Learning for Life and Work in a

Complex World
Volume 38
Refereed papers from the
38th HERDSA Annual International Conference

6 - 9 July 2015
Melbourne Convention and Exhibition
Centre (MCEC), Melbourne, Australia

Jollands, M. (2015) A framework for graduate employability adapted for discipline differences.
In T. Thomas, E. Levin, P. Dawson, K. Fraser & R. Hadgraft (Eds.), Research and Development
in Higher Education: Learning for Life and Work in a Complex World, 38 (pp 246-255).
Melbourne, Australia. 6 - 9 July 2015.

Published 2015 by the

Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc
PO Box 27, MILPERRA NSW 2214, Australia
www.herdsa.org.au

ISSN 1441 001X

ISBN 978-0-908557-96-7

This research paper was reviewed using a double blind peer review process that meets DIISR
requirements. Two reviewers were appointed on the basis of their independence and they reviewed
the full paper devoid of the authors’ names and institutions in order to ensure objectivity and anonymity.
Papers were reviewed according to specified criteria, including relevance to the conference theme and
sub-themes, originality, quality and presentation. Following review and acceptance, this full paper was
presented at the international conference.

Copyright © 2015 HERDSA and the authors. Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or
private study, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act, 2005, this
publication may only be reproduced, stored or transmitted, in any form or by any means, with the prior
permission in writing of the publishers, or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the
terms and licenses issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside
those terms should be sent to the publishers at the address above.
  

A framework for graduate employability adapted for

discipline differences

Margaret Jollands
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
margaret.jollands@rmit.edu.au

A substantial body of work exists on the definition of graduate employability and a

number of frameworks identify lists of knowledge, skills and attributes that graduates
should attain. However, substantial gaps still exist between the expectations of
employers, graduates, students and staff about what, when and where requisite student
learning should take place. In addition, very little research has been published about
discipline differences in graduate employability.
The study reported in this paper was part of a large federally funded project on graduate
employability. It explored the perspectives of stakeholders from multiple disciplines on
graduate employability to identify areas of consensus, misalignment and opportunities for
collaboration. The main issue presented here is adequacy of current employability
frameworks in an Australian context.
Data were collected through a series of focus groups and interviews and analysed on
themes drawn from an existing employability framework. Stakeholders were asked about
their expectations, any perceived gaps and existing challenges. The adequacy of the
employability framework was then assessed against the student and employer
perceptions of employability and differences between disciplines.
Employability frameworks vary in organisation, theoretical underpinning and level of
detail. The CareerEDGE framework was found to have a good fit with Australian
employer views on graduate employability. Participants identified some general and
discipline-specific issues/concepts outside this framework, but additional descriptors can
easily be added to it. The framework is also easily updated as the conceptions of
employability evolve. A further improvement to the framework would be addition of
level of sophistication of student understanding.

Keywords: Graduate employability, employability framework, discipline differences

Background

A substantial body of work exists on the definition of graduate employability and a number of
frameworks identify lists of knowledge, skills and attributes that graduates should attain.
However, substantial gaps still exist between the expectations of employers, graduates,
students and staff about what, when and where requisite student learning should take place. In
addition, very little research has been published about discipline differences in graduate
employability.

This paper reports on outcomes from a large federally funded project on graduate
employability. The project explored the perspective of stakeholders from five disciplines:
engineering, information and computer technology (ICT), life sciences, media and
communications, and psychology. Stakeholders included teachers, students, graduates,
employers and professional bodies. Their perspectives on graduate employability were
explored to identify areas of consensus, any gaps and opportunities for development and

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 246
  

collaboration. The main issue presented here is the adequacy of current employability
frameworks to drive curriculum renewal in an Australian context.

Employability
Many studies have been undertaken to define generic skills needed by employers. These have
been defined in general (Barrie, Hughes, & Smith, 2009, Oliver, Whelan, Hunt, Hammer,
Jones, Pearce, & Henderson, 2011) and specifically for engineering, life sciences and
psychology (Engineers Australia, 2011, Gartland, 2008, Cranney, Provost, Katsikitis, Martin,
White, & Cohen, 2008).

