Graduate Attributes as the Framework for the Future University

As the "new normal" unfolds around us, after this crisis rush to online and distance learning, universities and colleges struggle with what to expect and what to create, what to salvage and what to sacrifice, what reason to exist at all.  Credentialing has lost it's currency, and lifelong learning has yet to become a university mission.  Let's be frank - Most institutions are hoping to return to the past because change is difficult in so many ways. It doesn't need to be.


There is an easy change strategy and it is hidden in the concept of Graduate Attributes. Almost all universities set out a brief and erudite list of things their graduates "will be able to do" - like exhibit critical and creative thinking, employability skills, or global insight. They make this claim on webpages and strategic plans and advertising materials, but seldom are these attributes defined, taught to, or tested for. They are largely unsubstantiated claims. And yet, if developed and delivered properly, they are the entire mission an institution of higher education, and a logical organizing framework for the future university. When they become the clearly-stated, over-arching, competence-based intended learning objectives or outcomes, the processes and inputs logically shift.

Using Graduate Attributes requires reframing courses and programs, delivery and assessment of learning, materials and methods.  It means removing the silos, increasing contact with the community, actually measuring learning, embedding the graduate attributes in all courses and programs, developing a comprehensive ePortfolio scheme. I have presented workshops on how to do that, but few take the time to make it happen. Until now. We have lots of time.

Some background: I've researched and written about Graduate Attributes since 2009 when I guided the strategic planning process at King Faisal University in Saudi Arabia. Graduate Attributes were developed as an overarching framework to measure the success of the strategic plan. Very FuturEd! I synthesized the best of all those GA lists I could find and created a set the FuturEd Vision of Comprehensive University Graduate Attributes. I continue to argue that Graduate Attributes are like student KPIs, and should be measured to assess the quality of learning services at the university.  In my professional opinion, the statement of Graduate Attributes is a contract between the learner and the institution. By making unsubstantiated claims, the institution is liable for breach of contract or dereliction of duty. 


1. What are “Graduate Attributes”?

Many individual Higher Education institutions across the world produce and promote their set of stated Graduate Attributes, i.e., a list of “generic” knowledge, skills and abilities/attitudes (KSA) that they expect all graduating students to possess or be able to demonstrate. Even entire nations have produced statements of “national” graduate attributes as the intended outcome of entire higher education systems. These “sets” may take a variety of forms, e.g., some are linked solely to programs and formal student learning, some combine formal and non-formal/extracurricular student learning, some include skillsets associated with, for example, employability, international competencies, “21st-century skills,” lifelong learning. The sets of GA exist, but they are not used to full advantage, if at all.

To be sure, there is plenty of evidence of GA innovation and good practice.   For example, beyond a simple list, GA have been presented, by the University of Adelaide, with an associated “degree of impact of the participant." The University of Glasgow sets out GA with a three-dimensional matrix. For the University of Victoria, GA are about mapping student destinations. But nobody yet has developed a university around the central framework of Graduate Attributes - which should, incidentally, include mastery of content area knowledge. 

2.  How to use GA to advantage?

There are lots of uses for Graduate Attributes, for students, programs, institutions, and entire nations. Fundamentally, the concept of GA contributes greatly to quality assurance and enhancement of individual programs, entire institutions and even national systems. But you can't use them without measuring them. 

Students can and should use the list of Graduate Attributes as part of their learning objectives for undertaking higher education; i.e., in addition to earning a credential, a student should be expected and assisted to learn a set of competencies to help make the transition beyond higher education, either to work, the community or advanced study. In fact, GA can be a means by which students manage their own learning and hold the institution accountable. Often students can and do use the list as a framework for an ePortfolio of acquired KSA, and the ePortfolio of GA with digital evidence can be used for assessment purposes inside the institution and/or by potential employers. When a set of GA includes non-formal learning within higher education - or any formal education - it enables students to account for the vast amount of learning from extracurricular activities, travel, reading and community service. With an ePortfolio, a student says “here’s who I am, here’s what I know and can do.” Employers have been clear that they expect graduates to exit higher education with a set of workplace-relevant KSA, and they find an ePortfolio to be a good means of understanding the capabilities of an individual. Incidentally, they do not find transcripts and formal qualifications to be useful beyond initial screening. 

Programs and programs should use GA to guide the development and assessment of discipline-specific intended student learning outcomes. For example, the College of Education at SQU has produced and promoted a set of Graduate Attributes for students completing education degrees. In many universities, students prepare a course-work ePortfolio, framed by program learning objectives, as part of a graduation requirement. Program-specific GA cover the concept of “content area expertise.”  But there is more to be accounted for.

Institutions should use GA to guide the development and demonstration of both generic and academic student learning outcomes. Most universities in Australia, many in America and Canada, some in the UK produce and promote a set of generic GA as part of public relations for competitive advantage to attract students and public support. They fail to acknowledge that a clearly stated set of GA becomes a public declaration of the intention and/or capability of the institution to meet the needs of learners and society at large. In Australia, the National Graduate Attributes Project has investigated institutional policies for embedding GA in curriculum, assessment and research. Graduate Attributes, in the context of quality assurance, are like KPI for students, an objective of assessing the quality of student learning and institutional effectiveness.

Finally, entire nations have created GA demanded of HE institutions. For example, Malaysia requires that any accredited program include clear evidence that the 8 domains of generic learning outcomes have been systematically taught and assessed. In the UAE, according to the QFEmirates, an accredited program should include deliberate consideration of CoreLife Skills. Whereas in the UAE the CoreLife Skills could be characterized as employability skills, the GA in Malaysia are characterized as lifelong learning skills. Regardless, they serve only as a portion of the GA for an institutional or HE system, and the purpose has been to push HE to consider the importance of ensuring graduates are prepared for life and work beyond HE. It is conceivable that an HEI’s GA could contribute to large-scale learning assessment as a tool for national and internationally-comparative accountability of public and private investment in education.  But, to be meaningful,  the skills need to be taught to and tested for.

What is the Graduate Attribute Future University?

This is a leap, but it is doable. If, because we have the time and need to think about what we've been doing and why, and to heed the criticisms and opportunities, first, let's create a new strategic scenario. Instead of trying to fit GA into existing courses, why not fit courses and programs into an overall GA framework. This will reveal gaps and overlaps. More importantly, it will reveal much academic endeavor is (or is not) put into teaching, measuring, recognizing and valuing each Graduate Attribute.

And then, make adjustments. Many "soft-skills" or 21st Century Skills or professional skills can be taught in alternative environments by alternative instructors and experts. This is a chance to embed learning in actual situations like service-learning and work placements. 

And then generate a comprehensive digital identity for learners around an ePortfolio framework, All their achievements can be archived as evidence of formal, non-formal and lifelong learning.   

And finally, promote this new approach to structuring the university enterprise as learning-oriented, transparent and accountable to customers, future-focused and ePortfolio-enabled  - a genuinely lifelong learning institution.

This is actually doable. FuturEd is ready to help. 

Until and unless that is done, the Graduate Attributes are a bit of a fraud. I wonder what would happen if some students challenged a university for failure to ensure that they were critical thinking, leadership-ready, globally-minded entrepreneurs - or whatever claims their universities made?