Framework for Action

Generic Capabilities: A Framework for Action

The endeavour by universities to foster the development of generic capabilities in their students constitutes both a serious commitment to a broader notion of graduate quality in higher education and a significant challenge to conventional teaching and learning arrangements. The aims of this section are firstly to illustrate how generic capabilities contribute to graduate quality; secondly, to outline why fostering the development of generic capabilities is a significant challenge to teaching and learning; and thirdly, to focus on key issues in the development of generic capabilities.

The contribution of generic capabilities to graduate quality

Traditionally universities have claimed for themselves a responsibility to be critical, to raise questions, to search for reasons rather than to accept blindly, and to teach their students to do the same. Feeling that this is their responsibility, any university that attempts to achieve these skills and attitudes in its students is unlikely to be satisfied with less than a high degree of expertise in the area of a graduate's 'technical' knowledge. They should not be any less demanding of proficiency in the area of generic capabilities.

But just as there are qualitatively different ways of understanding technical knowledge (from rote memorised knowledge to the ability to apply that knowledge in a new context), so too are there qualitatively different ways of understanding generic capabilities. For example, a university is unlikely to wish to merely train lawyers in legal communication or train nurses always to communicate with empathy. Rather, such a university would want its graduates to understand why these approaches are valuable in many professional circumstances and also that there are some circumstances when they are not and in which different, more appropriate ways of communicating need to be devised. This higher level capability is central to the identity of the university and it is in this sense that the capability can be a contributor to graduate quality.

The challenge to teaching and learning

Generic capabilities are most readily developed within authentic learning environments. This means that the teaching team must make a commitment to reviewing the learning objectives, learning experiences and assessment and feedback strategies to ensure that they are linked in an explicit, coherent and meaningful way. This requires an engagement with the teaching and learning process, an ongoing dialogue about the development and assessment of generic capabilities, and a commitment to curriculum integrity.

The acquisition of generic capabilities is most readily monitored by the students during the process of their acquisition. Therefore a fourth element, integrated with the other three, must require that the student reflect on the extent to which the university-designed program matches the reality of their experience in the development of generic capabilities.

Finally, students need to be prepared to cope with situations that they have not previously experienced. This may be a substantial challenge in most universities.

Key issues in the development of generic capabilities

The remainder of this section focuses on the key issues that need to be addressed when designing a program aimed at developing generic capabilities. It is built around six principles that underpin the ATN universities' approach to the identification, development, practice and assessment of generic capabilities. It develops the ideas of qualitative differences in generic capabilities and, in the final section, discusses three ways of looking at the experience of students in these programs.

Principles associated with curriculum development and teaching & learning practices

Principle 1: Desirable attributes are most usefully formulated at both university and course level.

Many universities have identified a set of graduate attributes or generic capabilities that specify the expected learning outcomes for any graduate, regardless of discipline area. The University of South Australia, for example, has identified a set of seven generic capabilities and their indicators to be developed by all courses. The aims and objectives of the courses are elaborations of this set of capabilities as they are interpreted in discipline or professional areas. All course teams must re-interpret the capabilities identified by their university within the context of their discipline. They should ensure that there are opportunities for the systematic introduction, development and assessment of the identified capabilities.

The adaptation of the core set of generic capabilities to ensure relevance within a discipline area requires wide debate to ensure consensus and commitment. QUT has identified a standard set of generic capabilities for all graduates of the university. The School of Social Sciences has adapted this core set to more specifically address the capabilities required of social science graduates. To this end a national survey of academics and a statewide survey of employers were undertaken. The survey revealed ten capabilities that employers of social science graduates rated necessary for entry to the workforce (QUT, Social Science case study).

The commitment of the teaching team

While the approach provides a valuable framework for curriculum review, it will have limited impact unless matched by an equal commitment from the teaching team and underpinned by a sound understanding of the issues. There is a danger that the current focus on generic capabilities could be viewed as a passing managerial fad that can be readily addressed in a superficial manner. A simple matrix of skill development across the curriculum, for example, gives the appearance of compliance without necessarily offering any challenge to traditional teaching and learning approaches. Generic capabilities might also be 'built on' to the curriculum content without any alteration to the learning environment. Such approaches deny the holistic nature of capability and inhibit the integration of personal qualities, skills and knowledge which is critical to effective professional practice.

The course team must therefore make a commitment to reviewing the learning objectives, learning experiences, assessment and feedback strategies to ensure that they are linked in an explicit, coherent and meaningful way. This requires an engagement with the teaching and learning process, an ongoing dialogue about the development and assessment of generic capabilities, and a commitment to curriculum integrity. The development of generic capabilities is a spiral rather than a linear process. It requires reflection and structured opportunities to compare variety in experience in the whole program.

At QUT, for example, technological literacy was identified as an important generic capability for all graduates. A multidisciplinary team undertook a project to produce a set of templates that could be integrated within a variety of discipline contexts. The templates were designed to develop technology literacy skills through learning activities and assessment tasks that could be adapted to a variety of contexts. Individual lecturers within the contexts of their disciplines and the objectives of their units were therefore able to build the development of technology literacy into their subjects.

The development and assessment of generic capabilities in the Sculptor program at RMIT is central to the teaching practices and learning experience of students and staff. The development of RMIT's generic capabilities, interpreted through a Sculptor's specific capabilities, is viewed as an essential element of developing professional artists who can challenge and inspire the communities within which and with whom they will work. Furthermore, the development and assessment of generic capabilities in Sculptor has allowed staff to continually revisit the questions:

° What is it that we want our students to be?