Employment outcomes are reported in Australia on a national scale by sector and gender.
Employment outcomes for Australian graduates have been falling since the global financial
crisis of 2007 (Graduate Careers Australia [GCA], 2014b). These figures are sometimes used
as a proxy measure of “employability” (Bridgstock, 2009). However, graduates may be un- or
under-employed due to factors beyond their control, as employment opportunities depend on
sector, location and economic circumstances. Falling employment outcomes in the current
economic climate should not be interpreted as falling levels of graduate skills and attributes.

Definitions of employability focus more broadly on whether a graduate has the ability to gain
work or employment, independent of economic conditions. One commonly cited definition is:

a set of achievements - skills, understandings and personal attributes - that makes

graduates more likely to gain employment and be successful in their chosen
occupations, which benefits themselves, the workforce, the community and the
economy. (Yorke, 2006).

Employability frameworks
When a phenomenon can be characterised by multiple descriptors, a framework may be built
to organise the descriptors into categories. A framework is useful to teachers if it can help
them organise learning objectives and make them more precise. Learning objectives are
“intended student learning outcomes” or what we want our students to learn (Anderson,
Krathwohl, Airasian, Cruikshank, Mayer, & Pintrich, 2014). Many frameworks have been
developed for employability, primarily from the employer perspective. There is no consensus
on the best framework, perhaps because the definition is contested. Most frameworks have
become outdated as the definition of employability evolves.

One of the most well known is the USEM model of employability proposed by Knight and
Yorke (2003). This model captures the idea that employability includes more than just generic
skills. The four components of the model are Understanding, Skills, Efficacy and
Metacognition. The model promotes good teaching practice. A weakness of the model is its
scholarly language (Dacre Pool & Sewell, 2007). In addition, the category descriptors are
rather general, leading to global learning objectives that are too broad to be readily
implemented by curriculum designers.

Several groups have recently developed lists of employability skills that are systematic and
detailed (Oliver, 2011, Jackson 2013, Smith, Ferns, & Russell, 2014) with multiple
descriptors/categories and up to 45 items relevant to employability. Smith et al. (2014)
compared the lists and found gaps, generalities and vagueness in several of the frameworks. A
weakness of their own list is that it has not been developed as a framework. However it could
easily be developed into one.

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 247
  

Another well known model is the Dacre Pool and Sewell (2007) CareerEDGE framework . It
has categories and sub-categories. Its strengths are that it is systematic, comprehensive and
detailed, facilitating identification of specific learning objectives. Its five categories reflect
common organisational structures in higher education institutions. Its fit to current practice
allows pragmatic implementation of incremental change. Like the other frameworks, though,
it has a number of gaps. Smith et al. (2014, Appendix A) identified a number of specific gaps
in the CareerEDGE framework, in careers development (such as “recognise the politics of a
workplace environment”), and in generic skills (such as “collect analyse and organise
information “and “recognise ethical practice in the workplace”). The framework is readily
adapted by addition of new sub-categories.

A taxonomy is a kind of framework where the categories form a sequence. A framework with
hierarchical categories was developed by Barrie (2004, 2006) for generic attributes. Its
hierarchical sequence scaffolds learning outcomes appropriate to year-level as well as
discipline differences. The strength of this framework is that it provides a logical pathway for
gradual development of attributes. In combination with a detailed employability framework ,
this could be an effective approach for curriculum renewal for employability.

In summary, a number of employability frameworks have been developed that vary in

organisation, theoretical underpinning and level of detail. With further development, these
could be shaped to support curriculum renewal.

Discipline differences
By definition, generic skills and attributes are independent of the discipline. Few studies have
reported on discipline differences in conceptions of employability. One study found the “very
different understandings of graduate attributes” expressed by academics was as broad within
as between disciplines. Academics from very different disciplines expressed similar
conceptions of graduate attributes, while those within the same discipline expressed very
different conceptions (Barrie 2006). How generic attributes were taught depended on their
relationship (from precursor to enabling) to discipline knowledge and led to adoption of a
two-tiered structure of university- and discipline-level attributes (Barrie 2004). Another study
reported generic attributes are highly context-dependent (Jones 2009), but only reported the
academics’ perspectives.

