See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330840080

Generic Skills Development in Discipline-Specific Courses in Higher

Education: A Systematic Literature Review

Article  in  Curriculum and Teaching · December 2018

DOI: 10.7459/ct/33.2.04

CITATIONS READS

5 734

3 authors:

Michelle W.T. Cheng Katherine K. W. Lee

The Education University of Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong
18 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Cecilia K.Y. Chan

The University of Hong Kong
303 PUBLICATIONS   1,715 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GRF: The Development of Generic Skills: A Curriculum Design Framework adapting Student and Teacher Perspectives and Approaches to Learning in a Discipline-
specific Context for Hong Kong Higher Education View project

UGC: Aspiring to Become an Engineer: Engineering Education Experiences Affecting Secondary School Students Pursuit of an Engineering Career in Hong Kong, China
and the UK View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Cecilia K.Y. Chan on 13 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Curriculum and Teaching Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018
© 2018 James Nicholas Publishers pp. 47-65

Generic Skills Development in Discipline-

Specific Courses in Higher Education: A
Systematic Literature Review

s
Michelle W.T. Cheng
Katherine K.W. Lee
Cecilia K. Y. Chan

of
The University of Hong Kong

Abstract

o
This systematic literature review is to find and showcase studies that de-
tail the design of student-centered in-class undergraduate courses that
target the development of generic skills in a discipline-specific context.
Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were among the 25-year
Pr
search span. A summary of the selected studies and their findings are
presented, alongside an examination of the effectiveness of the various
course designs and how generic skills development has been incorporated
across different academic disciplines. Challenges and limitations among
both selected studies and situation of generic skills development in higher
education will also be discussed.

Keywords: generic skills; undergraduate education; course design; stu-

ge

dent-centred; systematic review

Introduction
Generic skills, such as critical thinking, collaboration and commu-
nication skills, are important to the whole-person development of stu-
dents and have been growing in prominence in educational reforms
Pa

around the world (e.g. Barrie, 2005; Denton, 2003; Diamond, Walkley,
Forbes, Hughes & Sheen, 2012; Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development, 2016). However, while many universities have
included such skills as a part of their educational aims (Chan & Luk,
2013) and are expected to ensure that students are given opportunities
for generic skills development during their undergraduate careers

ISSN 0726-416X (print) / 2201-0602 (online)

https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/33.2.
 48 Curriculum and Teaching Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018

(Crebert, Bates, Bell, Patrick & Cragnolini, 2004), particularly for fu-
ture employment and life-long learning, resources to facilitate the in-
tegration of skills development into higher education remains
inadequate, especially compared to academic knowledge (Chan, Fong,
Luk & Ho, 2017). There is also an ongoing debate on the extent to
which generic skills development should be integrated into discipline-
specific learning, and how these skills should be assessed and reported
(Badcock, Pattison & Harris, 2010; Jones, 2009; Nusche, 2008). Still,
to provide students with a variety of opportunities for learning, con-
sideration needs to be put into how the undergraduate curriculum can
be designed to support generic skills development throughout the dif-

s
ferent forms of in-class, out-of-class and extracurricular learning.

On the faculty staff level, university educators continue to lack time

of
and support for integrating the development of generic skills into their
courses. For example, apart from teaching, grading work and preparing
assessment materials, academic staff may also be preoccupied with ap-
plying for research grants and conducting research, and are consis-
tently faced with stressful situations (Leung, Siu, & Spector, 2000).

o
Further given that there is no common agreement on which skills must
be included in education (Gilbert, Balatti, Turner & Whitehouse, 2004),
the insufficient support and recognition for teachers (Chan et al., 2017)
Pr
may hinder efforts or cause a lack of motivation to incorporate clear
and coherent approaches in designing courses that target the develop-
ment of students’ generic skills. Without explicit integration in the syl-
labi and learning outcomes, generic skills remain a part of the hidden
curriculum (Clayton, Blom, Meyers & Bateman, 2003), and as many
classrooms are still based around traditional lectures that prioritize
the dissemination of academic knowledge, opportunities for students
ge

to develop these skills in such a setting remain inadequate.

Instead, there is support in the literature for the use of active teach-
ing and learning strategies, which put greater emphasis on thought-
provoking, interactive and cooperative activities, to facilitate the
development of a range of skills, attitudes and habits, while giving stu-
Pa

dents greater responsibility over their own learning (Kearns, 2001).

These strategies can also increase student engagement, particularly
with student-centered approaches like problem-based learning (PBL)
which presents students with complex problems to explore through in-
dependent and group study. Having been adopted in various disciplines
like science, engineering and medicine (Kamsah, 2004; Wood, 2003),
such student-led and problem-based approaches have been shown to
be effective are valuable experiences for developing various skills like
critical and creative thinking, problem-solving skills, communication,
and teamwork (Mills & Treagust, 2003; Savery, 2015). Furthermore,
 Cheng, Lee & Chan, Generic Skills Development 49

with an emphasis on students’ responsibility over their own learning,

incorporating teacher-student and student-student interactions and
constructive feedback can also effectively enhance skills development
(Murdoch‐Eaton & Whittle, 2012).