° How do we 'get' them to this place?

° Are their teaching and learning experiences providing them and us [staff] with opportunities to manifest their full potential as professional artists and human beings?

Principle 2: The development, practice and assessment of attributes is most effectively achieved within the context of discipline knowledge.

Generic capabilities are best developed when they are embedded in the process and content of learning. This requires a thoughtful review of the learning objectives, teaching approaches and assessment methods to ensure the development of authentic learning environments. Alexander and Murphy (1998) outline five essential dimensions of meaningful learning that they argue need to be evident in all educational programs if graduates are to become adept lifelong learners: 1) an existing knowledge base; 2) opportunities to reflect on and regulate learning; 3) personal motivation; 4) individual development; and 5) awareness of the social context of learning. These dimensions describe aspects of the learning environment that reflect a learning rather than teaching orientation.

Authentic learning environments foster a personal responsibility for learning. They link experience, previous understandings and new knowledge in a way that is readily apparent to the learner. They also simulate situations in which students may ultimately be employed. The challenge for teachers is to design learning experiences that are powerful in terms of developing ways of seeing and understanding the world around them (Bowden & Marton 1998). Such learning experiences are inherently more effective than teaching for information transfer alone.

The Department of Marketing, Property and Logistics' focus on the development of generic capabilities in their graduates is a direct result of feedback from key employer groups. 'One employer noted that while RMIT logistics graduates could draw upon a wealth of knowledge about logistics they were not as adept, compared with commerce graduates for example, at contextualising that knowledge in different business situations. Staff have attempted to address this with learning experiences that directly address the concerns of employers. Logistics students have opportunities to explore their capabilities in a supportive, challenging but non-threatening way. Reflective group exercises, problem solving situations, peer assessment and the development of personal portfolios encourage students to develop a broader perspective and foster a sensitivity to the context of business situations' .

At least two kinds of learning experiences are aimed at helping students to develop their generic capabilities. The first involves the inclusion in normal subject curricula of aspects associated with the generic capabilities. For example, a particular subject may include a project that must be completed in a team environment, with particular attention being paid to the team process in both learning experiences and assessment. At the University of South Australia, a core strand in the Bachelor of Nursing Inquiry addresses three generic capabilities life-long learning, critical and creative thinking and internationalisation. For each of these generic capabilities, indicators for nursing were developed. For example, an indicator of internationalisation was the ability to appreciate the influence of language and culture on health care practices. To foster this awareness students were required to undertake activities to explore health beliefs and activities of someone from another culture as a learning activity.

The second kind of learning experience is more holistic. It involves groups of students in reflective activities in which they discuss the nature of their own development in various subject contexts and plan future experiences aimed at improving their capabilities in a particular generic area. This kind of experience lends itself particularly to the development of profile assessment (see final section). An example of a more 'holistic' learning experience is given in the case study from University of Technology Sydney ('Using a generic capabilities framework for designing and teaching a new engineering course'), which concerns the development of the generic capabilities related to the concept of sustainability, advocacy in community and professional contexts and critique. As one of the assessment tasks, students wrote a reflective essay on how they have developed their concept of, and their arguments for, sustainability. The personal writing is also to outline how they would advocate and defend their views if they were challenged by academics, industry and community representatives.

Principle 3: Exposure to, and reflection on, a variety of teaching approaches and learning experiences fosters a focal awareness of capability development.

Competence is achieved only when students feel confident to demonstrate a capability across a wide variety of contexts. One can write to outline an argument, justify a position, explore an observation, provide instructions, reflect on behaviour, or persuade and motivate others. Bowden and Marton (1998, p.115) assert that 'Students need to learn in ways that help them deal with a range of contexts, many, if not all, unique.'

In the first year science program at QUT, teachers model problem-based learning and then provide guided practice in the application of this approach to 'real world' problems. Students develop problem solving and teamwork skills by addressing diverse contexts. For example students explore the Tweed landform that straddles the Queensland-New South Wales border to determine if weathering and erosion or other geological events explain the formation of the circular structures. Later they work in groups in a simulated motor vehicle crash investigation to determine the cause of an accident. This variety in contexts encourages students to develop problem solving skills by reflecting on the application of the same or similar skills in diverse contexts.

Writing essays does not necessarily equip one well for any writing task apart from writing essays. If students are not explicitly aware of the learning opportunities inherent in an assessment task and focally aware of their own learning processes (Bowden & Marton 1998, p.97), they are unlikely to readily transfer relevant aspects of their essay writing ability to other writing assignments such as office memos, briefing papers and technical reports. They are even more unlikely to use writing as a tool for reflective learning. Indeed, the ability to identify problem solving strategies and abstract them to a different situation and context is a meta-cognitive function. This is often an implicit assumption of curricula but one that needs to be addressed explicitly.

In traditional curricula individual aspects or topics are dealt with separately, each with their own problem exercises and their own algorithms. Many students do quite well in each of the separate activities.