Employer perspectives on employability

Graduate Careers Australia (GCA) has surveyed Australian and New Zealand employers since
2005, publishing results annually as part of the Graduate Outlook series (GCA, 2014a).
Employers are grouped into six gross sectors. The data show that employer expectations of
graduates are constant over time and vary little between sectors. The most recent report (for
2013 graduates) shows that employers in all sectors except Manufacturing rank “Interpersonal
and communication skills (written and oral)” as the most desirable skill. Manufacturing ranks
it second (GCA, 2014a, Table 7).

In terms of selection criteria for graduates, the differences between industry sectors are
limited to differences in ranking. For example, “Work experience” is ranked as the third most
important criteria (out of 10) by Construction/Mining/Engineering (CME), compared to sixth
by Communication/Technology/Utilities (CTU), while “Emotional intelligence” is ranked
fourth by Government/Defence/Health (GDH) but only eighth by both CME and CTU.
“Teamwork” is ranked of lesser importance by all sectors (from fifth to eighth). Generally,

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 248
  

while most employers share the same understanding of employability attributes, there may be
a different emphasis between disciplines or sectors on an attribute’s relative importance.

The ranking of communication and teamwork skills from Australian and New Zealand
employers is somewhat different to other discipline-focused or international studies. Arnold,
Loan-Clarke, Harrington, and Hart (1999) reported that retail and finance employers in the
United Kingdom (UK) ranked personal drive, initiative and teamwork more highly than
communication. Jackson (2013) reported that communication and teamwork are consistently
ranked the most desirable skills by employers in Australia and the UK. Gabric and McFadden
(2001) reported that operations management employers ranked communications top and
teamwork fourth of 15 general skills and abilities. Some differences between these reports
may be attributed to differences in sample size and survey instrument, but the findings suggest
overall that employers value the same employability skills, with variation in ranking of
importance dependent on sector or discipline or location.

Many industry sectors have professional associations that represent graduate members, but
relatively few accredit undergraduate degrees. Two accrediting bodies involved in disciplines
investigated in this study were Engineers Australia (EA) and the Australian Psychology
Accreditation Council (APAC). In addition to discipline knowledge, understanding and skill,
graduate engineers require ‘personal and professional attributes’ including ethics, professional
accountability, communication skills, creativity, being pro-active, ICT skills, management of
self, team skills and leadership (Engineers Australia 2011). Psychology bachelor programs
focus on discipline knowledge and skills, but should also develop generic attributes of critical
thinking and communication skills (Australian Psychology Accreditation Council 2010). The
requirements of these accrediting bodies sit within current Employability frameworks. They
require generic skills relevant to other disciplines.

Approach

The study reported in this paper was part of a large federally funded project on graduate
employability. It explored the perspectives of stakeholders from multiple disciplines on
graduate employability to identify areas of consensus, misalignment and opportunities for
collaboration. It mapped discipline differences in perceptions of employability in stakeholders
using the CareerEDGE framework. This paper focuses on findings concerning the adequacy
of current employability frameworks in an Australian context.

This study was underpinned by a qualitative research methodology. Data from stakeholders in
five disciplines were collected in focus groups run with open and frank discussion
surrounding real-world problems, issues and practices (Krueger & Casey, 2009). The data
reported here were collected from three disciplines (engineering, life sciences, and media &
communications). These disciplines were selected to represent one each of a professional,
science and humanities discipline. Each focus group discussed a set of research questions.
This paper reports on responses by employers and students to the question “What do
employers want ?”.

Employers were drawn from the industry/sector networks of the research team. Employers
and professional body representatives from the discipline sectors were invited by email to
attend an Industry Forum. At the Forum, participants joined discipline specific focus groups
of an hour in length. In total five focus groups were attended by 43 employers and
professional body representatives.

