Higher Education 37: 71–93, 1999.

71
© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Patterns of core and generic skill provision in higher education

NEVILLE BENNETT, ELISABETH DUNNE & CLIVE CARRÉ

Centre for Research on Teaching and Learning, School of Education, University of Exeter,
Exeter, EX1 2LU, U.K.; E-mail: s.n.bennett@exeter.ac.uk

Abstract. The study reported here is seeking to gain enhanced understandings of the acquisi-
tion and development of core and generic skills in higher education and employment against
a backcloth of continued pressure for their effective delivery from employers, government
departments, and those responsible for the management and funding of higher education.
This pressure appears to have had little impact so far, in part because of tutors’ scepticism
of the message, the messenger and its vocabulary, and in part because the skills demanded
lack clarity, consistency and a recognisable theoretical base. Any empirical attempt to acquire
enhanced understandings of practice thus requires the conceptualisation and development of
models of generic skills and of course provision. These models are presented together with
evidence of their validity, including exemplars of the patterns of course provision identified.

Introduction

An influential report on the purposes of higher education published some

thirty years ago gave prominence to the objectives of providing ‘instruction
in skills suitable to play a part in the general division of labour . . . ’ with
the recommendation that ‘what is taught should be taught in such a way as
to promote the general process of the mind’ (Robbins, 1963, para 26). The
report articulated the then common assumption that the traditional autonomy
of institutions and their liberal educational objectives represented an effective
framework to prepare graduates to take their places in the workforce (Squires,
1990).
In the intervening years this assumption has been seriously challenged
by government departments and employers. Position papers presented by the
government have sought to produce a body of graduates equipped to deal
with the demands of a rapidly changing work environment. Their initiatives,
such as Enterprise in Education, have assumed that equipping graduates for
the world of work can be achieved through the possession of ‘core’, or per-
sonal transferable skills, such as the ability to cooperate, communicate, and
solve problems; skills which are assumed to transfer readily across a range of
contexts.
72 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

Spokespersons for employers’ organisations argue similarly – ‘the com-

mon denominator of highly qualified manpower will . . . be the ability think,
learn and adapt. Personal transferable skills – problem solving, communica-
tion, teamwork – rather than technical skills defined with narrow occupational
ranges, will come to form the stabilising characteristic of work. If higher
education is to meet the needs of the economy and the individual it must
seek actively to develop these generic core competences . . . ’ (Slee, 1989).
More recent surveys of employers confirm their desire for graduates with such
skills (Green, 1990; Harvey, Moon and Gheall, 1997), but show their con-
tinued dissatisfaction with the level of many of their new graduate employees,
particularly with regard to communication skills, which embrace graduates’
ability to express themselves, make oral presentations, and write reports or
business letters (QHE, 1993/4). QHE (1994) concluded that ‘higher education
has a responsibility for ensuring that students graduate with competences that
enable them to work effectively in modern organisations’.
The Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) has accepted
the role of personal or core skill acquisition in higher education, an accep-
tance illustrated by the statement of the then Chairman (1994) that ‘The
world we live in is highly knowledge intensive, and graduates will increas-
ingly require core transferable skills. For certain, working life will be about
continued learning, skilling and re-skilling to stay ahead’. This acceptance is
also reflected in a joint declaration of intent by CVCP, the Confederation of
British Industry and the Council for Industry and Higher Education (1996)
which asserted that most British people, most educators, and most students
now believe that it is one of higher education’s purposes to prepare students
well for working life, and agreed a joint national effort to see that those in
higher education are enabled to develop attributes thought useful for success
in employment and future life.
The Dearing Report (1997) continued this line of argument by stating that
higher education should realise its aspiration to be world class in both teach-
ing and research through a compact with their staff, students, government,
employers and society in general. ‘We see the historic boundaries between
vocational and academic education breaking down, with increasingly active
partnerships between higher education institutions and the worlds of indus-
try, commerce and public service’ (para 3). The report supports the further
development of a range of what it calls ‘key’ skills during higher education –
communication, both oral and written, numeracy, the use of communications
and information technology and learning how to learn. The report argues that
these are necessary outcomes of all higher education programmes.
There nevertheless still appears to be much scepticism among university
tutors to this view of university education, who believe it is not part of their
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 73

role to provide skills for employment. Many have little sympathy for the
newly emerging definitions of quality in higher education, and in the current
climate of accountability in British universities, many tutors see teaching
for skills as a distraction in the drive for better research ratings (Gubbay,
1994). Our own findings from one university illustrate many of these features.
Dunne (1995), reporting interview and observation data from staff and stu-
dents in thirty three departments, found that teaching innovations concerning
core skills are few. Where the teaching of such skills is claimed, it is often
not evident in course planning, teaching methods or assessment documenta-
tion. Discussions with students indicate that they characterise their learning
predominantly in terms of disciplinary knowledge and not skill development.
A similar situation appears to pertain in the United States, where Zemsky
(1997) reports that most colleges and universities have grown tired of ‘the
clatter of the market’. Most institutions feel themselves under assault by a
society that expects them to accept market demands as their own agenda. The
result is, they assert, that many faculty, whether they like it or not, have been
told to justify their practices by a set of criteria and a language that seems to
them foreign, and even hostile to the values and professional purposes they
profess.
The mismatch between what universities provide and what employers
state that they need, appears to rest on an ideology and culture of university
teaching premised on academic excellence, and an employers’ perspective
seemingly underpinned by notions of what has been called operationalism.
‘The central argument is that one ideology, that of academic competence,
is being displaced with another ideology, that of operational competence’
(Barnett, 1994, p. 1). This displacement reflects a shift in higher education
from what Gibbons et al. (1994) call mode 1 to mode 2 knowledge; in
essence a shift from contemplative, to operational or instrumental, knowledge
which equips students with skills and competences of value in the workplace.
Barnett (1997a) is critical of such state sponsored conceptions of knowing
because, he argues, students identity becomes predetermined to fulfil the
instrumental end to economic and social survival, and no longer do academics
retain the power of defining what counts as knowledge.
This analysis is not universally accepted however. Woollard (1995)
believes that the gap between the philosophical approaches of higher edu-
cation and employers is not as great as Barnett suggests. He argues that
employers are key stakeholders in higher education and it is not therefore
unreasonable that they should ask what graduates know, understand and can
do. Assiter (1995) similarly argues that higher education cannot ignore the
development of core skills simply because some see it as an initiative which
is market driven; core skill development is not incompatible with develop-
74 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

