1. INTERIM RESULTS: The State of
Engagement with Graduate Attributes by
Higher Education Institutions in New Zealand
Rachel Spronken-Smith, Carol Bond,
Martine Darrou & Angela McLean (UO)
Martin Jenkins & Margaret Leonard (CPIT)
Stanley Frielick, Lise Milne & Nell Smith (AUT)
Stephen Marshall (VUW)
Simon Barrie (Sydney) – Advisor

2. Generic graduate attributes are the qualities, skills and
understandings a university community agrees its
students should develop during their time with the
institution (Bowden et al. 2000)
“The extent to which the rhetoric of such [graduate
attributes] statements actually represents a shared
understanding of the outcomes of a university
education is a matter of conjecture”
(Barrie 2006: 216)
“The extent to which present day university teaching
and learning processes actually develop such
outcomes in graduates is even more contestable”
(Barrie 2006: 216)

3. Outline of session
• Background context for our research
• Our research objectives and approach
• Engagement with graduate attributes
across higher education institutions in NZ
• Enablers and constraints to engaging with
GAs
• Discussion

4. Background context for research
• Part of an Ako Aotearoa-funded national
project entitled “Graduate attributes – are
they driving learning? Any who knows about
them?”
– Aim: to explore the current policies and
practices regarding graduate attributes (GAs)
in higher education institutions in NZ

5. The GA agenda
• Early 1990s – beginning of momentum around GA
agenda
• 1999 Bologna Declaration  Bologna process
 “Dublin descriptors” – key qualities/ competencies
 The Tuning Project in Europe and later in the USA (Lumina
Foundation)
• Australia
– Series of reports and research
 Australian Qualifications Framework specifying minimum
outcomes for qualifications approved in 2011
• NZ
– NZQA targeted review of qualifications

6. Definitions
• Range of terminology for graduate
descriptors:
– Graduate attributes (GAs)
– Graduate outcomes
– Graduate profiles (GPs)
Conceptions matter!
What does the term “graduate
attributes” mean to you?

7. Conceptions of GAs
Barrie (2007) – academic’s conceptions
1. Precursor
2. Complement
3. Translation
4. Enabling

8. Achieving GAs
Hughes and Barrie (2010)

9. Specific research objectives include:
1. Identifying current policy and practice regarding
GAs in New Zealand HE institutions
2. Identifying indicators of the impact (benefit) on
students and staff of good practices relating to GAs
3. Determining the necessary conditions and possible
strategies for the effective development of policies
and practices regarding GAs

10. Research approach
Identifying policies Stocktake across
and practices HE sector
Indicators of impact Mixed methods:
on learners Quantitative &
Qualitative
Cases of good
Effective
practice
development of GAs

11. The Stocktake – (a) Survey
• Online survey to 29 HE institutions in NZ
– Institutional characteristics
– Presence of graduate descriptors
– Development of GAs in institution
– Use of GAs in institution
– Measurement of graduate descriptors
– Overall engagement with GAs
• 14 completed survey (48%) – 7 polytechnics and 7
universities

12. The Stocktake – (b) Interviews
• Follow-up interviews with directors/academic
developers in 8 institutions
– Demographics
– Conceptions of the purposes of a tertiary education
– The uses of a GP
– How GAs were developed and used within the institution
– Involvement of stakeholders
– The enablers and constraints to engaging with GAs
• Interviews transcribed and analysed drawing on a
modified phenomenographic approach and Thomas’
(2006) general inductive approach

13. Emerging findings - Academic managers
conceptions of the purposes of GAs
A. A means of marketing of the institution's
programmes - allowing distinctions to be made
B. A means of informing various stakeholders,
employers, students, staff, government
C. A tool for assuring different aspects of quality
D. A guide to curriculum development - a framework
for design and development
E. A tool to help students learn - focusing on outcomes
based learning
Dimensions: Temporal, scope, integration and extent
of ownership

14. Institutional characteristics

15. Reasons for having GAs

16. Development of GAs
• An institutional initiative (6)
“The generic attributes were developed by Council and
announced to the university as part of a previous
university strategic plan”(U4)
• A grass roots initiative (2) led by academic
developers
“Educational developers within P4 who saw the need to
establish them as a core element of good learning
design”
• Combined top-down and bottom-up (2)

