Connecting graduates with the real world
Transferring research-based skills to the workplace
Jawiria Naseem
with Professor Lora Fleming
Coming from a research-intensive and non-reflective tradition of ‘see one, do one, teach one’, it is a thought-provoking pleasure to read and ponder Jawiria’s reflections on the opportunities and challenges of incorporating research into teaching to better prepare students in Higher Education for jobs in all walks of life. I also find it very humbling but also comforting that pedagogic techniques, which I thought I had developed carefully and creatively over 30-plus years of interacting with students around research-intensive learning, are part of Jawiria’s established ‘toolkit’ as an early-career teacher and researcher! I only wish I had had access to such reflections and pedagogy during my own lifelong career as both a student and a teacher!
Professor Lora Fleming
1. Meet the myth of the knowledge economy
Get a degree to get a job! This is a mantra I lived with during my seven years in higher education leading up to the submission of my doctoral thesis. With a PhD under my belt (of degrees), I was ready to hit the ground running and finally experience my mantra to the fullest. But believe me, I did not get very far in the race; more realistically, let’s say that I was never part of the race. I still remember my first job application post-PhD for an early-career academic position, and the feedback I received: ‘You are not qualified for the role’!
So what went wrong for me? Too many hopefuls with PhDs, not enough roles, scarce research funding opportunities, priority to income-generating and experienced candidates (yes, even for early-career roles) – the list goes on! I then rephrased my mantra to meet the reality of the world I had entered blind-sided to: ‘Get a degree and hope for a job!’ My experience is far from being unique. Degrees alone are not sufficient in an increasingly competitive market, despite the continuous (dis)belief in the knowledge economy.
With its emergence in the late 1900s, the concept of the knowledge economy reflects the centrality of information and technology in modern societies (OECD 1996). Each country’s competitiveness in globalised labour markets is bound to the skill and qualification level of its labour force (Lauder et al. 2012). In exchange, education, especially gained at university level, is perceived to be a gateway for personal material success. Individuals equate university qualifications with ‘a better paid, more interesting and high-status job’ (Brown et al. 2003, 111). Although very appealing, this idea of the knowledge economy is a myth.
The 2008 economic recession created a very precarious future for young people, including those who left the educational system with higher educational qualifications (McDonald and Thompson 2016). Within the UK, graduates soon became the largest group among the unemployed and up until 2012, the number of unemployed graduates kept rising (McDonald and Thompson 2016). Those who did find jobs (both academic and non-academic) have demonstrated flexibility and creativity. For example, many graduates enter the job market in roles for which they are overqualified, roles that do not match their subject expertise or even personal interest (Foley and Brinkley 2015). What is more, securing a job does not necessarily mean job quality. Short-term contracts, part-time work and hourly contracts are the norm. Lowering their immediate employment expectations allows young graduates to add work experience and start building their careers. In academia, however, lowering expectations can have further negative repercussions as this attitude to work can be interpreted as poor CV and job performance (Gill 2014). This instability reflects the existence of a non-linear life course, where young people need to be ready to accept jobs not for life, and to engage with an ever-changing and demanding job market (especially with the rapid innovation in technologies) (Heinz 2004).
This precarious job market is coupled with a range of other factors. Add a shortage of jobs to the high supply of graduates, and you will get a well-known formula: advantaged employers. Recruiters expect much more from potential employees than academic skills and knowledge. They will look at the employability of graduates, that is personal attributes, and the added value on a CV, such as engagement with charity organisations and other stakeholders, relevant work experience gained during studies, additional training and/or qualifications (e.g. Brown et al. 2003; Andrews and Higson 2008; Tomlinson 2008). Employers’ expectations, however, can affect certain groups more adversely, landing them with additional challenges. PhD holders, for example, may be expected to show evidence of publications, successful grant history and international experience. Women, in particular, might also experience the pressure of starting a family (Tomlinson 2008). Yet, adding value to their CV illustrates personal qualities, initiative and commitment, which make a candidate standout. Employers appreciate such added value, since it can be seen as evidence of the practical skills employees need to conduct their day-to-day job responsibilities effectively.