ment for life. Despite Barnett’s concerns, many universities have accepted
the implications of the political and economic agenda, at least at the level
of policy. The majority now have policies and central directives which assert
their commitment to skill development (Drummond, Nixon and Wiltshier,
1997).

The study

It was against this backdrop of contested notions of the nature and purpose
of knowledge and skill acquisition in higher education and employment that
the study, part of which is reported here, was undertaken. The overarching
purpose was to gain enhanced understandings of the acquisition and develop-
ment of core skills in both higher education and employment settings from
the particular perspectives of those involved – university teachers, students,
employers and recent graduate employees. This paper focuses on skill acqui-
sition in the higher education sector, where it soon became apparent that a
necessary precursor to any attempt to gain better understandings of prac-
tice was a conceptual analysis of core skills and of course provision. These
analyses, and the models which stemmed from them, are considered below.

Conceptualising core skills

The conceptualisation of core skills is problematic for several reasons. The

term has several synonyms, including personal transferable, key, generic,
common, and work or employment related skills. To add to this semantic
confusion, these skills are often referred to as competences, capabilities,
attributes, elements or learning outcomes, sometimes incorporating levels and
sometimes not. Similarly, the various lists of skills elicited from employers,
and contained in government reports, are diverse in both extent and purpose,
reflecting differences in definitions and interpretations of their significance.
Reflective of this confusion are the differences in definition applied to the
terms personal transferable, and core skills. The Department of Employment
(1995) sees them as identical ‘. . . there are some skills which are by their
nature transferable to a variety of settings and . . . they are therefore the core
skills – i.e. it is only skills which transfer which are core, all core skills are
therefore transferable skills’. Jessup (1997) on the other hand takes a much
broader definition ‘. . . to refer to all knowledge, skills and understanding
which are potentially transferable’. To further confuse matters AGR (1995)
and Harvey et al. (1997) both use an almost identical definition for attributes.
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 75

In tracing the genesis of core skills Hyland (1994) and Tribe (1996) both
suggest that the first publication to highlight the concept of a ‘common core
of skills’ was that of the Further Education Unit (FEU, 1979). The list of
core skills was complex and extensive, including aspects of knowledge, skill
and personal development considered essential to meet the basic demands
of contemporary society. The list was developed pragmatically, exemplifying
the kind of atheoretical approach which has characterised the field ever since.
Indeed Tribe concludes that the theoretical justifications for the ensuring lists
and characterisations of skills demonstrate an alarming circularity and lack
of depth.
A proliferation of lists of employers’ skill demands appeared through the
1980’s and early 1990’s, but they did little to clarify the definitions of the skill
labels used. More recently a discourse of attributes has been added to the dis-
course of skills (cf. HEQC, 1997), although this may only serve to exacerbate
the evident conceptual confusions. The Association of Graduate Recruiters
(AGR, 1995), for example, set out to identify the attributes – vaguely defined
as a mixture of knowledge, skills, understanding and attitudes – which grad-
uates will need in the light of the changes taking place in graduate careers,
and concluded that they needed to be self reliant in career and personal devel-
opment; ‘skills to manage processes rather than functional skills’ (p. 5). The
report identifies twelve such attributes and claims that without self reliance
other skills can be wasted.
The most recent study of managers is also framed in the discourse of
attributes, and indicates clearly the extent of employer demands of higher
education. Harvey, Moon and Geall (1997) report that employers want adap-
tive, adaptable, transformable people to help them maintain, develop and
ultimately transform their organisations in response to, and preferably in
anticipation of, change.
The AGR report concludes that the attributes identified should be devel-
oped within the curriculum of every institution, and further prescribes,
without any justification, that these will improve the quality of learning,
enable students to make an informed choice of degree module and provide the
techniques needed to manage lifelong learning. As Coffield (1997) argues, the
strategic assessment of graduates’ future roles turns out on examination to be
a highly selective amalgam of untested speculations from focus groups and
interested parties. ‘Fundamental changes to the curriculum of higher educa-
tion needs to be based on more robust evidence . . . ’ (p. 82). Barnett (1997b)
is equally scathing, arguing that the AGR requirement is for ‘extra-clever
chameleons who can change not just their colours but their whole working
selves, and in an instant if necessary’ (p. 121).
76 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