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 249
  

Students were drawn from penultimate and final years of relevant programs from three
Australian Institutions (RMIT University, Monash University and University of Southern
Queensland) at multiple campuses (ICT: RMIT and Monash, Caulfield and Monash, Clayton;
Psychology: RMIT and USQ Springfield). Participants were recruited by email. Each focus
group was an hour in length. In total thirteen focus groups were attended by 55 students.
Focus group questions were semi-structured and presented informally to promote discussion.
Each focus group was run by a member of the research team who was not directly involved
with teaching the students.

Each focus group was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was carried out by
one team member and reviewed by two others. Transcriptions were analysed thematically in
NVivo using a qualitative approach based on themes drawn from the CareerEDGE framework
(Dacre Pool & Sewell, 2007). This framework was chosen as it has systematic categories and
detailed subcategories and is easily adapted to include new sub-categories. Sub-categories that
emerged but were not present in the framework were initially coded as ‘other’. These were
then discussed by three of the research team, and allocated to an appropriate category. These
are shown in Table 1 with an asterisk.

Selected quotations of students were also analysed for level of sophistication. Students’
understandings of employability were analysed to identify whether students focused on
acquisition of only one or two elements of employability, or whether students could give a
‘more nuanced and contextually dependent descriptions of appropriate practice and
conduct’(Wilson et al., 2013). Student comments were then categorised as less or more
sophisticated.

Results

Themes relevant to employability identified by study participants (students and employers)

for selected disciplines are shown in Table 1. The categories are based on the CareerEDGE
framework (Dacre Pool & Sewell, 2007). Additional sub-category items not explicitly
included in the original framework but identified in the study’s focus groups are indicated
with an asterisk. Further details for students are given in our forthcoming paper (Jollands et
al., 2015).

Table 1: Themes identified by students (x) and employers (■)

Media and
Category Sub-category Engineering Life sciences
communications

Business acumen* x x■
Career planning x■ x x
Knowledge of industry
x■ x x■
and job market
Career
development Networking x■ x x
learning Passions and interests x■ x x■
Professionalism* ■ x x
Recruitment processes
x■ x x■
preparation
Experience x■ x■ x■

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 250
  

Media and
Category Sub-category Engineering Life sciences
communications
Degree subject knowledge,
x■ x■ x■
understanding and skills
Adaptability x x■ x■
Communication x■ x■ x
Critical thinking ■ ■ x■
Entrepreneurship x ■
Ethics* x■ x x
Innovation and creativity ■ x x
Leadership* x x
Generic skills
Lifelong learning x■ x■ x■
Numeracy
Problem solving x x■
Teamwork x■ x■ x■
Time management x x x■
Work ethic x■ x x
Working under pressure ■ x■ x
Self awareness x■ ■ x■
Self management x■ x■ x■
Emotional
Awareness of others x x■ ■
intelligence
Managing others x■ x x■
Motivation x■ x
* Themes not explicitly included in the CareerEDGE framework.

Table 1 shows that the students and employers from all three disciplines readily identified a
wide range of issues/concepts relevant to employability. Their lists showed few discipline
differences. They also show a good fit with the CareerEDGE framework. One discipline
difference is that Life Sciences employers identified a much narrower list of issues than the
students and other employers. This may reflect the homogeneity of career paths for Life
Science graduates: typically, ‘laboratory technician’ is the first graduate position, with a
narrow position description focused on repetitive experimental work.

Students and employers identified some themes not explicitly listed by Dacre Pool and Sewell
(2007). These themes were grouped under the following new sub-category titles: business
acumen, professionalism, ethics and leadership. Similar gaps in the CareerEDGE framework
were found by Smith et al. (2014, Appendix A).

Business acumen might fit in either Career development or Generic skills. It reflects
comments about skill in making correct decisions in a business context. Employer comments
included “It’s almost a basic requirement for a designer to understand the business strategy
and how design fits into it” (Media & Communications employer, 2014). Student comments
included “you kind of set your own wage most of the time but you don’t know how to handle
those conversations. Or how to ask for more…” (Media & Communications student, 2014).