As skills are not “learned” but are “developed” (Chan et al., 2017),
the authors believe that structured and deliberate teaching and learn-
ing approaches are important to support the process of generic skills
development, not only through single and isolated learning activities,
but through proper and coherent course design. Thus, with a focus on
opportunities within the classroom, this paper aims to review and

s
showcase effective and student-centered course designs for in-class
generic skills development as identified through a systematic review
of the literature, to demonstrate how university educators have inte-

of
grated skills development into their disciplinary courses. It is hoped
that the findings of this paper can support and motivate other educa-
tors to incorporate generic skills development into their teaching by
providing these studies as potential references, which may be repli-
cated, adapted, or serve as a source of inspiration.

The Review
Search Strategy
o
Pr
A comprehensive search was conducted following guidelines for iden-
tifying eligible records from Boland, Cherry and Dickson (2013), with
focus on two key elements: generic skills (the terms ‘graduate attrib-
utes’, ‘transferable skills’ and ‘soft skills’ were also used to expand the
search) and undergraduate education. The search was restricted to
studies published in English and peer-reviewed journals with full-ar-
ticles available, dated between a 25-year span of January 1991 to De-
ge

cember 2016. The articles were retrieved from the following online
databases: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Aca-
demic Search Complete, PsycINFO and PsycArticles.

A total of 862 electronic searches were performed and information

from each search was extracted on Excel sheets. Duplicate citations,
Pa

which are citations that identified by more than one search engines,
were identified by a match of title and 158 were removed from the
Excel sheet. After duplicate citations were removed from the Excel
database, abstract of each citation was randomly reviewed by at least
two of the three reviewers separately, to determine if the citation
should be included within the systematic review. Uncertain citations
were reviewed again, and only citations that were marked as appro-
priate by both reviewers were included as potential citations. Among
the 81 identified potential citations, six do not have available full-text,
therefore only 75 full-text articles of all potential citations were re-
 50 Curriculum and Teaching Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018

trieved, and saved as Adobe-PDF files. Copies of all the 75 full-text ar-
ticles were then reviewed by the three reviewers separately for inclu-
sion criteria listed below. If the reviewer was uncertain or did not reach
a full consensus as whether or not to include a study, that citation was
reviewed again until a full consensus was reach among the three re-
viewers. The search and selection process are illustrated in Figure 1.

Inclusion / Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included in this review if they satisfied all of the fol-
lowing criteria: (a) they described a student-centered university course
that targeted the development of at least one type of generic skill, (b)

s
the course was for university undergraduates, (c) the study took place
within a discipline-specific course, (d) the design was for in-class learn-
ing, (e) the course design and content were described with enough de-

of
tail (e.g. course outline, class flow and content, assessments used) for
the reader to adopt or replicate the approach, and (f) the study reported
result from students’ evaluations of the course.

Studies were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: (a) it

o
did not target or specify what generic skills were to be developed in the
course, (b) the course was not at the undergraduate level, (c) the study
failed to identify a discipline-specific course (e.g. standalone activities
Pr
or programs), (d) the course used an out-of-classroom design (e.g. place-
ments, fieldtrips, workplace learning, online platforms), (e) the study
did not describe the design of a course (e.g. it described curricula de-
sign, degree-based projects, or tutorial classes) or the details of the
course design were unspecific (e.g. missing details on class structure,
actual content delivered, assessment methods and grading distribu-
tion), and/or (f) the study focused on the implementation of teaching
ge

methods or interventions (e.g. such as cooperative learning or, prob-

lem-based learning).

Evidence synthesis
As the selected studies covered a variety of teaching and design ap-
proaches, the findings of this review are summarized with descriptive
Pa

comparisons rather than with quantitative methods.

 Cheng, Lee & Chan, Generic Skills Development 51

s
o of
Figure 1: Study Selection Table
Pr
Results
The selection process and result are illustrated in Figure 1.A total
of 862 papers were identified through searching for the key terms in
the aforementioned electronic databases (ERIC, n = 630; Academic
Search Complete, n = 142; PsycINFO, n = 4; PsycARTICLES, n = 86).
A total of five studies met the inclusion criteria all pertaining to the
design of an undergraduate course that was based on in-class learning,
ge

took place within a discipline-specific context and deliberately set out

to target the development of at least one generic skill. These five stud-
ies also included details of the course structure and design, as well as
results from the course evaluation in which feedback was collected
from students regarding their perceptions of the course, such as the
strengths and weaknesses of the teaching methods and materials used,
Pa

and self-evaluations of their generic skills upon completing the course.

Characteristics of the selected studies

The basic characteristics of the courses described in the selected
studies, including the discipline, module content, targeted generic
skills and originating country, are presented in Table 1. Three of the
studies were courses from European universities (United Kingdom, Ire-
land and Netherlands), one from a North American university (United
States), and one from an East Asian university (Vietnam). Four studies
 52 Curriculum and Teaching Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018

described science STEM courses, which included chemistry (Ashraf,

Marzouk, Shehadi, & Murphy, 2011), agriculture and engineering
(Pearce, 2009), mathematics (Nyman & Berry, 2002) and spatial sci-
ences (Van Hoven & De Boer, 2001). The fifth study was a course in ed-
ucation on technology education (Nam, 2014). Though two studies did
not include class size in their descriptions, the remaining classes
ranged from 20 to 130 students.