Another fundamental issue in the discourse about these skills is transfer-

ability, since much of the debate implicitly or explicitly assumes it. However
this is an assumption which is not borne out by the empirical evidence. In the
most recent review of research on transfer of learning, Perkins and Salomon
(1994) point to abundant evidence showing that very often the hoped-for
transfer from learning experiences does not occur. In this context Bridges
(1994) makes an interesting distinction between transferable and transferring
skills. He equates the former with core skills – those which can be deployed
with little or no adaptation in a variety of settings, e.g. word processing.
Transferring skills, for him, consist of whatever it is that is involved in this
kind of adaptation, i.e. meta skills or competences, the identification of which
should, he claims, be receiving fuller attention.
In sum therefore, the term core skills is but one of several related terms,
each of which has been used to label sets of skills or attributes deemed impor-
tant by employers and government. These sets contain different numbers
and combinations of skills, and are based on differing purposes, definitions
and interpretations. What they have in common is that they are theoretically
threadbare, and have rarely contained the perceptions of those staff who are
expected to deliver these skills in higher education. This failure to involve
university teachers has engendered further confusion not least because the
term core skills for them typically connotes those skills which are central to
their discipline, as distinct from personal transferable skills which they define
as cross disciplinary and generic, such as effective note taking and organising
study time (Dunne, 1995). It thus has to be accepted that the term core skills
has a variety of contested meanings. For the purposes of this study we have
chosen to maximise ecological validity by using the word ‘core’ to refer to
disciplinary skills, and the label ‘generic’ to represent the skills which can
support study in any discipline, and which can potentially be transferred to a
range of contexts, in higher education or the workplace.

A model of generic skills

Our perspective on the conceptualisation of generic skills was informed by

the broad aim of informing and improving provision in higher education,
together with the recognition that substantial change, at individual, depart-
mental and institutional levels, will be necessary if the teaching and learning
of generic skills is to be successful. The evidence on institutional innovation,
including that from the Enterprise in Higher Education initiatives (cf. Biggs,
Brighton, Minnitt, Pow and Wicksteed, 1994), indicates that such change is
extremely difficult to achieve, and is more likely to be effective if a ‘bottom
up’ approach is adopted alongside a ‘top down’ approach to enable teaching
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 77

staff to take some ownership of initiatives and of vocabulary. In the light of

this it was necessary, in developing our model of generic skills, to supplement
an analysis of existing literature with a pilot study of all departments in one
university. This involved interviews with the heads of thirty three depart-
ments, observations of students undertaking courses in skills, and interviews
with staff who were already attempting to promote generic skills in their
teaching (Dunne, 1995). These data highlighted that the vocabulary used was
important in teachers’ understanding and acceptance of terms; that different
skills were perceived as important and significant in different departments;
that as a consequence typical lists acquired from employers were seen to be
inflexible; and that any model of generic skills developed had to be of direct
use in curriculum planning.
The model or framework which developed from these analyses is pre-
sented in Figure 1. It contains four broad management skills – of self, others,
information and task. These skills are generic in that they can potentially be
applied to any discipline, to any course in higher education, to the workplace
or indeed to any other context. The set of sub-skills included within each of
the four areas are intended to serve as a set of examples of learning outcomes,
rather than as a rigid set of skills to be achieved in each university department
or any employment setting. When used as a tool for planning it is intended
that teachers should amend or adapt these sets for their own purposes and
curriculum. There is, therefore, an in-built flexibility in that the combinations
of skills can be modified for different purposes and priorities. The skills pre-
sented in Figure 1 reflect the vocabulary of academic staff teaching skills
courses, but they nevertheless include many of the skills typically contained
in the lists of employer demands already mentioned.
Since its development the model has been used with many teaching staff to
establish its utility. Among the benefits claimed by these are that it provides
a solid foundation for discussion and action; it is flexible and can thus be
adapted and extended for individual purposes; it is a useful teaching tool for
extending the understanding of generic skills among staff. It is also perceived
as a valuable research tool to assess the inter-relationships of, for example,
teacher intentions, expectations and approaches, and student perceptions and
outcomes. Finally, it can, if necessary, map on to the requirements of NVQ.

A model of course provision

The identification of patterns of course provision, in terms of the knowl-

edge and skill outcomes planned for and taught, and the general teach-
ing approaches adopted, required further model- building. One of the few
analyses available is that by Barnett (1994), who argues that the modern
 78
NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.
Figure 1. A framework for the development of generic skills.
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 79

university curriculum can be understood in terms of two superimposed axes.

One axis is formed by curricula characterised by whether they derive from
the internal agendas of the academic community or the external agendas
of groupings in the wider society. The other axis is formed at one pole by
curricula that are specific to definite epistemic interests, usually discrete dis-
ciplines, and at the other pole by general aims transcending discipline-specific
interests. However this model fails to differentiate substantive and syntactic
knowledge in a discipline, and sets generic skills outside the discipline frame-
work. Yet, as Otter (1992) among others, has noted, in reality subjects or
disciplines are often the contexts through which these skills are learned and
developed.
Drummond et al. (1997) consider only broad structural factors in their
identification of three approaches to developing skills in higher education
curricula. These are embedded or integrated development, parallel or stand
alone development – often called bolt-on courses, and work placements or
work based projects which include sandwich and professionally approved
courses which require students to spend a period of time in practice.
The model developed for this study distinguishes five elements of course
provision in higher education: disciplinary content knowledge, disciplinary
skills, workplace awareness, workplace experience and generic skills, as
shown in Figure 2.
Epistemologists disagree about how many different types of knowledge
there might be, but two have attracted most analysis, the first being proposi-
tional or informational knowledge – ‘knowing that’, and the second ‘knowing
how’ or competent performance. Ryle (1949) popularised this distinction, and
argued that they were independent domains. More recent analysts disagree
however, pointing out that ‘one cannot opt for performance knowledge with-
out also understanding that one has “acquired” propositional knowledge in
the bargain, and vice versa’ (Fenstermacher, 1996). As such the two domains
are seen as distinct but interdependent.
Fenstermacher’s view is consistent with psychological and curriculum
analyses of the nature of knowledge. Anderson (1983) explicitly accepts the
distinction between ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’ in his conceptions of
declarative versus procedural knowledge, whereas it is implicit in Schwab’s
(1964) notions of substantive versus syntactic knowledge. Schwab’s concern
was to describe the conceptual structures of the disciplines. He defined sub-
stantive knowledge as consisting of the facts and major concepts, and the
ways these are organised into frameworks for guiding future inquiry. Thus
in physics the concepts of atom, electron, and sub-atomic particles are under-
stood in terms of an organising framework called the kinetic theory. Syntactic
knowledge on the other hand identifies the procedural aspects of a discipline,
80 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

