ENHANCING STUDENT EMPLOYABILITY:
Higher Education and Workforce Development
Ninth Quality in Higher Education International Seminar in collaboration with ESECT and The Independent.Birmingham27th-28th January 2005
Graduate Skills and employability: an integrated approach to student development
Mick Betts & Pam Calabro
AngliaPolytechnicUniversity
Theme 1: Embedding and enhancing employability
Abstract
This paper proposes that, to be effective, employability must be linked to a broader institutional policy for student development. It discusses ways in which APU has attempted to develop an integrated policy response, which has become focussed in the context of the recent Progress File initiative. This response includes the embedding of APU's own "Graduate Skills" within the curriculum and the creation of a range of initiatives in collaboration with academic and cross-university staff. In conclusion, the authors consider ways in which this broader agenda might be moved forward and the potential effect of enablers and inhibitors.
1. Introduction
In common with other post 1992 Universities, at APU the awareness of the need to develop undergraduates to their full potential, including readiness for employment, has been an important factor which has driven policy development since the mid 1990's. The increasing transparency of the credit based modular structure and the developing emphasis on explicit statements of curriculum content and learning outcomes helped to create a development culture in which considerations of the value and utility of HE awards in the employment market were brought into sharper focus. At the same time the sector was undergoing significant increases in student numbers and HEQC launched a debate about "graduateness" through its Graduate Standards Programme (1995). In response to this emerging and challenging agenda, APU identified a set of generic graduate learning outcomes in 1995, which were initially approved as a statement of common standards. These have played a major role in the subsequent development of the processes through which employability and the broader student development agenda have been addressed.
2. Development Path
Universities can be slow to embrace and implement change, particularly when it threatens some of the 'taken-for-grantedness' that is the basis of the prevailing culture. Despite the many external drivers for suggesting that the employability agenda was an increasingly important issue for HE, it would still have been easy to marginalise, without positive action to embed some of the underlying principles. We took the view that employability must be built into the student learning experience as a fundamental component, made explicit through a common set of generic graduate learning outcomes. However, that the graduate learning outcomes were initially written as an explicit response to the HEQC standards debate was extremely helpful here. They served a dual purpose. They were broadly welcomed and accepted by academic staff as a useful set of statements that helped to define our expectations of "graduateness" and common standards but also opened up a wider debate about the extent to which undergraduate learning offered preparedness for employment. The single most important factor of the process of embedding was in requiring all programmes to demonstrate how they would address achievement of the graduate learning outcomes at validation. This established the graduate learning outcomes first and foremost as a standards issue, which was common to all undergraduate programmes. This requirement did much to raise the profile of the debate around the wider issues. Questions were soon asked about whether we should consider some kind of assessment of the achievement of the graduate learning outcomes and, if so, how this should be done. This led to the setting up of a working group in 1995 to investigate how this could be achieved.
The working group recommended, perhaps controversially, that there should be a common "embedded" approach across all undergraduate programmes. This would use a 10 credit Personal Development Planning (PDP) module in year 1 or at the beginning of a programme, and a further 10 credit graduate skills portfolio module in year 3 or at the end of the programme. In many ways it was at this point that the real debate about graduateness, employability and the broader student development agenda started. In common with the reaction in many HEIs, there was major resistance to the proposal that there should be any compulsory, common components of this type in undergraduate awards. There were particular concerns about the space that the proposed modules would take up in programmes, about the wisdom of teaching these aspects as separate and free-standing modules rather than as embedded aspects of subject teaching and of the competence and willingness of academic staff to deliver this kind of teaching and support to students. As we will discuss later, despite a long and detailed development path at APU, these concerns have remained uppermost in the minds of many.