Four studies targeted the development of more than one generic skill
(Ashraf et al., 2011; Nam, 2014; Nyman & Berry, 2002; Van Hoven &
De Boer, 2001), all of which included students’ interpersonal or com-

s
munication skills, such as collaboration and presentation skills. Two
(Nyman & Berry, 2002; Pearce, 2009) targeted higher-order thinking
skills like critical thinking and problem-solving, while one study also

of
included IT skills (Nam, 2014).

Course design features

Primary course goals and intended learning outcomes
The five selected studies all included both disciplinary knowledge

o
and at least one specific generic skill as part of their course goals and
are listed alongside the course design features in Table 2.
Pr
These goals, in turn, were reflected in the respective intended learn-
ing outcomes, and further shaped course content, teaching approach
and assessment methods. For example, the primary course goal of
Pearce (2009) was to develop students that are ‘able to analyze and
read about bioethical issues’; respectively, the intended learning out-
comes included two that reflected this goal (i.e. ‘students should accept
the relevance of ethics to biology and the need to analyze and reason
ge

about ethics’ and ‘to describe, explain, and analyze specific example is-
sues in moderate depth’).

Course content and flow

Three studies divided their course content into different parts or
stages. In Ashraf et al., (2011), the course was separated into five top-
Pa

ics, covering different skills in chemistry, and were given two to three
weeks each. Nyman and Berry’s (2002) and Nam’s (2014) courses were
organized into three and four stages respectively, where students ac-
quired new knowledge and solved problems individually in earlier
stages, and worked in groups to discuss and solve problems in later
stages. In both, students also presented their solutions to the given
problems in the final stage. The remaining two courses heavily empha-
sized group discussions, one as preparation leading up to a final group
project (Van Hoven & De Boer, 2001), and the other for the considering
cases and ethical issues (Pearce, 2009). In both, lecturing time was re-
 Table 1: Background of Included Reviewed Studies (n=5)
Authors Course name / Program year Discipline Course Generic skills Class Country Length
subject content targeted size
Nam Introductory Undergraduate, Technology Introductory IT skills, 82 Vietnam One
(2014) Physics Part 2 first year Education Informatics collaboration semester
Pa
skills
Ashraf, Contemporary Undergraduate, Sciences Contemporary Communication N/A Ireland 16 weeks
Marzouk, Chemistry second year Chemistry skills,
Shehadi, presentation
& Murphy skills

Teaching and learning approaches

(2011)
Pearce Social Impacts Undergraduate, Sciences, Bioethics Critical 130 United 28 contact
(2009) of Biology third (final) year Agriculture thinking Kingdom hours
and
ge
Engineering
Nyman & Computer Undergraduate, Mathematics Mathematical Problem 20-25 United States 20 days
Berry Science year not Modelling solving, (4 weeks)
(2002) specified interpersonal
skills
Van Area Analysis Undergraduate, Spatial Area Analysis Interpersonal N/A Netherlands 34 weeks
Hoven & second year Sciences skills,
De Boer presentation
(2001) skills
*N/A: The article did not provide these details of the course characteristic
Pr
Cheng, Lee & Chan, Generic Skills Development

tors was lessened in order to create a student-led learning culture.

o

in the course. Three studies gave students actual problems from its re-
from their peers and instructors. All five studies also encouraged stu-
across the five studies, all of which used a combination of multiple
duced in favor of in-class group discussions and the intervention of tu-

dents to solve real-world problems in relation to the concepts taught

methods and included an element of group or pair work during class
53

There were a variety of teaching and learning approaches adopted

time, allowing students the opportunity to receive immediate feedback

of
s
 Table 2: Design Characteristics of Included Reviewed Studies (n=5)
54

Authors Primary course goal Course content and flow Teaching and learning approaches Assessments used
Nam To prepare future instructors to 4 teaching stages: Student-led learning; Analysis of real 50% Examination
Pa
(2014) meet requirements of innovation Stage 1: Students study individually or in small groups problems or cases; 50% Individual and group
through active and collaborative during class, including short tasks as guided by the Hands-on sessions using technology activities
learning supported with ICT instructor
Stage 2: Students individually solve the given problems
in class
Stage 3: Students form pairs or groups to discuss the
given problem and its solutions
Stage 4: Students present and explain their solutions
and results; each student must take a turn to speak
ge
Ashraf, Marzouk, To provide development Week 1-3: Laboratory skills, communication skills Hands-on lab sessions; 55% In-class group work
Shehadi, Murphy opportunities for a wide range of Week 4-5: MS Word processing skills for chemists Analysis of real problems or cases; 25% Take home assign-
(2011) generic skills essential in and Week 6-8: MS Excel in Chemistry Group project and presentation (self- ment
beyond the chemistry profession Week 9-10: Chemical information retrieval selected topics) 15% Project presentation
Curriculum and Teaching