Figure 2. A model of course provision.

including ways in which verification and justification of new knowledge are

established. These procedures include the skills required for the ‘heuristics,
methods, plans, practices, procedures, routines, strategies, tactics, techniques
and tricks’ of the discipline (Ohlsson, 1994). As was indicated earlier, syntac-
tic knowledge, disciplinary skills and core skills are considered synonymous
by university teachers.
Epistemological, psychological and curriculum analyses thus indicate that
substantive and syntactic knowledge, although independent in their own right,
can also be considered as interdependent, in characterising the nature of any
discipline, and are so identified in the model.
The relationship between core and generic skills is, however, complex.
There is enormous variation across disciplines about what are considered the
necessary core or disciplinary skills, and, as a consequence, in the generic
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 81

skills planned for. In some disciplines, generic skills may be seen as core
skills, e.g. the teaching of presentation and communication skills in depart-
ments of drama or law. In other departments these same skills will be
considered as generic and maybe taught in separate ‘bolt-on’ courses. So
the same skills can be taught either as specific discipline-related, or as more
flexible generic, skills. This is one of the reasons why the central element
of the model is shown intruding into the other four elements, illustrating the
extent of their relationships.
In some courses disciplinary content knowledge and/or generic skills are
planned to be acquired through work experience, achieved either through
direct placement in the workplace or through some kind of workplace
simulation. These are represented by the bottom two elements of the model.
The rationale for workplace experiences is underpinned by both logical
and psychological arguments. To employers, work-based placements are a
logical necessity to help students develop attributes which will enable them
to be successful at work. They allow the development of specific work
related skills and provide a foretaste for workplace culture, which should
help graduates to be more effective, more quickly (Harvey et al., 1997). The
Dearing Report (1997) accepted this logic by asserting that there should be
increasingly active partnerships between higher education institutions and
the worlds of industry, commerce and public service. ‘The strongest single
message which we received from employers was the value of work expe-
rience. . . . Further development of work experience opportunities requires
action from both employers and institutions’ (para 38). Nevertheless disagree-
ments exist about the length of such experiences. Harvey et al. (1997) report
their employer sample as arguing that to be worthwhile for both student and
employer the placement should ideally be for one academic year. However
others have reported successful outcomes from much shorter, well structured
placements (Seagraves, Kemp and Osborne, 1996; Dunne, 1997).
The psychological arguments for workplace experience are based around
the problems of the transfer of learning, a process largely assumed in notions
like personal transferable skills. However, as has already been indicated,
skills do not transfer easily (Perkins and Salomon, 1994). The reasons for
this vary according to theoretical persuasion. Those who view learning from a
cognitive perspective assume that knowledge and skills are internal properties
of the individual, and consequently their concerns are to identify the instruc-
tional conditions which most effectively allow their utilisation in external
work contexts. Leinhardt, Young and Merriman (1995) argue that integrat-
ing knowledge learned in the academy with knowledge learned in practice is
neither trivial, nor is it obvious how this integration should be accomplished,
82 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

but that the danger of not achieving such integration is that knowledge
remains separate, discrete, non-overlapping and inert.
On the other hand the proponents of theories of situated learning argue
that the nature of the situation, and circumstances in which knowledge and
skills are acquired, is likely to influence the subsequent deployment of that
knowledge and skill in other situations and settings (cf. Lave and Wenger,
1991; Greeno, Smith and Moore, 1993). Thus for students to learn to use
skills as practitioners use them, they must enter that community and its cul-
ture, i.e. learning is seen as a process of enculturation. Brown, Collins and
Duguid (1989) advocate an approach they call cognitive apprenticeship which
‘supports learning in a domain by enabling students to acquire, develop, and
use cognitive tools (skills) in authentic domain activity’ (p. 39) in much
the same way that craft apprenticeship enables apprentices to acquire and
develop the tools and skills of their craft through authentic work at, and
membership in, their trade. This view that situations and social partnerships
influence how knowledge is structured and used, has obvious implications
for course provision, particularly in vocational subjects. It also provides a
powerful theoretical rationale for the value of work experience schemes.
Attempts within university courses to provide authentic or simulated
learning settings are represented in the model by the elements ‘workplace
awareness’ and ‘workplace experience’. Those courses providing workplace
awareness aim to enable the application of theoretical knowledge in simulated
‘authentic’ environments which approximate the activities of the workplace.
Simulations of this kind allow students, among other things, to develop
new knowledge and skills, challenge misconceptions, carry out and practice
actions which would be too expensive or too time consuming in real settings,
to change attitudes, and to problem solve in contexts close to those in real
professional life. Examples of learning through simulations of workplace
environments that have been observed during this study include computer-
assisted learning of practical laboratory skills in physiology; dispensing drugs
accurately and liaising appropriately with mock physicians and other medical
and community professionals in a simulated pharmacy; developing analytic
and problem solving skills in a spectroscopy module; and producing and jus-
tifying designs for mock clients, using the language of professional discourse,
in architecture.
Curriculum provision identified by the workplace experience element
incorporates direct links to the workplace, and is largely integrated into
vocationally oriented courses as work placements. Work placements vary
considerably in length, frequency, purpose and approach (Winter, 1994;
Ryan, Toohey and Hughes, 1996; Seagraves, Kemp and Osborne, 1996).
There are many such links between companies and higher education insti-
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 83