However, to prepare for the unknown, students need to experience the variation among the situations, to see that different aspects are relevant in each of the situations and to develop the skill of discerning the relevant aspects of the situation. To do so, they need to experience each situation in a way that emphasises their relatedness and their differences. They need opportunities to compare them, to try out (in a new situation) problem definition and solution which they found worked in another and look for explanations as to why it might not have worked in the new situation. They need to experience the failure of the solution to work in a different situation as part of their learning.
(Bowden & Marton 1998, p.124)

These learning experiences are less likely without the provision of specific learning opportunities especially when the different experiences are within different subjects.

It is important therefore, for students to have ways of investigating these kinds of situations demonstrated to them. Whether this is undertaken through lectures, through multimedia packages or through tutorial discussion is a question to which there is no definitive answer except perhaps that, whichever method is used, it should be applied with the learning objectives in mind at every stage. Students then need to experiment with such situations, to draw conclusions, to trial their solutions and to reflect on their experience. This may be done alone but the observation of both the kinds of difficulties other students have and the kinds of strategies they use to deal with them are of immense importance, as well as the realisation that other students are having such difficulties. (So interaction with other students is likely to be important but whether that interaction best occurs in face-to-face tutorial classes or through Internet chat sessions or through email is a matter of conjecture.) However, it is doubtful that it can be undertaken effectively without some involvement of an academic teacher to help guide students through some of the issues, to provide feedback and to ensure that all students get an effective opportunity to develop their understandings and capabilities in the desired direction.
(Bowden & Marton 1998, p.124-5)

The Nursing program at the University of SA provides an example. The development of the Professional Nursing Inquiry Strand in the Bachelor of Nursing at UniSA was considered, as mentioned, an opportune time to focus on the development of three generic capabilities lifelong learning, critical and creative thinking and internationalisation. All capabilities were considered essential for professional nursing practice. In designing appropriate teaching strategies the faculty gave careful attention to assisting students to think about and reflect on how they learn as much as what they learn.

Students require a variety of learning situations and opportunities in order to be aware of and reflect on that variation, and to be able to make fine distinctions about the significant aspects of each new context. By identifying the differences between similar situations, the student is better able to respond appropriately. Such learning experiences are an important preparation for the unpredictable nature of the workplace.

The impact on learning, however, is enhanced by structuring opportunities for reflection and peer consultation. Variety in itself will not foster a successful approach to novel situations.

The idea of experience is fundamental. But we have argued that the mere variation in experience is not sufficient. The variation itself has to be experienced and hence the discussion sessions during which the various individual experiences are compared and analysed are also significant.
(Bowden & Marton 1998, p.154).

It is possible to learn skills without necessarily being able to identify when and how they should be applied. Problem solving for graduate practice requires a focal awareness of the relevance of one's repertoire of skills within a specific context and the confidence and ability to devise an appropriate response.

Students may be able to demonstrate mastery of a series of discrete skills but be unable to select and integrate a subset of those skills to address an unfamiliar problem. Nursing students who achieve good grades in anatomy, psychology and pharmacology may still have difficulty in integrating and applying their knowledge to assess a patient's level of pain in a pressured clinical situation. A student who is able to write an insightful essay on cross-cultural health issues may still experience difficulty communicating with and understanding a client from another culture. Variety in learning opportunities allows students to experiment with integrating and applying skills and knowledge and with reflecting on the relative success of similar solutions in different situations. The opportunities for reflection and the potential for learning are maximised through interaction with other students in a supportive environment.

The success of such interaction is predicated upon a respect for each student's way of seeing and understanding the world. Harsh judgements about a student's behaviour or perception of a situation can inhibit their reflective explanation and the development of reflective practices.

A significant aspect of teaching within this framework is a respect for students' ways of seeing. Again, we should repeat that this is not an extreme, relativist position that we take. Rather, as students progress with their education they should come to understand their goal as being to learn to explain observations and make predictions which have a fair degree of success. They must learn to value their own ways of seeing but continue to question their efficacy. A teacher who scorns student responses as 'wrong' inhibits those students from pondering on what it was about the phenomenon that led them to see it that way and what other aspects might be relevant to a more powerful way of seeing. It is the capacity to judge the relevant aspects and to develop the most appropriate understanding of the phenomenon that is far more important a goal in education than learning to get any number of specific things 'right'. If we are successful with the former, the latter will follow naturally; the reverse process is unlikely to be true.
(Bowden & Marton 1998, p.132-3)

Qualitative differences in the attainment of a generic capability

In the three principles described above we have made frequent reference to notions of quality in learning, to meaningful learning and to learning that will be of particular benefit when students encounter new situations. Before looking at the three remaining principles (which relate to assessment) we will pursue the quality of learning idea further by returning to the notion of qualitative differences in generic capabilities.

The outcomes from the development of any generic capability, such as communication or working in a team, can be thought of at four different levels:

Scoping level: defining the scope of the capability
Enabling level: developing certain skills related to the capability
Training level: elaborating or establishing meaning of the capability within a particular discipline or field
Relating level: developing understanding of the relation between the meaning and the context

Scoping

Using communication as an example, the scoping level involves identifying the purpose of the communication: is the purpose of the communication to pass on information, to help someone understand something in a new way, to get somebody to understand how you feel about something, to convince another person on some issue through logical argument, or to persuade someone to agree with you, for instance? These are all different purposes that call on different aspects of a communication capability.

Enabling

The enabling level involves the skills necessary for communication to be effective. Here presentation skills (oral, written or electronic), debating skills, logical argument and personal manner play a part, among others, but would need to be adapted to the various purposes defined in the scoping level and to the characteristics of the person or persons to whom the communication is directed.