Week 11-13: Presentation skills for chemists 5% Blackboard quiz

Pearce (2009) To ensure students are able to
comprehend and critically
analyze and bioethical issues
Nyman& Berry To develop students’ ability to
(2002) formulate mathematical models elling. Students work in pairs to solve problems using
for different situations and use
collected data to validate them
Lectures: Group discussions on bioethical cases, using Interactive lectures; 70% Examination
examples of issues to foster thinking Group discussions; Class debate 30% Student discussion
Students discussion seminars: Students will discuss seminars
bioethical questions in groups of six, then individually
write arguments for the case within the allotted time. At
the end of the seminar, tutors will give general and indi-
vidual feedback.
Phase 1: Introduction of empirical and theoretical mod- Interactive lectures; 50% Formal in-class test
Pr
Small class; 25% Final poster presenta-
the taught modelling methods. Analysis of real problems or cases tion
Phase 2: Students learn advanced logistics and matrix 15% Class participation
o
models to become familiar with the modeling process.
Phase 3: Students form teams to solve an extended real-
10% Oral presentation

world problem in 10 days and give a poster presentation

in the final class.
Van Hoven & De To develop transferable and geo- In small groups, students conduct a research project in a Student-led discussions: 100% Group research proj-
Boer (2001) graphical skills in the context of selected community or district. While half of the course Project-driven learning ect
a group-based research project time is used for lecturing the other half is used for dis-
cussions and project preparation. Students take turns
leading the discussion, and are able to circulate their re-
of
search outlines and give constructive critical feedback to
each other. There is limited intervention from tutors.
Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018

s
 Cheng, Lee & Chan, Generic Skills Development 55

spective discipline to analyze or apply techniques to, one course allowed

students the freedom to an existing issue related to the course content
to work on (Ashraf et al., 2011), while the fifth course included an in-
vestigative research component that required students to collect their
own data in their community or district (Van Hoven & De Boer, 2001).
Three of the studies also had an individual or group presentation com-
ponent that prompted students to share their problem-solving process
and solutions with the class. Other common approaches include inter-
active lectures, group projects, and oral or poster presentations.

Assessment methods

s
Unlike most traditional classes that put heavy weighting on final
examinations and formal tests, the five studies used a combination of
assessment methods and most tended to balance examinations with or

of
put more emphasis on group projects, discussions and presentations.
In fact, two studies (Ashraf et al., 2011; Van Hoven & De Boer, 2001)
have removed the examination component in favor of assessing stu-
dents through take-home assignments and group projects instead.

o
Also, although a final exam makes up a larger proportion in the as-
sessment in Pearce (2009), the course has already undergone change
as it replaced a traditional essay assignment, making up the remaining
Pr
grade percentage, with grades for three 2-hour seminars based around
group discussions and cases. For the other two studies that have an
examination component (Nam, 2014; Nyman & Berry, 2002), the exam
or test contributed half of the total course grade, while the other half
comprised of as class participation, group activities and oral or poster
presentations. One of the in-class tests in Nyman and Berry’s course
was also open-book and to be completed in pairs.
ge

To assess the generic on track (Nyman & Berry, 2002; Van Hoven &
De Boer, 2001). The examination in Pearce (2009) was divided into two
sections, one of which presented questions that were not directly cov-
ered in class, prompting students to use their critical thinking, which
was assessed by looking at the structure and analyses presented in
Pa

their answers. In relation to the development of collaborative skills,

students in Nam’s (2014) course evaluated the contribution of each
group member towards the group project. Finally, in Ashraf et al.,
(2011), to assess students’ communication and presentation skills, as-
sessment was based on the creation of a website and multiple presen-
tations, including the final project presentation. Thus, broad range of
assessment approaches were used to target the development of generic
skills.
 56 Curriculum and Teaching Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018

Course evaluation and issues in design

As a part of the inclusion criteria, the selected studies all included
results from student course evaluations. The empirical findings from
these evaluations and drawbacks of the course as raised by students
are summarized in Table 3. While one collected student feedback
through interviews, the remaining four used questionnaires or online-
surveys, three of which also had additional open-ended questions for
students to write comments. Despite differences in sample size, stu-
dents from all five courses had generally positive comments regarding
the learning approaches and the increased opportunity to interact with
their peers and instructors, and were also able to see their own im-

s
provements and acquisition of valuable generic skills targeted in the
respective courses. However, those that were unfamiliar with the non-
traditional lecturing tended to need more time getting used to the in-

of
creased workload and unfamiliar learning and assessment methods.
Only the study by Ashraf et al., (2011) collected additional feedback
from course instructors, who found that these instructors noticed sig-
nificant improvements in students’ professional and generic skills
throughout the course, in spite of the time needed to adapt to the new

o
learning environment.

Discussion
Pr
Teaching and learning approaches
The similarities in course design among the five studies are clear:
with less time spent on lecturing, the use of more problem-solving
tasks, especially those based on real-life issues, and discussions time
was a widely-adopted approach that further increased the interaction
between students during class and supported the development of com-
munication skills. The authenticity of these problems or issues tended
ge

to relate to daily life so that students could more readily apply their
learning into practice and gain a deeper understanding of course con-
tent and reach a higher level of cognitive complexity.