Nevertheless, the work of the initial working group has proved critical in establishing and maintaining institutional awareness and development of the employability agenda. The group was drawn from across the university and included colleagues from support areas such as the library, student services and careers. The group was managed from a central unit that reported to the then PVC (Academic), who was very committed to the development. This enabled developments to continue across the university on an extended pilot basis, while debates about a common university approach continued. This approach had many benefits. It enabled the PDP and graduate skills modules to be offered as options to (almost) all students and established a development group of academic colleagues who were interested in delivering the modules. It is worth noting that the initial group proved to be a very effective action learning set, which took our understanding forward very quickly and at the same time broadened the base of support across the university. This group also proved important in the later but parallel development of work experience modules. It provided a constituency of colleagues that recognised the value of developing and integrating modules of this kind into the curriculum. It provided a forum for related discussions about the personal tutoring system, which have informed the most recent developments in Progress File. However, there is no doubt that had both the development and delivery of this suite of modules not been co-ordinated from a central non-School base, that focus on these issues would have been lost. Similarly, it is doubtful that APU could have managed the development of the employability agenda in the way that it has, without the support of external project funding from a number of sources. Furthermore, the agenda has not stayed still, with important developments such as performance indicators for employability, the high profile of league tables and the emergence of Progress File putting pressure on the need for coherent and consistent responses from HEIs. In our view APU's capacity to respond has been considerably enhanced by the decision to retain co-ordination of these developments in a central, cross-university unit. We would stress that the role has throughout been one of co-ordination but nevertheless the benefits of establishing a single focal point for developments of this kind, which involve the assimilation of new thinking and of wide ranging management of change, should not be underplayed.
3. Building in People, Resources and Support
As has already been indicated, initial development activity was project-based but even in this early period, it was recognised by senior management that ongoing management and co-ordination, together with further curriculum development, would be needed to ensure successful embedding and integration of these new initiatives. With this in mind, in September 2001, the post of Curriculum Development Adviser Employability, (CDA), was configured to lead on developments. This post has provided a crucial resource in widening staff awareness of PDP and work experience and "hands on" support for areas wishing to integrate these new practices into their curriculum.
A report in April 2002 (Calabro, 2002) found that at the end of 2001, 43% of fields offered modules, sometimes as an option, that gave students the opportunity to consider their undergraduate skill-set, indicating a minimum level of involvement of 1000 students in PDP and 1300 in work experience / work-related placement. Since that time, activity has increased incrementally. This has been particularly the case in the area of Foundation Degrees, where use of generic PDP and work experience modules are a mandatory feature of the APU Foundation Degree curriculum template, and where numbers of students using the modules rose from 24 students in Semester 2, 2001/02 to 280 students for the same period in 2002 /03. In this key developmental phase, the use of the CDA to run staff development sessions, offer support with materials and internally moderate module deliveries, meant that there was the opportunity to share and develop good practice and strengthen pedagogy, including understanding of HE standards / generic skill development. Various deliveries of core/customised versions across the University (e.g. European Studies, Social Policy, Music, Health Care Practice) similarly used the CDA resource to strengthen or extend aspects of delivery, through staff development, advice or direct support, or were encouraged to do so, as part of internal quality monitoring.
In parallel with this, the post has also acted as a valuable resource for 2 cross-University initiatives developed through the Dean of Students' Office, both linked to student mentoring. In the first of these, the APU Employer Mentoring Scheme, which is run by APU Careers Service, students are linked to experienced local employers with the aim of enhancing skills and personal employability through individual action planning and the experience of being mentored over an agreed period. In the second, the Students as Mentors Scheme (Partnership for Progression) students are offered the opportunity of mentoring school children in years 8 - 10, with the aim of encouraging progression into tertiary / higher education, again with the aim of developing students' transferable skills and self-awareness. In both cases, the CDA was able to support developments in such a way that graduate skills development was integrated, while generic University materials and approaches to programme design were utilised to ensure quality.
Over this period, and building on the goodwill and interest of cross-University partners established in the developmental project phase, a community of staff interested and involved in wider aspects of learner pedagogy was established across both a range of curriculum teams and cross-University functions. Much of the success of the achievements noted was directly attributable to the ongoing support at senior management level of the then PVC (Academic), who was able to provide the appropriate steer at committee and Senate level. He had actively supported and participated in the initial profiling scheme and, shortly after the appointment of the CDA in September 2001, commissioned the drafting of a Student Development Strategy as a way of making overt the value-added aspects of undergraduate courses, together with the University's commitment to graduate employability. The paper that emerged (Betts & Calabro, April 2002) identified the need for an integrated University approach across all key stages of the undergraduate student programme and outlined strategies for achieving this, linked to on programme monitoring and support and, in essence, formulated a more holistic approach to student development. With hindsight, it is clear that in APU terms, this paper was before its time and certainly its reception was lukewarm in some quarters. However, its effect was felt in changes that followed to for example induction, which mirrored and implemented some of its recommendations. Other central support functions, such as the Employment Bureau, sought to tie in its work more overtly to the employability agenda, while Community Volunteering projects run through the Dean of Students Office continued to gather momentum, offering interesting ways for students to gain useful experience to broaden their CV. At this same period, the Student Development Forum consisting of representatives from SU, Careers, Student Services etc, which had been configured some years previously, continued to offer a somewhat fragmented University focus for the discussion of ongoing initiatives but lacked any real “clout" to influence take-up by course teams.