So where do these changes leave higher education institutions? The expansion of higher education in the 1990s marked a decisive shift from vocationalism to the knowledge economy. Higher education responded to this economic change by becoming a mass education sector responsible for ensuring national economic development as well as for delivering prosperity to individuals. Yet is it important to remember that the (initial) aims of this massification (i.e. an increase in university participation) as set out by the 1997 Dearing Report1 portrayed a very different picture. Increased HE participation was meant to enable young people to develop intellectually, to gain higher skills, and to participate more fully and creatively in the knowledge economy, which relied on highly qualified workers with professional skills and knowledge (not gained through secondary education only). What we ended up with was too much focus on the knowledge economy (e.g. delivery of productive graduates to the job market) and a lack of appreciation of the actual skills and knowledge of graduates. This contributed to the marketisation of higher education (Furedi 2011).
The change in status of the higher education sector – from a learning provider to an instrumental provider – created an environment where prospective students started to act like consumers when choosing their degree and university, especially with the drastic rise in tuition fees in 2010 (Furedi 2011). Molesworth and his colleagues (2011) argue that HE institutions started ‘selling’ their services, focusing on the financial benefits their students would gain after graduation and showcasing the high percentage of their graduates who did find jobs within six months of leaving university (yet never elaborating exactly what these jobs are). Employability had become the top priority. The ‘selling’ point became less about students developing intellectually, and more about gaining employability skills and a marketable qualification, with degrees matched to profitable job markets. The students (and their families) want a return on their (minimum of) £27,000 investment– and who can blame them (Tomlinson 2008)?
If graduates invest so much (both financially and otherwise) in their studies, why do they have to secure adding non-academic value to their CV, whether they want to work in or outside academia? Put differently, how can students make use of the skills and knowledge they gain during their studies towards their employability? My answer to this is: through intentional research-based teaching and learning.
2. Research-based education equals building employability skills
The relationship between research (contribution to knowledge) and teaching (sharing of knowledge) is one that is often defined by a binary divide (Schapper and Mayson 2010). For some academics, research is often perceived to be a barrier to quality teaching, while others believe that researchers enhance the courses taught. Different disciplines also require different approaches for the construction of knowledge (and I will come back to the distinction between sharing and construction). Disciplines are grouped under two main labels often known as ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ areas. ‘Hard’ disciplines generally refer to the natural sciences whereas ‘soft’ disciplines refer to the social sciences (McGrath 1978). Some course content can be very straightforward (‘hard’ disciplines such as mathematics), while others are open to interpretation (‘soft’ disciplines such as sociology). Hence, the potential links between research and teaching can vary from one group of disciplines to the other, and so the extent to which research can be integrated also differs. Either way, inquiry-based learning or research-led teaching has become the way forward for developing employable graduates (e.g. Healey 2005; Brew 2010; McLinden et al. 2015; Ziniel and Ghalib 2016; Murray et al. 2017).
In the midst of these longstanding divides, what remains clear are students, their learning and perspective. The majority of students believe that research-active teachers offer a valuable learning environment (McLinden et al. 2015; Ziniel and Ghalib 2016; Murray et al. 2017). Research-based teaching means that the curriculum is designed around inquiry-based activities that require the direct involvement of students in research by positioning them as researchers (Murray et al. 2017). As such, research informs teaching and vice versa. This relationship is to help students learn (student-focused) rather than to teach students (teacher-focused) (Hannafin et al. 2013). This subtle distinction calls for a different mode of student–teacher interaction, one that challenges traditional boundaries and pedagogy.
In this scenario, teachers and students work together in the production of knowledge through active participation, rather than act as, respectively, providers and passive recipients of its transmission. Unbalanced power relations change into an equal partnership that benefits both teachers and students. Teachers, for example, can engage in pedagogic research wherein they work towards adopting and implementing the best teaching methods that would meet students’ needs, encourage their learning, and enhance their experience. In doing so, teachers evaluate their own practice (for example, by ensuring that teaching meets learning outcomes and/or through student feedback), embrace new methods when appropriate, and are aware of the scholarship in the field of teaching and learning. Research-active academics are able to share their motivation and interests with students and develop the curriculum, which further contributes to the quality of the teaching and learning experience. The teaching–research nexus thus creates mutually enriching and supportive academic roles (Ziniel and Ghalib 2016).
The research-based education approach also has several benefits for students. Exposure to scholarly activity enhances students’ role through the depth of learning and understanding of the subject and course content. Students get access to up-to-date knowledge (preferably from a range of researchers and not simply dominated by the teacher’s work). This fosters students’ intellectual development, and provides them an opportunity to get an insight into the research process (e.g. planning, data collection methods, analysis and ethics).