tutions including those which provide degrees in a mixed, in-company and

on-campus, mode. Sandwich degrees with placements of varying duration
have of course existed for over thirty years, all with the aim of linking the
theoretical and practical, and several variants have been observed in this
study.
The connections between the elements of the model indicate the links
which are possible, given teachers’ purposes and intentions. In this model
there is no assumption about directionality of learning. Thus disciplinary
content, for example, can be learned in the institution with the intention for
subsequent use in the workplace, or vice versa, as in education degrees, where
much disciplinary knowledge is learned in classrooms.
Neither is there an assumption about the possibility of transfer. The arrows
identify possible lines of transfer, but as has been indicated earlier, transfer
is unlikely to occur unless planned for. According to Blagg (1993) recent
research lends support to the Good Shepherd theory of transfer: that trans-
fer does occur if it is ‘shepherded’ – nurtured and mediated, using learning
activities and teaching styles that are likely to foster it.
The validity of the model rests on its isomorphism with current psycho-
logical theories of learning, contemporary scholarship in epistemology, the
agendas of employers and government, and modes of course provision in
higher education. Indeed the utility of the model rests on its ability to identify,
and suggest potential, patterns of course provision. These are now considered.

Patterns of provision for generic skills

The sample for this aspect of the study comprised 32 lecturers in 16 depart-
ments in 4 institutions of higher education. The 16 departments were selected
to represent a mix of vocational and non-vocational disciplines. Vocational
departments included architecture, pharmacy, and engineering, with depart-
ments such as English and French represented non-vocational disciplines.
Others such as art, geography, computer science and mathematics could be
regarded as either vocational or not, dependent on the nature of the course
and students’ aspirations. Given the aims of the study the main criterion for
our selection of courses, and thus of tutors, within institutions and depart-
ments was that each incorporated the deliberate intention to teach core and
generic skills in innovatory ways. This information was made available either
by interested central bodies such as Teaching Committees or by Heads of
Department. In either case the sample was, of necessity, selected on the basis
of peer recommendation.
Data on course provision, including intentions, content, delivery modes
and assessment demands, were acquired by pre-course interviews with the
84 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

Figure 3. Patterns of course provision in higher education.

teachers, together with an analysis of departmental and course literature.

Data on the teaching process were collected by observation of several of the
sessions of each course. At the end of each observation, be it of a lecture,
tutorial or other form of group learning, interviews were held separately with
tutors and students to gain their reflections on, and perceptions of, teaching
and learning outcomes in relation to generic skills.
All the courses and modules observed can be described in terms of the
five elements of the model, but each ‘fits’ or overlays the model in a different
way, according to teaching objectives and the processes and contexts used for
learning. The ‘fit’ of each module can be described, or mapped, as a series
of patterns which can then be compared to identify the different approaches
to developing generic skills within the curriculum. To date six patterns have
been identified in our data and these are presented in Figure 3. These patterns
are briefly described before presenting typical examples of each pattern.

Pattern 1

Skills provision is within the distinctive substantive and syntactic knowledge

of the discipline, which are seen by the course providers as the core skills
of the subject. Generic skills such as group work, reflection, communication,
library use, etc. may be used or encouraged to enhance the academic study,
but are of an incidental nature.
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 85

Pattern 2

Substantive and syntactic knowledge of the discipline is developed through

the acquisition and use of specific generic skills. The latter are the means by
which learning of the disciplinary knowledge is encouraged and enhanced.
Disciplinary and genenic skills are considered of equal importance.

Pattern 3

There is an emphasis, explicitly, for students to acquire generic skills as

an outcome rather than as the means to develop disciplinary knowledge.
Disciplinary knowledge only provides a context for learning.

Pattern 4

The focus is exclusively on generic skills, to the extent that the disciplinary
knowledge and skills acquired or used could be of the students’ choice, or
could be entirely unrelated to disciplinary study.

Pattern 5

The focus is on substantive knowledge and its application, particularly in

those subjects which are vocational. Insight into the workplace is through
occasional contacts with employers, visits to the workplace or through
simulations. There is also some provision for generic skills.

Pattern 6

Here there is an emphasis both on generic skills and raising awareness about
the requirements and constraints of the world of work. The context for skills
utilisation and development is ‘real’ work experience in a workplace setting.
The focus on disciplinary knowledge and skills will vary depending on the
purpose of the experience.

Examples of course provision

The following examples, albeit briefly, highlight ways in which modules from
the different disciplines observed could be mapped onto the model. Most
modules cannot be described with reference to one element alone, but may
range over several; however, there is usually one context that provides the
major focus.
86 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

Pattern 1

Planned Learning Outcomes:

Major: Disciplinary content, Disciplinary
skills.
Minor: Generic skills.