Professionalism is a broad concept that includes exercising specialist knowledge and skills
with judgment, identifying as a member of a community based on shared practices and values,
and having a sense of responsibility and service (Wilson, Åkerlind, Walsh, Stevens, Turner, &
Shield, 2013) that also might fit in either Career development or Generic skills. Employer
comments included “well it’s kind of how do you behave professionally” (Engineering
employer, 2014). Student comments included “They’re going to get stuck with commitment

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 251
  

and responsibility and 9 to 5 work hours at the very least” (Life Sciences student, 2014) and
“we did have a course that was meant to be focused on professional...well core professional
practice that was meant to help us prepare for the industry” (Media & Communications
student 2014).

Ethics is included in many frameworks but is omitted from the CareerEDGE framework.
Employer comments included “You know what do you do out on a project when you don’t
think something is right and you know whoever it is the client, the contractor, the bank, you
know whoever it might be is telling you you’re talking rubbish and to go away and just ignore
it type of thing, what do you do in that situation” (Engineering employer 2014). Student
comments included “They had a few courses and like ethical issues and legal issues” (Life
Sciences student 2014) and “if anything the attitude is that it’s already unethical and it’s just
about working round ethics, especially if you’re going to work with the media company”
(Media & Communications student 2014).

Leadership is also included in many frameworks but is omitted from the CareerEDGE
framework. Leadership is often confused with management. However, leadership is about
directing, motivating and inspiring others, while management is about co-ordinating people
and resources to achieve goals (NSW Government 2014). Employers did not comment on
leadership, except for one ICT employer who commented “students might think that you
absolutely have to have leadership, whereas you might be looking for sort of 2 to 3 years out,
not necessarily looking for the grooming of the leadership positions at that stage”. Student
comments included “I think employability should depend on developing other transferable
stuff like your leadership qualities” (Engineering student 2014) and “It’s like an ability to take
control, understand what need to be done” (Life Sciences student 2014).

Some concepts were not mentioned by students or employers. These might be interpreted as
gaps in employability knowledge. For example, “numeracy” was not mentioned explicitly by
any students or employers. It seems unlikely that engineering or science students believe that
employers do not value numeracy, so they may think of it as a foundation skill required on
entry to university, like English ability (Barrie, 2004).

Overall, these students have substantial factual knowledge about what employability means.
Their lists of issues/concepts were similar to those identified by employers. These outcomes
are similar to findings of previous studies with business students (Arnold et al., 1999, Gabric
& McFadden, 2001, GCA, 2014a, Jackson, 2013). There is a high degree of similarity in the
perceptions of employability among students from different disciplines, which has not been
previously reported. Employers had similar conceptions of employability, except Life
Sciences employers were looking for a narrower range of generic attributes in graduates, and
did not expect graduates to have career development learning.

The CareerEDGE framework is a useful tool to map discipline differences in stakeholder

perceptions of employability. The framework is sufficiently detailed to cover almost all of the
stakeholders’ conceptions of employability. The framework is adaptable, and is easy to extend
when new concepts emerge. The new concepts identified in this study were business acumen
and professionalism (allocated to the category of career development learning), and ethics
and leadership (allocated to generic skills). Adaptability is a useful feature of this framework
as perceptions of employability continue to evolve.

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 252
  

While students from different disciplines show a high degree of homogeneity in perceptions
of employability, some difference was apparent in the level of sophistication of their
understandings.

Other studies have identified heterogeneity in sophistication of student understandings within

a student cohort. One study of students’ understanding of professionalism identified variation
characterised as ranging from simplistic ‘expertise as certainty’ to the more sophisticated
‘expertise as judgment’ (Wilson et al., 2013). Another study found that skill development
outcomes from a capstone course varied significantly among students: each student appeared
to develop skills to different depths depending on their role in the team, attributed to not
taking on roles outside their area of comfort (Keller 2011).

This study identified that level of sophistication of students’ understanding of employability

varied with discipline. In particular, the Media & Communications students consistently
displayed more sophisticated understandings of employability. Their program is a creative,
industry-based program characterised by multiple intense linkages between students, staff and
industry, especially in the final year (Morieson et al. 2013). Some examples of student
comments are given below to show the progression of students’ understandings from simple
(one or two concepts) to sophisticated (multiple concepts with multiple links between
concepts). Italicised phrases in each quotation indicate the employability concepts. The
relevant sub-category from the CareerEDGE framework is included in brackets.