Still, the design of teaching pedagogy can be challenging for educa-

tors, such as catering student-centered approaches to students who are
Pa

still unfamiliar or uncomfortable with non-traditional teaching. For

example, in their feedback, students had reported feeling anxious
about being criticized by others during the group or class discussions
(Nam, 2014). Apart from needing to adapt to a new learning experi-
ence, students from another study (Van Hoven & De Boer, 2001) gave
positive feedback regarding generic skills development in the course,
but at the same time raised concerns over the quality of the academic
teaching content delivered, expressing dissatisfaction with the balance
between academic content taught and generic skills development. Ad-
ditionally, during the development of their course, Ashraf and col-
 Table 3: Students’ Course Evaluation of Included Reviewed Studies (n=5)
Authors Evaluation Responded Major empirical findings / Comments about skills Major drawbacks
method students acquisition
Nam Online survey 82 (1) Self-evaluations of IT skills and collaboration skills (1) Students were not used to having
(2014) (including open- showed clear improvements discussion sessions; some did not
ended questions) know how to participate or were
afraid of being criticized
(2) Students did not have enough
opportunities to access computers
Ashraf, Marzouk, Questionnaire 20 (1) Majority of students found the class useful; (1) Students felt that the workload
Shehadi, & (2) Students felt that they acquired new and valuable skills was high and time consuming
Murphy (2011) that will help them in future chemistry courses
Pa
(3) Students reported enjoying chemistry more through
taking the class
Pearce Questionnaire 83 (1) Overall high rating for this module (score of 4 out of 5) (1) Students were unfamiliar with
(2009) (including open- (2) 40% of the comments rate the discussion seminars exam and assessment methods
ended questions) favorably (2) Extra time and effort is needed
(3) 21% of the students appreciated the chance to participate (3) Students were worried about the
and share ideas in the discussions assessments, which focused on
analyzing and reasoning instead
ge
of memorization
Nyman& Berry Interview 8 (1) Students learned new ways to approach and solve real- (1) The learning approaches were
(2002) world problems; new to students, requiring them
(2) They also developed logical thinking skills and learned to to adapt
think more critically
(3) Know how to work efficiently in groups and cooperate
with others
Van Hoven & Questionnaire 29 (1) Students felt that learning was effective during their (1) The quality of the statistics
De Boer (2001) (including open- group work; lectures and their applicability to
ended questions) (2) Students had a positive attitude towards practicing and the research project were both
conducting interviews, as well as conferring, writing, and low
research skills
Pr
Cheng, Lee & Chan, Generic Skills Development

(3) The clear division of tasks among members of the group

project, decided by the students themselves, and
motivated the students to put greater effort into their
work.
o
57

of
s
 58 Curriculum and Teaching Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018

leagues (2011) noted that they ‘were surprised that [they] could not
find published examples of a course that would address all [topics they
intended to teach]’, including any examples that incorporated essential
transferable skills in such topics, once again highlighting the lack of
support and resources for educators to incorporate generic skills into
their course design.

The challenge of creating new learning experiences, especially ones

that aim to facilitate the development of generic skills, also extends to
the classroom space itself; Pearce (2009) suggested the importance of
having large spaces for students to hold seminars and discussion ses-

s
sions, while Nam (2014) believed that difficulties in accessing comput-
ers on campus impeded students’ development of IT skills. Learning
spaces and infrastructure are critical elements of implementing and

of
effectively facilitating an interactive learning experience, and can even
add to and support generic skills development. These ideas are in line
with the recently growing number of universities reconstructing and
redesigning their learning environments to facilitate greater active
learning, such as by rearranging seating arrangements to facilitate

o
group interactions and teamwork, as well as installing technology like
interactive whiteboards and computers with various software to de-
velop IT skills (Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada, & Freeman, 2015;
Pr
Lei, 2010; Rickes, 2009).

Assessment and measurement of generic skills

The assessment methods of the five studies have been designed to-
wards group projects and class discussion participation, shifting away
from a sole focus on traditional written examinations and tests towards
more formative means, which may have helped drive the motivation
ge

to learn and help shift students’ focus from solely memorizing or recit-
ing academic knowledge to more interactive and collaborative efforts.
In fact, all five studies have some aspect of formative assessment –
some of which take up 50 percent or more of the course grade – which
is less common in the higher education context. Although a final exam
made up a large proportion (70%) of the assessment in Pearce (2009),
Pa

the course has already undergone change as it replaced a traditional

essay assignment, making up the remaining grade percentage, with
grades for three 2-hour seminars based around group discussions and
cases. For the other two studies that included an examination compo-
nent (Nam, 2014; Nyman & Berry, 2002), the exam or test contributed
half of the total course grade, while the other half comprised of class
participation, group activities and oral or poster presentations. One of
the in-class tests in Nyman and Berry’s course was also open-book and
to be completed in pairs.
 Cheng, Lee & Chan, Generic Skills Development 59