I am not saying there are only benefits in research-based education (I discuss challenges later), and, undoubtedly, the extent of student engagement in the research process will vary from one discipline to another. Yet, a first-hand research experience (even a limited one) is the very foundation that teachers can utilise to build their students’ employability skills. Research skills can be broadly grouped into three categories (with some overlaps): research design, research methods and research data. These sets of skills add to the functional skills and expertise required to do a given job effectively. The following sub-sections provide a non-exhaustive list of skills (and personal attributes) that can be gained through research-based teaching and inquiry-based learning activities.
2.1 Research design
Research-design skills relate to strategic aptitudes required in solving problems at work. These can enable a graduate employee to identify and review a problem, generate solutions to the problem and then create new opportunities. Specific skills are:
attitude of inquiry (reviewing existing research, questioning facts rather than simply accepting them);
resourcefulness (foresight, gathering information);
innovating (coming up with research ideas);
understanding logistics (rights, permission, ethical approval);
seeing the work through to completion (developing a work plan and reflecting on changes).
2.2 Research methods
Research-methods skills relate to connecting academic/technical knowledge expertise to objectives. These skills can enable a graduate employee to process, organise and apply their knowledge to successfully undertake their role. They include:
project management;
resourcefulness (adapting to real challenges and opportunities);
communication and listening skills (engaging in peer feedback and discussion);
team work;
leadership;
social skills.
2.3 Research data
Research-data skills build on research-methods skills, since they relate to goal achievements through engagement with work partners. They include:
critical thinking (analysing data);
listening (discussing findings with supervisor, colleagues, mentors);
social skills (collecting data with research participants, gatekeepers, key informants);
presentation and communication (disseminating research findings);
confidence (gained through contributing to knowledge).
These research skills and personal attributes are generic; that is to say they can be transferred and applied to a range of situations including the workplace beyond academia. Skills can be acquired and attributes can be developed across all academic disciplines (with some more readily integrated than others depending on the curriculum design and subject).
Having set out an overview of transferable research skills, I will now discuss practical methods that teachers can implement to connect students with the real world, especially those undertaking non-professional degrees.
3. How to transfer research-based skills to the labour market: practical lessons for teaching staff
It should not come as a surprise if I say that there is a clear divide between how university degrees are grouped. On the one hand, there are all the professional degrees (e.g. engineering), and on the other the non-professional degrees (e.g. history). Professional education is designed to meet the needs of a particular occupation so that all students in these programmes acquire the necessary skills throughout their studies to perform their day-to-day job responsibilities effectively. For example, teacher trainees undergo both theoretical (lectures, seminars) and practical training (placements). Practical training is especially productive as it gives students an opportunity to engage with their future workplace. University teaching is mostly focused on problem-based learning (which is a form of inquiry-based learning). Problem-based learning promotes both active and collaborative learning and builds students’ skills as independent learners, including their ability to think critically, an important employability skill (Allen et al. 2011). This means that students learn by solving a problem through thinking strategies and applying their subject-specific knowledge. For example, medical students are exposed to real patient cases to enhance their clinical cognitive competency.
Traditionally speaking, non-professional education offers very limited opportunities for students to experience the real world during their degree time. However, since the 2010 move to higher tuition fees, universities battle to attract students (The Economist, 2017). Many university programmes have been re-designed to include an optional fourth year (although this remains subject-specific) in undergraduate degrees. Often known as a ‘sandwich year’, this gives students a chance to do a work placement (internship, voluntary work, research) or even study a year abroad as an integral part of their degree. Students are thus able to build their CV by adding valuable work/life experience.
Although considerable attention has been given to the study format in non-professional degrees, teacher pedagogy and module design have not been exploited to the fullest in their potential to enhance student employability. The skills listed in Section 2 can be built throughout the full length of study by re-thinking the traditional course design. This includes departmental staff’s research activities (even those of the teacher), lectures, seminar activities and assessments. These should all be driven by research content, process and problems.
3.1 Lecture
Typically, a university lecture runs between one and two hours, with the aim of covering four to six subject-specific points. Some academics include short activities while others prefer to have a teacher-focused format (where the teacher speaks for a lengthy period of time) before moving towards student-led activities. There are a number of ways in which lecture materials could be enhanced to be more research-based. The extent to which research material could be included would vary according to the discipline and the particular subject of a given lecture.
Lecture material should involve research data from the teacher’s own and others’ research to ensure that students are positioned at the cutting-edge of research (and hopefully be inspired by different approaches to research).