The module ‘Introduction to Children’s Literature’ presents students with a

course deriving from the interests of the academic community, and provides
the disciplinary knowledge and skills characteristic of English literature. Core
skills are seen and defined as the distinctive substantive and syntactic knowl-
edge of the discipline: the former includes the nature of narrative, theory of
literary criticism and reader response. The syntactic element includes inter-
preting and organising information about texts, writing to justify a point of
view, and persuading through rational argument. The intention of including
group activity in tutorials is to enhance generic skills, but this is not made
explicit to the students.
In a different disciplinary context, a module on mathematical modelling,
processes such as group work are used as a vehicle for the high level handling
of mathematical concepts. Despite group work being the main approach used
for learning, any group work skills developed are considered as a ‘by-product’
rather than as a main focus. Nevertheless, other modules in this department
reinforce the generic nature of teamwork, and explicitly teach and assess
generic skills.

Pattern 2
Planned Learning Outcomes:
Major: Disciplinary content, Disciplinary
skills, Generic skills.

This pattern involves the acquisition of new disciplinary content knowledge

and skills, knowledge refinement or its application, in which the role of
generic skills is perceived as the means by which learning is enhanced,
rather than as an end in itself. An example is the module ‘Computer
Assisted Learning in Pharmacy’ which focuses on teaching students new
biological concepts, such as cell structure; challenging misconceptions about
disciplinary knowledge; providing laboratory simulations of physiological
experiments and reinforcing the content knowledge of previous lectures. The
considerable involvement of students using computer assisted learning pack-
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 87

ages is primarily a learning strategy for content acquisition. The students are
simultaneously acquiring generic skills of IT and communication skills, as
well as higher order skills associated with reflection.
A second example can be seen in the student handbook in a department
of law. This makes clear the links between disciplinary skills, which they
call core skills, and disciplinary content knowledge, at the same time as
emphasising generic skills in the processes of learning adopted. It states:
The workshops are designed to develop core skills which are central
to the study of law. Research for presentations and discussions will be
of outstanding importance, and the students will be expected to use
their initiative to search out information relevant to the topic under con-
sideration. Lecture handouts and notes as well as text and case books
will provide a basis for this investigation. Within the context of tort
law students will learn how to assimilate and handle large amounts of
information effectively, identify key issues in relation to the problem
under discussion, engage in legal reasoning in respect of underlying legal
principles, develop critical analysis, and, where appropriate comparative
analysis with other legal jurisdictions. The workshops will present the
student with an opportunity to articulate the development of these core
skills in written and oral form, show intellectual flexibility, deal with
constructive criticism, persuade rationally and use legal knowledge in an
innovative and creative way.

Although traditional in terms of content, the variety of processes in which

students are involved, the expectations for application of a range of skills,
the demand for active participation in workshops, and the monitoring and
assessment of generic skills alongside legal skills, all reinforce the centrality
of skill development. Workshops are dependent on teams of students func-
tioning well together, and the importance of this is emphasised in a team
training programme at the beginning of the first year.

Pattern 3
Planned Learning Outcomes:
Major: Generic skills.
Minor: Disciplinary content, Disciplinary
skills.

What are known as ‘bolt-on’ courses for transferable skills have been criti-
cised in the past (cf. Allen, 1991). However, in a geography department which
has won significant praise for its approach to generic skills, and additional
88 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

funding as a consequence of this, separate ‘Transferable Skills’ modules have

been adopted for all first year students as a foundation for study in the fol-
lowing years. They are designed to be integral, compulsory and taught by
geographers with geographic examples. Module topics include communica-
tion, groupwork, presentation and graphicity. They are seen as generic skills,
transferable, explicit and assessed, demonstrating that such skills are impor-
tant and to be valued. Considerable effort and funding has been put into the
production of substantial course booklets (labelled ‘transferable skills’) made
available to every student, again reinforcing the value placed on generic skill
development in this department. Over time, efforts are being make to ensure
that such skills will be continued in discipline-based modules, in order to
provide more powerful integration and transfer.
In another disciplinary context, a module on spectroscopy, in a depart-
ment of pharmacy, aims for students to develop specific problem solving
skills associated with data handling. Various sophisticated instruments used
to analyse chemical structures are too expensive to run, and too time consum-
ing, to warrant student’s first hand experience, so simulations allow them to
carry out experimental data analysis. The module promotes the idea of data
handling as a skill which can be used in other courses, indeed for lifelong
learning, and positively encourages collaborative group skills in problem
solving. Although set in a disciplinary context the teacher’s intention was
that generic skills are the most important aspect of student learning from this
course.

Pattern 4

Planned Learning Outcomes:

Major: Generic skills.

The use of free standing modules – possibly taught by teachers who will have
no further contact with the student, and delivered out of the context of any
discipline – is an approach which was widely adopted, but soon abandoned,
by one institution in our sample. However, free-standing exercises may be
appropriate in some contexts. For example, BP (British Petroleum) fund a
short ‘Team Development Programme’ for students in a group of universities.
This has the main function of making students aware of the need for team-
skills in the workplace. It is unrelated to any discipline in its use of outdoor
exercises, although some university teachers are now working at ways in
which student learning from the programme could be embedded into discipli-
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 89

nary study through the use of team and group approaches. Such skills are the
most obviously generic given the lack of any association with an academic
discipline.
A module with somewhat similar aims but a very different approach is
one called ‘Professional and Community Education’ taught in a department
of education. This aspires to prepare students for lifelong learning through
providing a variety of opportunities to acquire a fundamental change in
attitude towards others. In the process, students learn to develop awareness
of the needs of others, value others’ views, support others’ learning and
develop negotiating skills. The lack of any specified content reinforces these
as generic skills, applicable in any context.