However, with some studies also lacking operational definitions for

the generic skills they targeted and clear indicators of skills develop-
ment, it remains uncertain how such skills are actually being inter-
preted and assessed by teachers, as well as among students
themselves. This makes it even more of a challenge to reliably gauge
the extent of students’ improvements and skills acquisition. Providing
feedback, which is a part of both assessment and an important element
of generic skills development (Chan et al., 2017), can help teachers and
their students clarify any expectations while also supporting develop-
ment. However, only two of the five studies reported a feedback com-
ponent (Pearce, 2009; Van Hoven & De Boer, 2001), and the details of

s
which (e.g. delivery of feedback, frequency, depth and content) are un-
clear and appear to lack a formal structure. As recommended by Bun-
ney, Sharplin and Howitt (2015), due to the progressive nature of

of
generic skills development, regular practice and feedback are neces-
sary and the tasks and activities in courses should be entirely scaf-
folded and include these aspects.

Finally, drawing again on the question of separability between

o
generic skills and discipline-specific, an important point for consider-
ation is the difficulty of measuring and assessing generic skills. Even
though generic skills have been included as learning outcomes and
Pr
aligned with learning approaches, there continues to be a lack of un-
derstanding on how such skills should be assessed, especially given its
subjective nature and lack of proper grading standards. This is reflected
in the five studies of this review, all of which had set out to include the
development of certain skills in their course, but descriptions, rubrics,
marking criterion or standardized evaluation methods were not given
and no study directly assessed generic skills development. For example,
ge

in Ashraf et al., (2011), assessment for students’ communication and

presentation skills was based on the creation of a website and multiple
presentations but despite the range of assessment approaches used,
evaluations were based on students’ performance as a whole and did
not separate generic skills development from academic and practical
knowledge demonstrated. Similarly, the examination in Pearce (2009)
Pa

was divided into two sections, one of which prompted students to exer-
cise their critical thinking and apply their knowledge, and marks were
given for the essay structure and quality of the analyses in their an-
swers; in the development of collaborative skills, students in Nam’s
(2014) course were assessed with peer evaluations based on contribu-
tions of each member towards their group project. This reiterates the
issue of whether it should be assessed separately from discipline knowl-
edge or not, and subsequently poses a new question: what kind of evi-
dence can be provided for generic skills development?
 60 Curriculum and Teaching Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018

The demand for generic skills development

Providing evidence is particularly relevant to students’ futures as
they enter the workforce. Employers expect graduates to already be
equipped with abilities such as critical thinking, leadership and team-
work, and communication skills (Crebert et al., 2004; Lowden, Hall,
Elliot & Lewin, 2011), while accreditation bodies from areas including
engineering (e.g. ABET, 2013, 2017) and accounting (e.g. CPA Aus-
tralia, 2008) lay out requirements of student outcomes that cover a
similar range of thinking, personal, interpersonal and professional
skills. However, beyond skills that can be more readily applied, their
requirements also include more abstract abilities and attitudes – for

s
example, both ABET and CPA Australia include the understanding of
ethical responsibility or dimensions, the ability to work in a multi-dis-
ciplinary context and the ‘ability to engage in lifelong learning’ in their

of
list of requisites – which are more complex and not addressed in any
of the studies of this review. Instead, the five studies identified in this
paper targeted the development of thinking or interpersonal skills. It
may be noteworthy that IT skills were only targeted by the study that
took place in Vietnam (Nam, 2014), which the author identified as a

o
need for most of their students who come from rural and mountainous
areas and did not grow into technology like other digital natives in
their generation. Still, the studies did not target more complex skills
Pr
abilities as required by potential employers and different professional
standards.

Still, it is striking that only five studies were found in the 25-year
search span, which is a low number showcasing practices around the
world. To better understand the current situation of generic skills de-
velopment in undergraduate education, the authors revisited the sys-
ge

tematic review results in pursuit of a broader picture of what the

literature have to offer. Through a second screening of the 704 records
found (after the removal of duplicates), this time looking for any study
related to generic skills development in higher education, 107 abstracts
were found, inclusive of the five studies already reviewed in this paper.
While some studies targeted more than one skill, collaboration and
Pa

teamwork skills, communication skills, and critical thinking were the

most common outcomes. A remaining quarter of the abstracts did not
specify what skills were targeted, using terms like “generic skills” or
“graduate attributes” in a broad manner. These results are summa-
rized in Table 4, which also shows that all specified skills among these
abstracts are more practical in nature and readily transferable to work-
place settings. This is in contrast to attributes and attitudes like re-
silience, confidence and appreciation, which are aspects of student
development often neglected in pedagogies and curriculum. Along with
 Cheng, Lee & Chan, Generic Skills Development 61

a lack of clarity over differences between terminologies – for example,

“communication skills” has been used to include presentation and peer
interaction skills, while other times the three are separated – there is
still much conceptual confusion remaining in the literature. More com-
plex skills and attitudes, such as those relating to ethical understand-
ing as required by accreditation bodies, were not targeted by any of the
abstracts found, raising the question of how adequately students are
actually prepared for their futures. Additionally, the aforementioned
issues in assessment were also reflected: just under half of the 107 ab-
stracts (46%) mentioned some form of assessment for skills develop-
ment, though no studies appeared to put a substantial focus on this

s
aspect.