Lectures can be broken into speaking and ‘stop-and-think’ times. ‘Stop-and-think’ times are short, inquiry-based activities that can include, for example, a question posed by the teacher regarding a specific point of the research (data) presented. Students then work individually or in small groups to come up with an answer. The teacher needs to adapt a student-centred style and act as a facilitator or delegator. These roles are useful in developing students’ capacity for ‘self-direction and autonomy’ (Grasha 2002, 140). In addition, this short shift from teacher-focused to student-focused learning calls upon specific cognitive skills such as critical thinking, communication skills and/or group work in a fast-paced environment. (It can also help ‘wake up’ students at 9am on a Monday morning!)
The teacher can use visual communication to generate discussion in non-textual ways to put across ideas such as graphs (secondary data findings), pictures (ethnographic research) and objects. Object-based learning is often implemented in museum or archaeology studies and can provide an innovative and unique, hands-on learning experience (Hannan et al. 2016). This pedagogy can also be applied to a range of other disciplines and contexts (see the case study discussion on object-based assessment below). This approach provides students an opportunity to examine the evidence and to draw conclusions.
Lectures can be made interdisciplinary. Inviting guest speakers or staff from other departments and people working in NGOs, the business sector and government brings students a valuable diversity. Students are able to engage with people with different experience and skill levels (e.g. early career versus experienced staff), as well as from different ethnic and social backgrounds, helping to raise students’ social awareness.
3.2 Seminar activity
Lectures are often combined with an hour-long seminar in small groups. Seminar work offers students an opportunity to discuss the lecture points in detail, ask for clarification and become an active participant.
Group research projects can be used as a major form of pedagogy. The project can run over one term, building on the course content, or be a weekly/fortnightly project to prepare work for a given seminar. In addition to learning together, students will engage in a range of other research-related activities such as the organisation of the workload, information gathering and the dissemination of findings in the form of a presentation to the seminar group or in writing.
Oral presentations can be innovative by using tools such as Pecha Kucha, a presentation style aimed at keeping information fast-paced and concise. Students can present up to 20 slides for up to 20 seconds each, giving a maximum presentation time of 6 minutes and 40 seconds. This pushes students to synthesise work and prioritise discussion points. It also hones their presentation skills, encouraging them to present information clearly and concisely to a particular audience.
Seminar activities can also be prepared a week ahead by giving students a task such as literature searches on a specific topic or a question that will form the basis of the group discussion. This can be coupled with individual short presentations of findings to the rest of the group.
Debates can encourage students to formulate and articulate particular arguments (requiring them to research different topics/questions), and can facilitate interaction between two or more groups.
3.3 Assessment
Assessment in research-based teaching can contribute to two points: first, it allows the teacher to evaluate students’ knowledge; and second, it can become the basis for examining whether or not the key skills focused on during the term/course/module have been acquired by the students. The latter point requires teachers to approach assessment in an innovative way (Biggs and Tang 2011).
Term assessment can be a short research project linked to enhancing community life (e.g. researching a particular aspect relevant to the local community). In doing so, students could connect with their/local neighbourhoods, akin to voluntary and charity work. Students then have an opportunity to spend a considerable amount of time in the ‘real world’.
Assessment can be research-based. For example, an event reported in the news can be used as a basis for a comparative discourse analysis involving at least two news sources.2
Peer-assessment (often used to transfer assessment ownership to students) can be used to enhance writing skills (e.g. structure, grammar and proofreading) as well as constructive critiquing and critical-thinking skills.
3.4 Beyond the classroom
Becoming part of research projects sets up a workplace culture and environment (both academic and non-academic) where people collaborate on common goals. This requires sharing information, communicating, reflecting on the team’s work and taking responsibility for one’s own tasks and objectives. Building learning environments beyond the classroom can therefore provide research opportunities for students. For example, involving students in the research of departmental staff can contribute to their work experience and enhance their social as well as other key skills such as team work, the ability to follow guidelines and working under management. Student seminar activities can be made an integral part of a research project of a member of staff.
Business partners can also be involved (‘business’ understood in broad terms). For example, student research projects (e.g. the fourth-year project and/or final-year dissertation) can be linked to the needs of a particular business. This will build relationships between the HE institution and local businesses, and give students the opportunity to engage with the job market and develop their research skills (such as reviewing the literature and data collection, which are skills transferable to the workplace). This ‘real-world’ experience and networking also provides an opportunity for future internships with community groups, government or industry.