When asked about communication skills:

I don’t know, just communication skills [communication] to show you can talk to
people you don’t know [awareness of others] (Engineering student, 2014).

Like really passionate [passions & interest] for your work and they really like
design and there also looking for people who can speak well [communication]
about their work, because you actually have to speak to the client
[communication] and you explain the client why is your solution good [critical
thinking] and you have to rationale with the client so you have to communicate
yourself really well [communication] and let the client understand because the
client will not be from a design background and would understand what are you
trying to say[awareness of others]. So you have to explain it in simply way
[communication]. (Media and communications student, 2014).

When asked about networking opportunities with industry:

so given the importance that is place in these meetings and making connection
[networking] with these meetings, perhaps the Uni could organise some sort of
industry night, those sort of things more frequently, in order to develop these
things which obviously so important in terms of graduate employability.
(Engineering student, 2014).

we’re doing seminar where people have to network [networking] and we have to
get people in to do seminars [communication/networking] and every week there
are about 3 or 4 possibly employers that we’re in contact with [communication]
and our groups are in contact with employers as part of this project
[communication] so any… we have some great industry contacts through that

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 253
  

project [networking] which is quite a creative way I guess of getting us into the
industry [networking] and growing our confidence [motivation]. (Media and
communications student, 2014).

Current employability frameworks are not adequate to identify depth of student understanding
(in terms of level of simplicity or sophistication). Current frameworks can be used to identify
stakeholders’ breadth of understanding of employability issues, but further development is
needed to include depth of understanding. Building on the work of Barrie (2004, 2006),
employability frameworks could be improved by adding a hierarchical sequence that scaffolds
learning outcomes appropriate to year-level as well as discipline or other differences.

Conclusions

A framework that is useful for teachers in renewing curriculum for employability must be
coherent, systematic, detailed, comprehensive and specific. No existing employability
frameworks have all these characteristics. The CareerEDGE framework maps Australian
student and employer views on graduate employability well, but has some gaps (business
acumen, professionalism, ethics and leadership). A strength of the framework is that it is
adaptable: it can be updated simply by adding further sub-categories as perceptions of
employability continue to evolve over time.

Another weakness of existing frameworks is that they do not identify stakeholders’ depth of
understanding of employability issues. Their categories are not taxonomic, that is, they have
no sequential hierarchy. Existing frameworks could be improved by incorporating a
hierarchical sequence that scaffolds learning outcomes appropriate to variables such as year
level, task complexity, pedagogical approach or discipline differences. A sequence with a
continuum of level of sophistication of understanding, from “remember, understand and
apply” to “analyse, evaluate and create” (Anderson et al., 2014) or from precursor to
complement, translate and enabling (Barrie 2004), could assist teaching staff to identify
scaffolded learning objectives suitable for different year levels in different disciplines.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching
[SP13-3256]. I am very grateful to the project team, evaluation team and reference group for
their generous and inspiring contributions to the research. My sincere thanks go to Ms Megan
Brodie, Professor Lorelle Burton, Associate Professor Angela Carbone, Ms Bronwyn Clarke,
Associate Professor Danilla Grando, Associate Professor Margaret Hamilton, Dr Grace
Lynch, Mrs Cathy Pocknee, Professor Julianne Reid, Associate Professor John Smith, Ms
Sheila Thomas and Dr Sophia Xenos.

References

Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E., & Pintrich, P.R. (2014). A
taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives.
Harlow: Pearson New International.
Arnold, J., Loan-Clarke, J., Harrington, A., & Hart, C. (1999). Students’ perceptions of competence development
in undergraduate business-related degrees, Studies in Higher Education 24(1), 43-59.
Australian Psychology Accreditation Council (2010 ). APAC Rules for Accreditation and Accreditation
Standards for Psychology Courses (June 2010) Checklist. Australian Psychology Accreditation Council.
Retrieved Apr 12, 2015, from https://www.psychologycouncil.org.au/assessor-handbook/.