Training

The training level has been identified because different disciplines and different fields focus on some specific aspects related to the field. The general purpose and the application of the enabling skills are elaborated and made more meaningful by relating them to the particular discipline or field. For example, a characteristic of communication in the field of law may be the importance of precision in language and the absence of ambiguity. Why? For the very purpose of communicating something to someone in ways that can withstand critical analysis of a legal kind. On the other hand, a characteristic of communication in the field of nursing may be the importance of using language that displays empathy with the patient's situation. Indeed, in contrast with legal communication, ambiguity may be more acceptable in many nursing contexts than lack of empathy. And the attitude of empathy and support may be the very 'something' being communicated rather than the actual things spoken about. The reason for the use of the label 'training level' is discussed later in this section.

Relating

The relating level goes beyond the training level and is necessary because the narrower focus of the training level is inadequate both within the professional role and in other aspects of life. The relating level is about adapting behaviour to deal with the particular context. To develop this level, provided the person has had experience with communication in a variety of contexts both within and outside their field of study, the differences and similarities could be reflected on and some conclusions drawn about the relation between the process of communication and the context in which it is taking place (hence the 'relating' label).

The analysis we have made as a commentary in the section above on training may become explicit to students through reflection, analysis and discussion. The fact that what a lawyer says is often analysed in some detail by other lawyers looking for loopholes is a contextual element that demands this kind of meaning to be put on certain aspects of legal communication. On the other hand, the quality of nursing may be judged more or less effective depending on the degree of comfort and cooperation engendered in patients through the way that nurses communicate with them. This might be a primary aspect in such communication.

Students could take this analysis further. They could reflect on the fact that lawyers are often dealing with traumatised clients seeking legal redress. The lawyers need to go beyond legal precision and logical argument and communicate with their clients with some empathy if they are to satisfy their needs and continue to attract further clients. While the legal mode of communication has been developed within the climate of analysis described above, a more complete professional in law would change the way of communicating according to the context and would use simpler, more supportive forms of communication in stressful situations for clients.

Nursing professionals communicating with a patient being discharged from hospital about the medication to be taken at home need to be quite precise and clear about the detail, even perhaps using both written and oral communication to reinforce the message, irrespective of whether they communicate empathy. A more complete professional in nursing would understand that modes of communication need to vary with context and would focus less on empathy and more on precision when necessary.

Finally, the folly of a lawyer communicating at a party in a legalistic style (or an academic 'lecturing' friends on such an occasion) points to the importance of the relating level beyond the profession contextual sensitivity of behaviour in terms of the purpose, the people involved and the circumstances of the communication process.

Most universities when describing the generic capabilities they wish graduates to develop use fairly limited forms of description, normally within the scoping level. These are often very general and not very meaningful in themselves. It is at the level of discipline or field (the training level) that the meaning of the capability can be found as the capability is elaborated in relation to the characteristics of the discipline or field. The assessment methods chosen need to enable judgments to be made at least at the training level. In fact, it is difficult to imagine assessment at the scoping level alone. What tends to be assessed are the skills developed at the enabling level skills to enable you to 'do' the communication. As we remarked earlier, communication for example is always about someone communicating something to someone else for some purpose. The people, the purpose and the content are all relevant and as soon as we start to identify them, as we should, we have begun to address the training level.

Why is the relating level so important? One of the difficulties with focusing no higher than the training level is that the notion of the capability itself can be subsumed within the discipline or field. People who learn to communicate as lawyers and don't develop to the relating level often use the same processes in other communication and can't understand why people object. At the training level, communicating and being a lawyer may not be differentiated (hence the 'training' label). Because they are expert at communicating as a lawyer, they may see themselves as expert communicators. At the relating level, communicating and being a lawyer certainly are differentiated. The relevance of context is paramount.

The RMIT Social Sciences program reminds students that they are developing themselves as sociologists, social workers and social scientists for a number of different audiences.

'The integrated approach being used by teaching staff provides students with the opportunities to develop notions of themselves as holistic human beings who are simultaneously sociologists and social actors. It is an approach that will not only support the development of communication skills but will play a salient role in developing graduates who will know (or are able to reflect upon) in diverse situations and contexts, themselves, in their professional field, and their audiences.'

The four-level model described here is intended to be a hierarchical representation of the kinds of outcomes that can be achieved when a capability is developed. It is not being claimed that it necessarily represents a developmental pathway (although in some particular instances it may turn out to be so). More will be said of this following the next section.

The notion of "Knowledge capability"

Among the 'graduate attributes' listed for some universities is 'knowledge'. This was one of the four main categories of attributes referred to earlier (Nunan 1999) but is normally overlooked when generic skills or generic capabilities are discussed. Knowledge is not usually seen as a generic capability. Bowden (1999) has tried to deal with this problem by inventing the term 'knowledge capability', which he has defined as follows:

Knowledge capability, a crucial aspect of graduate learning outcomes, is defined as being the ability to deal with each new situation encountered, especially in professional activities but also in life generally. The development of a knowledge capability goes beyond the accumulation and understanding of technical content and enables the graduate to:

° work out what are the key aspects to be dealt with in each new situation encountered

° relate those aspects to knowledge already acquired and/or to knowledge the graduate knows how to access

° determine what the underlying task or problem in that situation actually is

° design a process or solution to deal with the situation, and then

° have the ability to follow through and complete the task or solve the problem, either alone or with a team.