17. Use of GAs - administration

18. Use of GAs - pedagogical

19. Use of GAs - other

20. Link to policies
• 8/10 have graduate outcomes linked to policies
• But recognition that policies may not be put into
practice!
“I don’t in all honesty think that most teaching staff
'promote' the concept of graduate profiles albeit that
they most often will have mapped and re-articulated
graduate attributes in accordance with their discipline”
(U3).
• 3 institutions had teaching and learning awards that
emphasised engagement with GAs

21. Support for staff engagement with
GAs
• Informed through processes of programme
development
• Workshops and courses (7)
• No professional development for GAs (5)
“The ones who attend our workshops are inducted
into the synchronicity of the whole deal. The ones
who don't attend may well be inducted through their
departments and faculties; but we still find ignorance
of the process and importance of graduate profiles
when we work with staff; including some who have
been here a good while”(U1).

22. Support for student engagement
with GAs
• Informed through enrolment handbooks, course
outlines, induction processes, student learning and
career advisors
“This is impossible to characterize for the entire
University. Some students, in some programmes, will
be provided with more information in these areas, such
as through pre-employment briefings or capstone
courses or experiences. Others, will have very little
engagement or recognition of anything outside course-
by-course learning objectives and outcomes”. (U7)

23. Support for student engagement
with GAs (cont)
• Many institutions reported using formative and
summative assessment to help track student
attainment of GAs
• Three polytechnics helped students to actively track
their progress towards attainment of GAs
• Two universities used ePortfolios either for specific
programmes or more widely

24. Measurement & monitoring of the
institutional graduate profile

25. Measurement & monitoring of
qualification graduate profiles (a)

26. Measurement & monitoring of
qualification graduate profiles (b)

27. Closing the feedback loop
Not many institutions are routinely informing staff and
students of results from monitoring GAs
“This depends on the college and/or programme involved.
Externally accredited programmes tend to have higher levels of
briefings for staff regarding the processes and monitoring of
students’ attainment of graduate profiles. Informing students of
these same processes is generally a less common occurrence. In
accomplishing this, graduating year reviews and accreditation
reports are probably the two most common and recognized forms
of monitoring the progress and attainment of graduate profiles.
Depending on the specific programme, these may or may not also
require programme-wide briefings for academic staff and, on
occasion, students.” (U7)

28. Institutional engagement with GAs

29. Institutional engagement with GAs
Planning Systems Delivery Assessment Evaluation PD support
P1
P2
P3
P4
P5
P6
P7
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
U6
U7
Darker colour = stronger engagement

30. Outline of session - progress
• Background context for our research
• Our research objectives and approach
• Engagement with graduate attributes
across higher education institutions in NZ
• Enablers and constraints to engaging with
GAs
• Discussion

31. Revisiting our research foci
Through this stocktake we have identified current policy
and practice regarding GAs in New Zealand HE
institutions.
But we also explored the necessary conditions and
possible strategies for the effective development of
policies and practices regarding GAs.

32. In small groups
• Consider your own institutional contexts
• Work together to identify:
– Enablers to getting staff (lecturers,
managers) to engage with GAs
– Constraints or challenges to getting such
engagement AND possible ways to
overcome them
• Nominate a scribe and presenter
• Can we use these data in our research?

33. Enablers to engagement with GAs
Number of Number of
Universities Polytechnics
Support of academic developers 3 3
Ownership by teachers 2 3
Structures 3 2
Strong leadership from the top 2 2
Institutional culture 1 2
Processes 1 2
NZQA targeted review 3
Strategic policy/plan 1 1
Good communication 1 1
Resources 2
Time 2
Interest by staff 1 1

34. Constraints to engagement with GAs
Number of Number of
Universities Polytechnics
Staff resistance 2 1
Institutional culture - research 2
Tension with professional bodies 1 1
Quality assurance 1 1
Teacher’s conceptions 1 1

35. Summary
• Lacking external drivers • Strong external drivers
• Research-focused • Teaching-focused
culture culture
• Relying on champions • Strong leadership from
• Patchy resourcing the top
• Patchy structures • Enabling structures
Universities Polytechnics
Continuum of engagement with GAs

36. Discussion
Thanks to Ako Aotearoa for funding this research