Pattern 5
Planned Learning Outcomes:
Major: Disciplinary skills, Disciplinary con-
tent, Workplace awareness.
Minor: Generic skills.

The modules ‘Building Design’, in an architecture department, and ‘Phar-

maceutical Care Planning’, in a pharmacy department, both provide students
with opportunities to apply specific disciplinary knowledge to problem diag-
nosis and problem solving in simulated contexts as close as possible to real
life situations. In the former they deal with professional architectural issues,
and in the latter with examining imaginary and real case studies of patients to
enable the production of holistic care plans for hospital patients. The pro-
vision of tasks to be solved is carefully, and progressively, controlled. In
these types of courses the language of professional discourse is gradually
developed, and expertise is mastered through practice of skills.

Pattern 6

Planned Learning Outcomes:

Major: Generic skills, Workplace experi-
ence.
Minor: Disciplinary content, Disciplinary
skills, Workplace awareness.

This pattern is exemplified by sandwich courses and work placements of

various kinds. These vary in length, purpose and their demands for learning.
An example of a short vacation placement has been included in this study. The
90 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

STEP (Shell Technology and Enterprise Programme) promotes, and provides

funding for, eight week vacation placements in SMEs (small and medium
size enterprises) for students from any discipline. Students are engaged in
a project which may require the application of knowledge and skills, or the
acquisition of new knowledge and skills, the taking of responsibility, and the
development and use of generic skills, especially communication, problem-
solving, task and self-management. They will also be expected to show, for
example, an awareness of the culture, the rules and the constraints of the
workplace. In particular, they will be expected to monitor their own skill
development and to review their progress via written recording. Disciplinary
knowledge may, for some, play an important part in their placement, but the
value of their learning is expected to reside in making sense of the wider
experience of the workplace and the development of generic skills.

Conclusion

The study reported here is seeking to gain enhanced understandings of the

acquisition and development of core and generic skills in higher education
and employment against a backcloth of continued pressure for their effec-
tive delivery from employers, government departments, and those responsible
for the management and funding of higher education. This pressure appears
to have had little impact so far, in part because of teachers’ scepticism
of the message, the messenger and its vocabulary, and in part because
the skills demanded lack clarity, consistency and a recognisable theoretical
base. Any attempt to acquire enhanced understandings of practice, through
which to inform staff and course development initiatives, thus requires the
conceptualisation and development of models of generic skills.
In the context of developing models of generic skills, Oates (1990) has
argued that ‘The process of generating a (skills) framework . . . must be
accompanied by a firm statement of function, a sound theoretical base, and
appropriate empirical evidence/validation. Without this there is a very strong
risk of building a house of cards on a foundation of sand’. The development
of the model for this study was underpinned with a clear statement of pur-
pose, and a critical analysis of the literature, integrated with the views of
those actually implementing the teaching of generic skills in practice. The
ecological validity of the model has been subsequently established through
extensive and successful use in professional development initiatives in several
universities.
A model of course provision was necessary in order to identify alternative,
and justifiable, modes of generic skills provision and delivery. This model,
grounded largely in cognitive and situated theories of learning, has proved
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 91

successful in allowing meaningful categorisation of the courses observed;

in providing useful, theoretically justifiable, guidance on how generic skills
link into frameworks of disciplinary and employment related content knowl-
edge; and in offering advice on alternative modes of effective generic skills
delivery. Its use with teachers has also established its utility in helping staff
to recognise, and indeed be confronted by, their own practice – a known
pre-requisite of effective pedagogical change and improvement. Research on
successful educational change indicates clearly the necessity to start with
teachers’ current practice and enable them to confront and problematise this
through reflection and evaluation (Fullan and Hargreaves, 1992). Attempts to
effect change in institutions require the consideration of a much broader set of
issues than this of course. Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin and Hall (1987),
for example, focus on the teacher’s perspective in effecting change and iden-
tify seven stages of concern which individuals are likely to experience during
such efforts.
Nonetheless, the provision of models is a necessary but not sufficient
condition for the effective teaching of a generic skills. It is necessary in
order to shift teacher’s thinking from, in Blagg’s (1993) terms, a ‘Bo-Peep’
theory of transfer, which assumes that ‘leave them alone and they’ll come
home’, to the ‘Good Shepherd’ theory, where transfer is planned for and nur-
tured. But the sufficiency of this nurturing depends on the validity of crucial
underlying epistemological assumptions about the nature of knowledge and
skills acquired in higher education institutions and in the workplace. Are,
for example, the generic skills promoted in academic settings the same kinds
of generic skills sought for in the world of work? And are skills such as
communication generic across different types of employment?
Current work in the study should shed more light on the foregoing issues.
Analyses of teachers’ conceptions and beliefs, and how these relate to the
planning and enactment of their courses, together with student perceptions
of skill outcomes and utility, will provide a broader, more holistic, picture
of course patterns and their effects. This picture will be contrasted with that
drawn from analyses of the work experiences and skills used by early career
graduates in different sectors of employment, and employers’ perspectives on
generic skill provision and development. These should allow a more coherent
understanding of practices in higher education and employment, an under-
standing which is crucial not only to future policy concerning generic skill
development in both settings, but also to more informed and productive links
between them.
92 NEVILLE BENNETT ET AL.