It should be noted that in this definition knowledge has a narrow meaning, quite deliberately. It refers to, but is not the same as, the content of disciplines and professions as displayed in syllabuses in university subjects. It distinguishes itself from that content by going beyond it as described above. In this way it is similar to the other capabilities usually referred to as generic capabilities in that it is developed through the learning of subject content but is a capability which transcends particular content and enables success in dealing with previously unseen situations. In this way, knowledge capability and communication capability, for instance, have similar characteristics.

Bowden also argues that the dimension on which most universities attempt to differentiate among generic capabilities is not the most important.

All generic capabilities need to be considered in at least two dimensions. The most common approach is to differentiate among capabilities in terms of the kind of activity or attribute concerned, such as communication, creativity, problem solving and teamwork. A second dimension is needed and that concerns the different capability levels within each of these areas.
(Bowden 1999)

The argument is that it is difficult to differentiate, say, between teamwork, communication and problem solving in a real-life project. The idea of working with others to deal with a real situation necessarily implies all three. It is difficult to imagine the team working well without good communication. Their way of addressing the situation together could be described as group problem solving. The problem solving process in itself could be seen as an instance of teamwork. The three aspects are not separable and each is a perspective from which a particular set of activities can be viewed without each being a discrete and separate phenomenon. While the labels communication, teamwork and problem solving are useful to chart the range of generic capabilities that should be attended to, a focus on their precise, a priori definitions can be counter-productive. Far better to focus on real-life experiences and on what it means to develop such capabilities within them.

As readers will have seen, in this document we pay much greater attention to the long-neglected second dimension, that is, the differentiated levels to which students develop their capabilities. We also focus on the students and their experiences and how they can be supported as they develop their capabilities and are assessed on the outcome. We advocate a strongly student-centred process and argue that the responsibility for managing it should rest primarily with the student in a context of university support systems.

Situational variation a third dimension.

The two dimensions we have identified so far are a) the kinds of capability areas such as communication, teamwork and problem solving, and b) the four hierarchical levels of outcome as such capabilities are developed.

When we reported on this model to staff in ATN universities through a draft report and workshops, feedback showed that many had interpreted the model as a developmental framework. Such an interpretation was unintended. The hierarchical model of capability outcomes does not represent a uni-directional pathway by which a capability is developed. As we mentioned earlier, the student learning pathway might be better represented as a spiral, with each of the four outcome levels potentially being met a number of times, as also suggested by Cathy Down of RMIT. Cathy Down also introduced the idea of a third dimension complexity (Down 2000), which she suggests needs to be taken into account when considering the student's developmental route.

Building upon Down's suggestions, we introduced into our model the dimension of situational variation. While the scoping, enabling, training and relating levels are hierarchical in their relationship to one another as outcomes, that is, scoping is not as 'advanced' as relating, we would anticipate students demonstrating outcomes at any level as they exercise the capability in a variety of different situations.

To explain this and to make our model more coherent, we need to make a distinction between the curriculum design perspective and the perspective of individual student experiences.

From a curriculum perspective, the four levels represent an inclusive hierarchy. This means that true achievement of the enabling outcome, that is, the development of skills appropriate to the intentions identified at the scoping level logically includes achievement at the scoping level also. You can't develop appropriate skills if you haven't understood the purposes for which they are meant to be appropriate. Similarly, true achievement at the relating level, that is, the appreciation that different behaviours are needed in different professional situations or between professional and other situations and the ability to carry them out, logically includes an understanding of those situations and the ability to deal properly with them. Hence the outcomes associated with the other three levels are subsumed under the relating level.

The need for the third dimension to the model derives from the need to explain individual student experiences. Students experience situational variation. Some situations are simple and others are complex; some are difficult and others are easy to manage. For example, to make a presentation to fellow students in a tutorial group as a learning exercise is likely to be far less challenging for many students than making a professional presentation to a job selection panel. Students may show evidence of a relating level of communication capability in the first case but be well short of it in the second. Similarly teamwork in a group of friends with similar backgrounds compared with teamwork in a group comprising strangers, some of whom are from other countries, are different challenges. Certainly the cultural sensitivity needed in the second case makes the teamwork process more challenging.

The diversity among individual students themselves in terms of experience and confidence may affect their capacity to deal with some situations more successfully than others. Further, clarity and a degree of consensus about roles and responsibilities of individual team members greatly enhances teamwork. Ambiguity about the nature of the task or uncertainty about the delegation of responsibilities adds another layer of complexity in any situation. The result of all this is that the outcomes for individual students in various situations are likely to vary from the neat hierarchy that the curriculum model represents. Figure 1 illustrates this fairly simply. The y-axis represents the logical four-level hierarchy of outcomes from the scoping to the relating levels. The x-axis represents instances of situational variation. (We have depicted three different but undefined situations.)

So while we would expect any curriculum design to aim at the relating level as the desired outcome for any capability area, individual student experiences may lead to different outcomes in various situations. Student A has experienced the three different situations in a way that could confuse us and cause us to think that the four-level model is a development framework. As Student A experiences successive situations, the outcome moves from enabling to training to relating levels respectively. However Student B's experience shows the inappropriateness of that conclusion. Some feature of situation 3 that perhaps represents a difficulty for that particular student, results in only the scoping level of outcome despite the prior enabling level outcome in situation 2. Reflection on these differences and planning for ways of dealing with the more problematic situations is part of the process of developing the capability to the relating level. The third experience of Student B should be looked on not as a failure or a regression but as a learning opportunity. The pathway to the relating level will usually be characterised by such 'failures' along the way.

