
National Network of Business and Industry Associations.
Norton, A. (2013). Mapping Australian higher education: 2013 version. Carlton. VIC: Grattan
Institute.
Oliver, B. (2011). Assuring graduate outcomes good practice report. Sydney: Australian Learning and
Teaching Council.
Oliver, B. (2013). Graduate attributes as a focus for institution-wide curriculum renewal:
Innovations and challenges. Higher Education Research & Development, 32(3), 450–463.
doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.682052
Oliver, B. (2015). Assuring graduate capabilities: Evidencing levels of achievement for graduate
employability. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching.
Packer, G. (2013). The unwinding: An inner history of the new America. New York: Farrar, Straus
and Giroux.
Phelan, L., McBain, B., Ferguson, A., Brown, P., Brown, V., Hay, I., … Taplin, R. (2015). Learning
and Teaching Academic Standards statement for environment and sustainability. Sydney:
Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
QILT. (2015). 2015 Student Experience Survey national report. Australian Government Department
of Education and Training.
QILT. (2016a). 2016 Employer Satisfaction Survey national report. Australian Government
Department of Education and Training.
QILT. (2016b). 2016 Student Experience Survey national report. Australian Government
Department of Education and Training.
Radloff, A., de la Harpe, B., Scoufis, M., Dalton, H., Thomas, J., Lawson, A., … Girardi, A. (2009).
The B factor project: Understanding academic staff beliefs about graduate attributes. Melbourne:
ALTC.
Spencer, D., Riddle, M., & Knewstubb, B. (2012). Curriculum mapping to embed graduate capabilities.
Higher Education Research & Development, 31(2), 217–231. doi:10.1080/07294360.2011.554387
836 B. OLIVER AND T. JORRE DE ST JORRE

Star, C., & Hammer, S. (2008). Teaching generic skills: Eroding the higher purpose of universities,
or an opportunity for renewal? Oxford Review of Education, 34(2), 237–251. doi:10.1080/
03054980701672232
Tai, J. H.-M., Canny, B. J., Haines, T. P., & Molloy, E. K. (2016). The role of peer-assisted learning in
building evaluative judgement: Opportunities in clinical medical education. Advances in Health
Sciences Education, 3, 659. doi:10.1007/s10459-015-9659-0
The world in 2017. (2017). The Economist (Producer). Retrieved from https://ukshop.economist.
com/products/the-world-in-2017?_ga=1.45886564.176119047.1491543426
Uchiyama, K. P., & Radin, J. L. (2009). Curriculum mapping in higher education: A vehicle for col-
laboration. Innovative Higher Education, 33(4), 271–280. doi:10.1007/s10755-008-9078-8
van Agtmael, A., & Bakker, F. (2016). The smartest places on earth: Why rustbelts are the emerging
hotspots of global innovation. New York: PublicAffairs.
World Economic Forum. (2016). The future of jobs: Employment, skills and workforce strategy for
the fourth industrial revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum.
Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: What it is – what it is not. Learning and
employability series. York: Higher Education Academy.