Table 4. Targeted outcomes among 107 identified abstracts

of
related to generic skills development in higher education

Collaboration and teamwork skills 29

Generic skill targeted Number of studies

Communication skills 28
Critical thinking 18
Problem-solving skills 17
Leadership
Information literacy
Creativity

o
Information technology skills
9
8
2
1
Pr
Unspecified 26

Finally, to briefly revisit the other sections of this discussion, it is

interesting to note that traditional teaching methods were not promi-
nent in the abstracts reviewed: while half of the 107 records utilized
experiential learning for generic skills development (49%), about an-
ge

other third (28%) embedded generic skills development in a discipline-

specific course, using a variety of teaching and learning activities like
role-plays, simulations, case studies and problem-based learning. The
five papers of this review also demonstrated that active learning and
group work can be used effectively to promote generic skills develop-
ment. As more educators take on the role of a “facilitator” as opposed
to only a “teacher”, students are given more opportunities to be actively
Pa

involved in class and a shift in the culture of education is emerging.

With all five selected studies also utilizing an outcome-based design,
it is possible that the trend of this design approach is also prevailing.
Finally, if more teachers can be open and willing to facilitate generic
skills development, we expect that the shift in education can also lead
to greater efforts in integrating skills development into curriculum de-
sign, thus better preparing students for their future careers and en-
abling lifelong learning.
 62 Curriculum and Teaching Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018

Limitations and future directions

This study has several limitations. First, as the search for citations
were limited to articles published in peer-reviewed journals, publica-
tion bias exists as the results of the search may have varied if theses,
book chapters, and unpublished papers were also considered. Secondly,
with only five studies selected for meeting the inclusion criteria, the
finding that the five courses all received positive course evaluations
from students may be inflated. Thirdly, this study did not include
courses that only adopted existing teaching approaches as it focused
on those where multiple aspects of the course (e.g. activities, course
structure, and assessment) were explicitly designed to target generic

s
skills development. Many studies where courses only, albeit also effec-
tively, adopted approaches like problem-based or cooperative learning
to develop students’ generic skills, such as in medicine (Klegeris, Bah-

of
niwal, & Hurren, 2013; Wood, 2003), were therefore excluded from this
review.

More research is needed to inform and support educators in imple-

menting generic skills development into their courses. A detailed guide-

o
line or framework that can help with the planning class flow, activities,
assessments, and allocation of grades can address challenges of edu-
cators by providing useful references and examples on how their
Pr
courses can be improved. While there is limited variation in disciplines
showcased in this systematic review, the authors are optimistic about
seeing more diversity in the design approaches and disciplinary con-
texts for generic skills development within higher education in the fu-
ture.

Conclusion
ge

The goal of this paper was to explore how current instructors in

higher education use student-centered course design to integrate
generic skills development into their discipline-specific courses. This
systematic review showcased a handful of implemented and evaluated
courses in the literature, providing various examples of in-class oppor-
tunities, their effectiveness and methods. While it is evident that these
Pa

examples are limited and further work is needed to provide resources

for studies of generic skills development in higher education, the au-
thors hope that educators can draw motivation and insight from the
findings of this review and develop their own examples to share with
other teachers and academics. In addition to improving the current sit-
uation of the available literature, the authors further hope that an an-
swer can eventually be found for the question of how generic skills
development can be effectively integrated into discipline-specific learn-
ing and be treated with equal importance as a core component of edu-
cation.
 Cheng, Lee & Chan, Generic Skills Development 63

Acknowledgement
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the
public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References
ABET. (2013). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs: Effective for
reviews during the 2014-2015 accreditation cycle. Baltimore, MD: ABET.
ABET. (2017). Criteria for accrediting applied and natural science programs. From
http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/18-19-ANSAC-Final-PDF.pdf
Ashraf, S. S., Marzouk, S. A., Shehadi, I. A. & Murphy, B. M. (2011). An integrated
professional and transferable skills course for undergraduate chemistry
students. Journal of Chemical Education. 88(1), 44-48.

s
https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100275y
Badcock, P. B., Pattison, P. E. & Harris, K. L. (2010). Developing generic skills
through university study: A study of arts, science and engineering in

of
Australia. Higher Education. 60(4), 441-458.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9308-8
Barrie, S. (2005). Rethinking generic graduate attributes. HERDSA News.
27(1), 1-6.
Boland, A., Cherry, M. G. & Dickson, R. (Eds.). (2013). Doing a systematic
review: A student’s guide. Sage.

o
Bunney, D., Sharplin, E. & Howitt, C. (2015). Generic skills for graduate
accountants: The bigger picture, a social and economic imperative in the new
knowledge economy. Higher Education Research & Development. 34(2), 256-
Pr
269. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.956700
Chan, C. K. Y., Fong, E. T., Luk, L. Y. & Ho, R. (2017). A review of literature on
challenges in the development and implementation of generic competencies
in higher education curriculum. International Journal of Educational
Development. 57, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.08.010
Chan, C. K. Y. & Luk, L. Y. Y. (2013). Faculty perspectives on the “3+3+4”
curriculum reform in Hong Kong: A case study. International Education
Studies. 6(4), 56-66. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n4p56
ge