So we are saying a number of things here:

° that attainment of the relating level should remain as the curriculum objective for all capability areas;

° clearly that students will not necessarily advance through the four levels sequentially;

° that the situational variation will mean that certainly when first confronted, some situations will result in lower level outcomes than before;

° that the developmental pathway of many students may therefore be more of a spiral than a linear sequence; discontinuities in developmental pathways will likely be evident;

° finally, that the task of teachers is to create opportunities for students to understand their own developmental pathways as they experience variation, with relating outcomes as the goal.

Alternative definition of graduate attributes

The consequence of these ideas is that there are alternative ways of defining the 'graduate attributes' for a university, besides developing precise definitions of particular discrete capabilities such as teamwork or communication. For example,

Graduates will have:

° a commitment to learning from every new situation they encounter and the ability to fulfil that commitment

° the capability to make context-sensitive judgements in the areas of communication, teamwork, creativity, critical analysis, professional and personal responsibility, leadership, information literacy, IT literacy, international orientation and environmental awareness, among others. This capability involves the judgement to choose appropriate behaviour in varying professional and social contexts

° a knowledge capability which enables them to deal effectively with each new situation in their professional or social lives.

(Bowden 1999)

Some academics may find this alternative approach useful.

Having established a way of describing qualitative differences in approaches to the attainment of generic capabilities, we now look at three principles of assessment, where these differences are important.

Principles related to assessment

Principle 4: Assessment practices should align with course/subject goals and teaching/learning practices.

Alignment issues require an examination of two dimensions. Firstly, an alignment at the level of qualitative difference should be considered. If the course/subject goals are complex then the assessment may have to be complex too. A course aiming to develop a student's capability in communication to a relational level will need assessment that tests the students' capability at that level, not simply whether or not the student can communicate, as if this were a yes-no decision. This dimension builds directly upon the arguments described in the previous section.

Secondly, the assessment, like the learning experiences, must be planned across subjects. A quite common response by university teachers to arguments for greater attention to be paid to the development and assessment of students' generic capabilities is that it is already being done. And to a varying extent from one university to another, from one course to another, this statement is true. However, it is usually based at the subject level. It is rare for planned learning experiences and assessment to be arranged across subjects; that is, coordinated at the course level. An example of a situation where learning experiences and assessment range across subjects is provided by the RMIT Bachelor of Social Science. The learning activities in the area of communication skills are planned across subjects and the assessment within subjects is regarded as 'work in progress'. This 'work in progress' is collected into a portfolio and during the third year students work upon and submit the portfolio for summative assessment. A summary of this case study is provided. More detailed documentation is available at RMIT Social Science report.

This is a crucial aspect of our argument: good practice within subjects certainly is essential for students to develop to the training level of the various generic capabilities; but without going beyond the subject, it is difficult for students to progress to a relational level of capability. Again it should be emphasised that this is not to denigrate the subject level activities because progression to the relational level of capability draws on those subject level experiences. But they need to be reflected on, compared and contrasted so that the relation between process and context can be fully understood by students. This is less likely to happen without some formal arrangement for learning activities and assessment across subjects in the course.

The Curtin Business School Professional Skills Project recognises that developing professional skills requires an approach to curriculum planning, teaching and assessment that ensures alignment and is associated with effective learning.
'Furthermore, since skill acquisition is progressive, the inclusion of skill development in the curriculum aims to reflect this. Skills are therefore integrated across the curriculum and students are given the opportunity to develop higher levels of skills as they progress through the course. This is achieved by the Unit Committee for each major deciding, using a matrix, which skills are relevant to each unit taught in the major and the extent of coverage of the skill (i.e. the proportion of the unit's marks to be given to content and to each skill).'

Principle 5: A package for assessing generic capabilities incorporates items designed for a range of purposes.

There are five major purposes for assessment of generic capabilities within university educational programs. The purposes of such assessment are to provide:

1 a tool for students and teachers to monitor progress and plan future learning experiences;

2 an authoritative statement of attainment at the end of the program and at agreed stages throughout it;

3 an element of quality assurance to demonstrate that the university's intentions for graduate outcomes are being addressed appropriately and successfully;

4 a means by which individual graduates can illustrate, in whatever detail they choose, the development path they have undertaken for each generic capability over the years of their educational program; and

5 a motivation for students to develop the capabilities in the forms intended by ensuring that the curriculum, learning experiences and assessment practices are mutually supportive.

It is unlikely that any one specific form of assessment will meet all of these purposes. If such a form of assessment were to do so, then it would be well worth using. However, it is likely that a package of different forms of assessment will be necessary and, in order to satisfy purpose 5, such a package would need to be internally coherent and consistent with the curriculum goals and planned learning experiences.

The case study 'Implementation of graduate qualities in engineering education through innovative teaching and learning strategies' from the University of South Australia illustrates how staff take a particular generic capability, determine 'indicators' for the capability and then frame assessment activities which demonstrate achievement against the 'indicators'. In this way a package of learning tasks which is aimed at developing the particular capability gives rise to a package of assessment activities. Both a summary of the case study and the complete case study are available.

