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'?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".