Clayton, B., Blom, K., Meyers, D. & Bateman, A. (2003). Assessing and
certifying generic skills: What is happening in vocational education and
training? National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER),
Adelaide, South Australia.
Crebert, G., Bates, M., Bell, B., Patrick, C. J. & Cragnolini, V. (2004).
Developing generic skills at university, during work placement and in
employment: Graduates’ perceptions. Higher Education Research &
Pa

Development. 23(2), 147-165 [Chicago].

https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000206636
Australia, C. P. A. (2008). International accreditation guidelines for accounting
degree programs. From
https://www.cpaaustralia.com.au/~/media/corporate/allfiles/document/cpaprogram/
international-accreditation-guidelines
Denton, R. (2003). Assessment: Assessing the key competencies in the
Electronics and Information Technology Program at Torrens Valley TAFE.
NCVER, South Australia.
Diamond, A., Walkley, L., Forbes, P., Hughes, T., & Sheen, J. (2012). Global
graduates – Global graduates into global leaders. AGR, CIHE, CFE report.
 64 Curriculum and Teaching Vol. 33, No. 2, 2018

Gilbert, R., Balatti, J., Turner, P. & Whitehouse, H. (2004). The generic skills
debate in research higher degrees. Higher Education Research &
Development. 23(3), 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000235454
Hong Kong Institution of Engineers. (2013). Professional accreditation
handbook (Engineering degrees).
http://www.hkie.org.hk/en/quali/criteria/upload/page/55/self/59ba2b4d548ec.pdf
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V. & Freeman, A. (2015). The NMC
Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. New Media Consortium.
6101 West Courtyard Drive Building One Suite 100, Austin, TX 78730.
Jones, A. (2009). Generic attributes as espoused theory: The importance of
context. Higher Education. 58(2), 175-191.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-008-9189-2

s
Kamsah, M. Z. (2004, December). Developing generic skills in classroom
environment: Engineering student’s perspective. In Conference on
Engineering Education (CEE 2004) (pp. 14-15).

of
Kearns, P. (2001). Generic skills for the new economy: A review of research
relating to generic skills. National Center for Vocational Education Research,
Adelaide.
Klegeris, A., Bahniwal, M. & Hurren, H. (2013). Improvement in generic
problem-solving abilities of students by use of tutor-less problem-based
learning in a large classroom setting. CBE Life Sciences Education. 12(1), 73-

o
79. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.12-06-0081
Lei, S. A. (2010). Classroom physical design influencing student learning and
evaluations of college instructors: A review of literature. Education. 131(1),
Pr
128-135.
Leung, T. W., Siu, O. L. & Spector, P. E. (2000). Faculty stressors, job
satisfaction, and psychological distress among university teachers in Hong
Kong: The role of locus of control. International Journal of Stress
Management. 7(2), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009584202196
Lowden, K., Hall, S., Elliot, D. & Lewin, J. (2011). Employers’ perceptions of the
employability skills of new graduates. London: Edge Foundation.
Mills, J. E. & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education— Is problem-based
ge

or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering

Education. 3(2), 2-16.
Murdoch‐Eaton, D. & Whittle, S. (2012). Generic skills in medical education:
Developing the tools for successful lifelong learning. Medical Education.
46(1), 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04065.x
Nam, N. H. (2014). Utilizing the active and collaborative learning model in the
introductory physics course. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.3309.
Pa

Nusche, D. (2008). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: A

comparative review of selected practices. Innovación Educativa (México,
D.F.). 8(45).
Nyman, M. A. & Berry, J. (2002). Developing transferable skills in
undergraduate mathematics students through mathematical modelling.
Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications. 21(1), 29-45.
https://doi.org/10.1093/teamat/21.1.29
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2016.
Enhancing employability: Report prepared for the G20 Employment Working
Group. OECD (accessed 3 January, 2018). https://www.oecd.org/g20/topics/
employment-and-social-policy/Enhancing-Employability-G20-Report-2016.pdf
 Cheng, Lee & Chan, Generic Skills Development 65

Pearce, R. S. (2009). A compulsory bioethics module for a large final year

undergraduate class. Bioscience Education. 13(1), 1-21.
https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.13.1
Rickes, P. C. (2009). Make way for millennials! How today’s students are
shaping higher education space. Planning for Higher Education. 37(2), 7-17.
Savery, J. R. (2015). Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and
distinctions. Essential readings in problem-based learning: Exploring and
extending the legacy of Howard S. Barrows. 9, 5-15.
Van Hoven, B. & De Boer, E. (2001). Student empowerment through area
analysis’. Journal of Geography in Higher Education. 25(1), 83-93.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260124997
Wood, D. F. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Problem based

s
learning. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.). 326(7384), 328-330.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7384.328

o of
Pr
ge
Pa

View publication stats