All five purposes for assessment are important. All are necessary. If a university were to focus only on purposes 1 and 4, it may well be fully committed to developing generic capabilities in graduates, and it may in practice be doing so. However it would have difficulty in demonstrating that to others, especially sceptical others. On the other hand, a university which focuses only on purposes 2 and 3 is likely to induce a surface approach to capability development. It might meet some quantitative system criteria but without attention to purposes 1, 4 and especially 5, it is unlikely to facilitate the fundamental change in students intended by graduation.

So the choice of an appropriate package of assessment is both crucial and demanding, especially given our argument that the development of generic capabilities is very individual-specific so that within an explicit framework each student should play a significant role in planning their own curriculum and learning experiences. In this area of teaching and learning at least, the traditional pattern of defining the curriculum, providing the learning experiences and assessing the outcome (in that order every time) is too simplistic.

Coherent assessment package

A coherent assessment package (CAP) for generic capabilities might have the following characteristics:

a. implicit assessment within subjects through performance of content-related assessment tasks

Getting a pass on an essay or project report, for example, implies some written communication capability; completing a team project satisfactorily implies capacity to work in a team.

b. explicit assessment within subjects through performance of content-related assessment tasks

Having contribution to a team project assessed, for example, either through observation by teaching staff or through a negotiated peer assessment process, or having an oral report to a group assessed by staff and/or peers in terms of the quality of presentation explicitly assesses a student's performance of content-related assessment tasks.

c. implicit assessment across subjects through joint planning with staff and other students of future learning activities

The activities should be identified through reflection and analysis of prior experiences and assessments, and should consist of activities considered necessary if further progress in the development of generic capabilities is to result. An online portfolio could be used as a framework for discussion, for example. In addition, appropriate project team roles for the next semester's subjects should be agreed to by the responsible staff member, who then ensures that other members of the course team can facilitate those opportunities.

d. explicit assessment across subjects through some assessment task in which the student reveals understanding of the relation between process and context in the practice of generic capabilities
For example, reflecting on several pieces of written work previously undertaken for different subjects such as a laboratory report, an essay and a mathematics project, would allow the student to demonstrate an understanding of the important elements of communication that are common to the three contexts and why there are other differences amongst them.

e. explicit assessment of the graduating student's capacity to communicate the progress they have made in developing to the relational level of the required generic capabilities
Such assessment could be achieved, for example, by appraisal of the student's qualitative portfolio and/or through some oral assessment process.

Each of these five elements would serve both as a measure of attainment at the particular stage of development and also as feedback to guide planning for further development.

Principle 6: Students benefit from progressive feedback on the development of capabilities.

Students need to be clear about the capabilities that should be developed over their program of study and be able to readily link individual capabilities with specific learning experiences and assessment items. This is especially important if they are to graduate with a commitment and ability to participate in life-long learning.
The engineering for sustainability project at the University of Technology Sydney provides an example. Earlier we noted how engineering students at UTS complete a 'reflections' assessment task that prepares them to plan and participate effectively in the learning experiences offered by the subject Engineering for Sustainability. The task consists of a series of guided questions that encourage students to reflect on their current understanding and expectations of the subject, their critical reading skills and their professional and cultural values. In addition the UTS case study illustrates how students receive progressive feedback and encouragement to give them an informed base for selecting and participating in learning experiences.

Profiling

With increasingly large classes, individualised and progressive feedback to students is difficult to achieve. The availability of an online, self-assessment protocol however offers students a structured opportunity to reflect upon their learning, record significant achievements gained through learning and identify future learning goals. This process of reflection, recording achievements and identifying learning needs is termed profiling.
The profile of generic capability development will vary for each student and therefore can only be comprehensively mapped in a collaborative process involving the student. The learning profile provides students with the data to make informed choices about elective learning experiences and career opportunities. The completed profile will provide the basis for a graduate profile of experience that will complement the academic transcript by outlining skills, knowledge and achievements demonstrated while at university. It will assist graduates if they choose to offer employers a more detailed and individualised perspective on their suitability for a particular position. It will clearly outline the 'value added' by the graduate's participation in a university course of study. Dimensions of profiling are discussed in the next section.

Student profiles

To this point we have focused the discussion on issues and principles for academic managers and teaching staff. In this final section, we present three components of programs aimed at the development of generic capabilities where the focus is on the student. From this perspective, the course will have three profiles: a profile of opportunity, a profile of experience and a profile of attainment.

Profile of opportunity

Each course gives rise to a profile of opportunity for students to develop the desired capabilities. This is comprised of the type and number of teaching and learning activities that are specifically planned to foster engagement with and acquisition of those capabilities.

The profile of opportunity will vary by course, depending on the commitment of the staff involved to foster the development of the capabilities and the extent to which they are able to do so. Where programs seek to develop the capabilities, it follows that curriculum designers need to plan an appropriate profile of development opportunities for a set of generic capabilities they have elaborated within their own discipline or professional specialisation. Each subject of the course contributes to the overall profile through the number and kinds of opportunities it affords students to develop specific capabilities or characteristics.

But as argued in earlier sections, this is not enough by itself. Appropriate course level activities and assessment across subject boundaries must also be planned into the curriculum if the students' capabilities are to be maximised. The case study 'Mainstreaming graduate capabilities in a Business Management Faculty course at the University of South Australia' illustrates how graduate capabilities were used as a framework for integrating eight core subjects making up the first year experience of students undertaking a Bachelor of Business degree. Attention was given to the way that the generic capabilities were being developed across these subjects resulting in changes to particular subjects in order to adjust the profile of development. Both a summary of the case study and the complete case study are available.

