Resource Library

Introductory Commentary

This resource forms part of a larger collection.  It is recommended that readers refer also to:

1.  http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/nationalgap/resources/discussionpapers.htm
and
2. http://www.itl.usyd.edu.au/projects/nationalgap/resources/videos.htm

This is one of the outcomes of the National GAP (Graduate Attributes Project), a national scoping study of Australian universities' recent activities in relation to the development of graduate attributes. It is an aggregation of de-identified university graduate attributes statements, gathered in 2007-08. The statements were sorted into groups describing similar graduate attributes. They are presented as 'Enabling' level attributes (broader dispositions: scholarship, global citizenship, life-long learning) and 'Translation' level (more discrete, discipline-specific attributes: research and enquiry; information literacy; personal and intellectual autonomy; ethical, social and professional understanding and communication).

The boundaries between categories are artificial and some relate to more than one category.

This web resource includes a clickable visual map showing these eight subcategories. Links take the user to an aggregation of university statements of attributes -- for example, when universities include an attribute related to critical thinking, here are examples of how they phrase that statement. Even though these were gathered in 2007-08, they are unlikely to date -- the database shows the similarities and differences in statements.

This is a useful resource for those considering reviewing their attributes. It also shows the broad emphases in attributes across the sector.

This impressive resource, developed following extensive consultations with key stakeholders, presents a comprehensive list of key attributes psychology students can develop during their undergraduate studies. By extending the principles of the scientist-practitioner model, there is no doubt that it will become a valuable research-led resource for both students and teachers of psychology.

This resource clearly delineates what will be learned, how it will be learned, what the learning outcomes will be, and how these apply in both the traditional psychology laboratory and in real world settings. This juxtaposition of laboratory and real world learning applications provides added value by challenging students to think more widely. In doing so, it enhances the identity of psychology. Accordingly, the resource is also relevant to students and teachers in Psychiatry and the allied health disciplines.

It may be necessary, however, to make explicit the academic background required for using this resource.  For example, it may be essential to flag that empirical skills are a pre-requisite given that Research Methods in Psychology (Attribute 2) are traditionally quantitative. That undergraduate students are becoming interested in qualitative research approaches raises the question of why this is not included in Attribute 2. This is even more questionable given the learning outcome of describing and applying the different research methods used by psychologists and demonstrating practical skills in laboratory-based and other psychological research.

The theoretical orientation and attributes reflect the resource's orientation to a specific cohort of students, which in this discipline is not necessarily a bad thing.

This is a well-researched, lucidly and frank report on the similarities and contrasts in attitudes between academics and students involved in university-level study of history. It is a most valuable report and deserves wide discussion among staff and students about the 'why' and 'how' of historical study.

In general, it highlights (although does not identify) the contrasts between academics who would like all students to be like those they eventually teach in Honours, and the majority of students who simple find history 'interesting'. Few students understand an undergraduate 'major' in history as more than a collection of subjects chosen from interest.

The report highlights the importance of the sharing of good practice. It does not provide practical examples of how better to engage students, particularly in introducing them to research methodologies, but has an extensive bibliography.

There are perplexing contrasts revealed between student responses at different universities, suggesting that heads of departments should find this a most useful starting-point for curriculum discussion. This is all the more important because of the worrying evidence adduced that some academics respond to student 'disengagement' by expressing despair about current student and cultural behaviours rather than by seeking innovative ways to re-engage students with sustained historical study.

The report suggests that individual heads of history programs should take the initiative in working with professional bodies to make improvements. For the recommendations to be more effective, those bodies (particularly the Australian Historical Association) should also be responsible for ensuring that this happens: they were established to provide national leadership.