A case study examining Graduate Attribute implementation in a Higher Education Institute department and its Further Education college partners : transformative education or 'ticking the box'?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The development of Graduate Attributes (GAs) in higher education institutions (HEIs) around the world has contributed to its reorientation towards explicitly developing graduate level employability within a competitive globalised market (Kalfa and Taksa, 2015). Underpinning GAs is the contested view that such generic skills can be transferred outside learners’ subject expertise (Hughes and Barrie, 2012; Barnett, 2012). Key proponent Simon Barrie argues that GA implementation requires institution-wide transformation; changing approaches to teaching, assessment, quality and stakeholder engagement (Barrie, 2004; 2006; Hughes and Barrie, 2012). However, numerous problems relating to GA implementation have been identified, including differing conceptual viewpoints (Barrie, 2004; 2012), poor management and inconsistent application (De la Harpe and David, 2012; Bond et al., 2017). Additionally, resistance to change, defined by Starr (2011, p.647) as, “…negative actions and non-actions, ill will and resentment, and defensive or confrontational dispositions.”, was identified as a key hindrance to GA implementation by Jackson and Wilton (2016). Currently, GA investigations have tended to debate the extent to which they develop personal, social and employability skills of young full-time undergraduate learners about to embark on their careers. This exploratory case study contributes to the field of knowledge by focusing on ‘non-traditional’ learners whose voice has yet to be considered within GA literature. It therefore gives voice learners who are mature, part-time and already employed within their chosen career sector (education), studying a degree either at an HEI or Further Education College (FEC). The study considers the extent to which such attributes hold relevance for their personal, academic and professional development needs. The case study is framed through Barrie’s (2006) identification of systemic factors involved in GA institutional transformation. These have been simplified to focus on four lenses for the study: conceptualisation, strategic implementation, facilitation and quality. Data was gained through a documentary search, interviews with HE and FE based managers and lecturers as well as a scoping questionnaire which informed learner focus groups from each of the institutions. The study found that the featured HEI had faced GA implementation difficulties commonly identified in research based in Australia and New Zealand (Hughes and Barrie, 2010; Bond et al., 2017), thus contributing to the body of research suggesting that problems may transcend national systems. Distinctively, the findings from within FEC settings revealed additional problems not identified in previous GA studies; policy clashes between the institutions, unaddressed training and support needs and conflicting dual roles for lecturers. The study advocates the need for greater stakeholder involvement, including FEC partners, in GA formation to make them genuinely represent the ethos of an institution as was envisaged in their initial iteration (Bowden et al., 2000). In this respect, institutions need to give serious consideration to the appropriacy of such a policy for all undergraduates rather than just full-time learners. In terms of implementation, leadership grit and institutional resilience is required. This should acknowledge that genuine transformative change requires and a systematic, consistent and long-term approach which includes transparent reflective evaluation to inform future development. Further research emanating from this work will relate to policy implementation barriers between universities and their FEC partners as well as the extent to which HEI policies and education measurement metrics represent education values espoused by mature, employed, part-time learners.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».