How the profile of opportunity in a given course is represented to students and other stakeholders can vary. One indication would be the time made available for student engagement with the capabilities relative to their overall workload. Course documentation could also reveal where in the course (at subject level and across subjects) particular capabilities are introduced, opportunities for practice, reflection and planning of future learning experiences provided, and where and in what ways the acquisition of the capability is assessed.

Where the development of generic capabilities is not given a strong curriculum planning emphasis it will be difficult for students to see the profile of opportunity. And while it is essential that students take responsibility for, and develop control over, their own learning and independence in planning their own development, we argue that it will not occur for most students without an explicit and transparent framework in which they can learn to develop and exercise that independence.

Profile of student experience

Students will experience a course differently as they study. Some will be ready to make progress in the development of a particular aspect of a capability, while others will not. Some will take full advantage of the opportunities presented to them where others will not. Students' experiences of the planned curriculum may differ from that intended by the course designer or the teacher because of their background, broader experience, or for a whole range of subjective factors that impinge on the learning experience. Further, the development processes of generic capabilities may well involve a dimension of learning-to-learn as students come to understand the personal and professional relevance of particular capabilities and seek out opportunities to practice and use them in different parts of their study program.

This aspect of the student's experience of learning can be strengthened in various ways. For example, opportunities for critical reflection on personal learning and development may be built into the program through both individual and group activities. Similarly, there could be opportunities provided for students to integrate parts of the course in some practical application and through that experience come to a broader understanding of the application of the agreed capabilities in personal or professional settings.

Students, therefore, will have a profile of experience of the capabilities, part of which is planned in the learning opportunities of their course and part of which may be a result of prior or non-course experiences. As such, it is a distinctly personal mapping of personal and professional growth. If students are encouraged to think of the changes they undergo while at university in this way, a personal profile provides a framework against which they can assess their own acquisition of the capabilities against their own expectations. They can also reflect upon how to use opportunities within the teaching and learning environment to enhance this dimension of their personal development. If students do reflect on their experience in this way and make their understandings known, this also provides feedback to course teams about student perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its usefulness or success in developing the attributes of a graduate.

Profile of student attainment

Where opportunities are provided for students to acquire agreed capabilities, each individual will be developing a profile of attainment of each of the generic capabilities as they progress through their course. For their own information and so they can communicate their attainment to others, it follows that such a profile should be mapped in a way that can constitute a report to interested parties. Each graduate will need to demonstrate that they have met the basic attainment levels in each attribute (Jenkins 1995).

An online profile of learning system offers an effective strategy for alerting students to the importance of generic capabilities and also offers them a structured framework for monitoring and directing their own development of desired capabilities. The online profile can also offer teachers timely collective feedback on the effectiveness of teaching strategies designed to develop specific capabilities. Four of the ATN universities are cooperating in the development of appropriate software. The LUSID software developed by the Liverpool University has been very informative in this process.

In the Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering at QUT students use a 'student capability profile' to map the development of generic capabilities. Students entering QUT conduct a 'self-audit' of their life experiences at that point. They reflect on their experiences and identify the level of achievement. This then assists them to target future learning experiences to compliment and expand development of relevant capabilities. This cycle is repeated across their course of study and is summarised at graduation as a statement of achievement.

Strategic implications for policy development

A major paradigm shift has occurred in curriculum design, development and implementation. The move to student-based, outcomes-based or problem-based learning across all sectors in education is well documented. Professional bodies, such as the Institution of Engineers, Australia, have already moved to ensure that educational programs demonstrate an appropriate balance between technical competency and generic capabilities such as teamwork, leadership, effective communication, critical thinking, problem solving, creativity and ethical practice.

The educational reasons why the universities need to move away from the current content -driven curricula and towards a more inclusive curriculum that satisfies the changing needs of students and society have been elaborated. There are four key policy areas that universities need to address if appropriate change is to occur. Change cannot occur unless the universities make a significant commitment to support the change process required. The highest priority is the management, implementation and resourcing required to move to a capability-driven curriculum. The process needs to be planned as a university-wide activity and given sufficient resources to facilitate change to the teaching-learning process.

Secondly, this report has argued strongly that change cannot be achieved by a superficial review of the curriculum but needs to be embedded within a course review and development process that aims to achieve a capability-driven curriculum.

Thirdly, and in order for effective change to occur in implementing the curriculum, there needs to be a significant investment in staff development. Staff have to come to accept responsibility for the changed pedagogical processes and to understand the nature of the change. They will need support to make such changes and to develop their own capabilities to implement them. The change activities will need to be fitted within their overall workload, not added to it.

Finally, bringing about major change in the manner of course delivery and assessment requires that students be informed and involved. This report urges the implementation of a curriculum that is student-centred, including aspects of student self-assessment of the outcomes of the learning experiences.

The process described reflects a broader understanding of generic capabilities and of the paradigm shift in the thinking about curriculum design that is required. More importantly, through early adoption of the more comprehensive program outlined, universities will be well able to accommodate any subsequent request, from government or elsewhere, for narrowly based measures of student outcomes without compromising educational values. While readily encompassing such limited requirements, the more comprehensive approach will also be offering students a much more powerful learning experience.

Next
Homepage