4. Embedding and consolidation
The requirement to develop a response to Progress File from 2005 has served as a focus for the many related strands of developments referred to here.
The report on cross university PDP and work experience activity (Calabro, op cit) had highlighted that -
Although some 25 Fields are known to offer one or more modules which give students the opportunity to consider their undergraduate / graduate skill-set in some form or another, it is unclear the extent to which these modules embed tool of self-analysis or create a meaningful framework which support student development planning on an ongoing basis throughout their programme, linked to future progression…..
Building on the conceptual framework scoped out in the Student Development Strategy paper, it was recognised that, potentially, Progress File offered the opportunity to create a structure to communicate more widely to both students and staff, opportunities for the development of skills linked to graduate employability, both within the curriculum and in a wider personal context, than possible hitherto. Equally, that done well, it could act as a potentially valuable staff development tool to lever team / school ownership.
Early in 2003, the then Vice Chancellor made it clear that he wanted a cross-University group to implement a University response to Progress File and the University Learning & Teaching Advisers were identified to lead on this work at school level, as part of the working group co-ordinated by the CDA established to progress this work. In its response to Progress File, the University made explicit the requirement that undergraduate students monitor and develop their generic graduate skill-set. Senate policy also required that, from 2005, all course teams provide opportunities for undergraduate students to engage in PDP, either through use of discrete modules or through integrated course experience.
Gaining acceptance for this agenda for change was never easy. While Schools have recognised the value of embedding these processes, they have not always been willing to sacrifice credit or follow an overtly centrist push. Progress File, however, offered the momentum - and requirement - for teams to review activity and, once key institutional features had been agreed and accepted as the basis for the 2004 pilot phase, the opportunity for school teams to consolidate across a range of initiatives, not least personal tutoring, was recognised.
At this point it is worth mentioning that APU decided to conceptualise pilot developments through use of a generic paper artefact, together with an accompanying CDROM. A set of generic resources relating to student employability was also bought for each School /pilot team. Underpinning this approach, was recognition of the value of PDP & Progress File as a mature programme enhancer, which could be used to both strengthen the formative learning process and also, potentially, provide tools to increase student motivation linked to the development of self-awareness and understanding of personal options.
The file itself conceptualises development across 4 main aspects -
- Understanding & evidencing personal learning
- Profiling individual development against generic graduate benchmarks
- Preparing for progression
- Expressing individual identity
with the aim of encouraging both students and staff to view the undergraduate experience more holistically. The CDROM offers students the opportunity to develop computer-based records of their development and, in preparing materials generally, the aim has been to present a broad range of items to facilitate student choice and also to highlight to staff teams, potential approaches to PDP.
Nine pilots are currently running across the University, involving over 1000 students across all APU schools and represents the most developed attempt to date to offer an integrated curriculum response to Progress File and related employability developments. At all times the aim has been to offer generic support to staff teams to use as needed, recognising that, in some areas such as Social Work and Education, few changes would be needed to embed updated processes. For other areas with less experience, it was hoped that the artefacts presented would develop and inform awareness so that schools, ultimately, could develop their own approach, within stated University parameters and with issues of equity, entitlement and empowerment, in mind.
This strategy appears to be working, in that most schools have opted for an integrated course model approach, which uses either an identified parent module, to kick-start PDP and Progress File processes, or a customised generic PDP module. Only 2 areas, both new to PDP, have opted to use a generic PDP module for the pilot, and one of these has already identified the potential to remodel, using Progress File itself as the "parent" module.