References
Allen, M. (1991). Improving the Personal Skills of Graduates. Final Report. University of
Sheffield.
Anderson, J.R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Assiter, A. (1995). Transferable Skills in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.
Association of Graduate Recruiters (1995). Skills for Graduates in the 21st Century. Cam-
bridge: AGR.
Barnett, R. (1994). The Limits of Competence. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.
Barnett, R. (1997a). ‘A knowledge strategy for universities’, in Barnett, R. and Griffin, A.
(eds.), The End of Knowledge in Higher Education. London: Cassell.
Barnett, R. (1997b). Higher Education: A Critical Business. Buckingham: SRHE/Open
University Press.
Biggs, C., Brighton, R., Minnitt, P., Pow, R. and Wicksteed, W. (1994). Thematic Evaluation
of EHEI. Sheffield: Employment Department.
Blagg, N., Ballinger, M. and Lewis, R. (1993). ‘Thinking skills at work (TSAW) project’,
Thinking and Learning at Work, 2–4, August, 1993.
Bridges, D. (1994). Transferable Skills in Higher Education. Norwich: University of East
Anglia/ERTEC.
Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989). ‘Situated cognition and the culture of learning’,
Educational Researcher 18, 32–42.
Coffield, F. (1997). ‘A tale of three little pigs: Building the learning society with straw’, in
Coffield, F. (ed.), A National Strategy for Lifelong Learning. University of Newcastle:
Newcastle, England.
CVCP, CBI and CIHE (1996). Declaration of Intent. London: CVCP.
Dearing Report (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society. London: HMSO.
Drummond, I., Nixon, I. and Wiltshier, J. (1997). ‘Transferable skills in higher education: The
problems of implementing good practice’. Draft project paper. Universities of Hull and
Newcastle.
Dunne, E. (1995). Personal Transferable Skills. Final report. University of Exeter: Exeter,
England.
Dunne, E. (1997). The Development of Competences in STEP (Shell Technology and Enter-
prise Programme). Evaluation Report. University of Exeter: Exeter, England.
Fenstermacher, G.D. (1996). ‘The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research
on teaching’, Review of Research in Education 20, 3–56.
FEU (1979). A Basis for Choice. London: FEU.
Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1992). Teacher Development and Educational Change.
London: Falmer.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994). The
New Productions of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary
Societies. London: Sage.
Green, S. (1990). Analysis of Transferable Personal Skills Requested by Employers in
Graduate Recruitment Advertisements in June 1989, University of Sheffield: Sheffield,
England.
Greeno, J.G., Smith, D.R. and Moore, J.L. (1993). ‘Transfer of situated learning’, in
Detterman, D. and Sternberg, R. (eds.), Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition and
Instruction. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
 PATTERNS OF CORE AND GENERIC SKILL PROVISION 93

Gubbay, J. (1994). ‘A critique of conventional justification for transferable skills’, in

Bridges, D. (ed.), Transferable Skills in Higher Education. Norwich: University of East
Anglia/ERTEC.
Harvey, L., Moon, S. and Geall, V. (1997). The Graduates Work: Organisational Change
and Students Attributes. Centre for Research into Quality. University of Central England:
Birmingham.
HEQC (1997). Assessment in Higher Education and the Role of Graduateness. London:
HEQC.
Hord, S., Rutherford, W., Huling-Austin, L. and Hall, G. (1987). Taking Charge of Change.
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. University of Texas, Austin:
U.S.A.
Hyland, T. (1994). Competence, Education and NVQ’s. London: Cassell.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jessup, G. (1997). ‘Establishing a learning society’, Paper presented at ESRC Learning
Society Conference. Bristol.
Leinhardt, G., Young, K.C. and Merriman, J. (1995). ‘Integrating professional knowledge:
The theory of practice and the practice of theory’, Learning & Instruction 5, 401–408.
Oates, T. (1990). ‘General review of development issues’, in Jessup, G. (ed.), NCVQ R&D
Report no. 6. London: NCVQ.
Ohlsson, S. (1991). ‘The function of conceptual understanding in the learning of arithmetic
procedures’, Cognition and Instruction 8, 103–179.
Perkins, D. and Salomon, G. (1994). ‘Transfer of Learning’, International Encyclopedia of
Education, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 6452–6457.
QHE (1993). Update (6) The Newsletter of the Quality in Higher Education Project, University
of Central England, Birmingham.
QHE (1994). Update (7) The Newsletter of the Quality in Higher Education Project, University
of Central England, Birmingham.
Robbins, Lord (Chr.) (1963). Higher Education (Report of the Committee under the Chair-
manship of Lord Robbins) Cmnd 2154. HMSO.
Ryan, G., Toohey, S. and Hughes, C. (1996). ‘The purpose, value and structure of the
pracaticum in higher education: A literature review’, Higher Education 31, 355–357.
Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Schwab, J. (1964). ‘The structure of the disciplines: Meanings and significances’, in Ford,
G. and Purgo, L. (eds.), The Structure of Knowledge and the Curriculum. Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Seagraves, L., Kemp, I.J. and Osborne, M.J. (1996). ‘Are academic outcomes of higher edu-
cation provision relevant to and deliverable in the workplace setting?’, Higher Education
32, 157–176.
Slee, P. (1989). ‘A consensus framework for higher education’, in Ball, C. and Eggins, H.
(eds.), Higher Education in the 1990s: New Dimensions. SRHE/OUP.
Squires, G. (1990). First Degree: The Undergraduate Curriculum. SRHE/OUP.
Tribe, J. (1996). ‘Core skills: A critical examination’, Educational Review 48, 13–27.
Winter, R. (1994). ‘Work based learning and quality assurance in higher education, assessment
and evaluation’, Higher Education 19, 247–257.
Woollard, A. (1995). ‘Core skills and the idea of the graduate’, Higher Education Quarterly
49, 316–325.
Zemsky, R. (1997). ‘Turning point’, Policy Perspectives 7(2).