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 254
  

Barrie, S. C. (2004). A research-­‐based approach to generic graduate attributes policy. Higher Education
Research and Development, 23(3), 261-275.
Barrie, S. C. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education,
51(2), 215-241.
Bridgstock, R. (2009). The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability through
career management skills. Higher Education Research and Development, 28(1), 31-43.
Cranney, J., Provost, S., Katsikitis, M., Martin, F., White, F., & Cohen, L. (2008). Designing a diverse, future-
orientated vision for undergraduate psychology in Australia, Australian Government Office for Learning and
Teaching. Retrieved June 9, 2013, from http://www.olt.gov.au/resources.
Dacre Pool, L., & Sewell, P. (2007). The key to employability: Developing a practical model of graduate
employability. Education+Training, 49(4), 277-289.
Engineers Australia (2011). Stage 1 competency standard for the professional engineer. Engineers Australia.
Retrieved June 9, 2013, from http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/about-us/program-
accreditation/#standards.
Gabric, D., & McFadden, K.L. (2001). Student and employer perceptions of desirable entry level operations
management skills. American Journal of Business, 16(1), 5-60.
Gartland, K.M.A. (2008). Enhancing graduate attributes in life sciences. Mansfield: The Quality Assurance
Agency for Higher Education.
Graduate Careers Australia (2014a). Graduate outlook 2013: The report of the graduate outlook survey:
Employers’ perspectives on graduate recruitment. Melbourne: Graduate Careers Australia.
Graduate Careers Australia (2014b). Graduate destination survey 2014. Melbourne: Graduate Careers Australia.
Jackson, D. (2013). Student perceptions of the importance of employability skill provision in business
undergraduate programs. Journal of Education for Business, 88(5), 271-279.
Jollands, M., Burton, L., Carbone, A., Clarke, B., Grando, D., Hamilton, M., Smith, J., Xenos, S., Brodie, M.,
Pocknee, C. (2015). ‘Why I’ll get a job’: Australian students’ perspectives of employability. In progress.
Jones, A. (2009). Redisciplining generic attributes: The disciplinary context in focus. Studies in Higher
Education, 34(1), 85-100.
Knight, P. T., & Yorke, M. (2003). Employability and good learning in higher education. Teaching in Higher
Education, 8(1), 3-16.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. 4th Edition. Los
Angeles:Sage.
Morieson, L., Carlin, D., Clarke, B., Lukas, K., & Wilson, R. (2013). Belonging in education: lessons from the
belonging project. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 4(2), 87-96.
NSW Government (2014). Small Business Toolkit: Leadership & Business. Small Business Connect. Retrieved
on April 12 2015 from http://toolkit.smallbiz.nsw.gov.au/part/8/39/188.
Oliver, B., Whelan, B., Hunt, L., Hammer, S., Jones, S., Pearce, A., & Henderson, F. (2011). Introducing the
Graduate Employability Indicators. Strawberry Hills: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Oliver, B. (2011). Assuring Graduate Outcomes. Strawberry Hills: Australian Learning and Teaching Council
Smith, C., Ferns, S., & Russell, L. (2014). The impact of work integrated learning on student work readiness.
Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching. Retrieved January 20, 2014, from
http://www.olt.gov.au/resources.
Tymon, A. (2013). The student perspective on employability. Studies in Higher Education. 38(6), 841-856.
Wilson, A., Åkerlind, G., Walsh, B., Stevens, B., Turner, B. & Shield, A. (2013). Making “professionalism”
meaningful to students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education. 38(8), 1222-1238.
Yorke, M. (2006). Employability in higher education: what it is, what it is not. York: Higher Education
Academy.

Copyright © 2015 Margaret Jollands. The author assigns to HERDSA and educational non-profit institutions a
non-exclusive license to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article
is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author also grants a non-exclusive license to
HERDSA to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime site and mirrors) and within the portable
electronic format HERDSA 2015 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express
permission of the author.

 
 
Annual Conference 2015 255