I am well aware that some of the above points will require detailed planning and time, involvement of staff across the university and, most importantly, a willingness to bring about change for the sake of student employability. However, many of these elements can be implemented at a personal level. Teachers can start preparing their students for the workplace by becoming an intentional research-active teacher. This means that teachers design courses/modules specifically to equip students with the research skills that are transferable to the workplace. Of course, it will not be possible to incorporate all of the skills identified earlier. However, by becoming intentional research-active teachers, we will ensure that student employability is part of our teacher practice.
4. Challenges in connecting students with the real world
Any teacher committed to implementing the above changes will necessarily engage in a difficult task. There are several elements that need to be accounted for, such as teachers’ understanding of non-academic workplaces, student diversity and supply and demand in the labour market. Here, I will discuss five points that I consider to be the most essential in successfully implementing research-based teaching for the purpose of enhancing students’ employability skills.
Let us start with the students, and more precisely the issue of convincing students. This is particularly true for certain degrees that do not necessarily include academic research work, whether teacher-led or student-led. It is very important to present the value of research to students, and signpost them to resources and the actual steps towards performing research. It is not all about learning how to do a job, but it is also about understanding and addressing the inherent complexities of any job, which is possible through the development of research skills such as critical inquiry and problem-solving. Moreover, the changes should come gradually and consistently so that students are not scared off. This involves reflecting on timing and implementation of these teaching methods across classes. Students have, after all, high expectations of what they will gain after a three-year-long and expensive investment (Woodall et al. 2014). If they do not see the (immediate) benefit of engaging in innovative teaching and learning, they might not respond to the material and study format presented to them nor realise the usefulness of their research skills beyond academia.
Another challenge is related to opportunities to gain work experience or engage in the research activity of departmental staff, which can be higher in ‘hard’ disciplines than in ‘soft’ ones. For example, a chemistry student might get a chance to work in their teacher’s laboratory, whereas a sociology student would not necessarily be able to conduct semi-structured interviews with/for their teacher. Interdisciplinary collaboration across departments or institutions might be an answer to this challenge. Building stronger partnerships with local businesses, government and NGOs can also contribute to minimising the ‘disadvantages’ associated with certain disciplines’ study format (especially those which are not applied disciplines).
Similarly, departmental culture and even the university’s policy can very strongly influence the research–teaching nexus. For example, in universities focused on teaching excellence, priority is given to student learning, leaving less time for staff to conduct research. To further complicate the situation, university staff also need to consider government policies such as the introduction of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and the more recently announced Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). Since 2008, the REF exercises have shifted the priority from teaching to research in the majority of HE institutions in the UK. Arguably then, research-active teaching staff might not be able to devote the time and effort necessary for the provision of quality teaching and learning. This is an issue that is often raised by students (i.e. the availability of research-active academics). Likewise, questions are often raised about their research-active academic competencies and whether or not they are ‘good’ teachers. With the implementation of TEF exercises, HE institutions will need to consider excellence equally in both teaching and research, thus ensuring that teaching and research remain mutually productive.
Another important question is who can initiate change? As an early career academic, can I be the strongest in implementing change or in suggesting new ideas to often more experienced and senior colleagues? Or to a department well set in its pedagogy? I do not think so. Teamwork (between newly qualified and experienced staff) can provide a platform for collaborations and a voice to (new) student-turned-academic enthusiasts (like me!).
The final point of reflection is on the actual study format and context. When should students engage in research? During their first or second year? This decision will of course vary according to disciplines. For example, in education studies, Year 1 is dedicated to imparting knowledge. This foundation is deemed important as the work in Year 2 is built upon the Year 1 work. Yet, inquiry-based learning needs to be implemented as early as possible so that students can be familiar with this learning approach and see the benefits for their future employment. This acknowledges that it takes times for students to become familiar with a mode of learning and master the required skills. An important point to remember is that the research process can be lengthy and is non-linear. Skills are built gradually and strengthened over time; a reality that further advocates implementing research-based teaching as early as possible.
As stated earlier, these are only a few of the many challenges that academic staff may face while engaging in innovative research-based teaching and learning. Although it will take time to alter a whole institution’s culture, small changes within a department, course or even from an individual teacher can be a great step forward.
5. Getting ready for an ever-changing economy: rethinking learning in higher education
In discussing all the benefits and challenges associated with including research in teaching for the sake of students’ employability, I made one significant assumption: Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) should prepare students for the labour market (especially students in non-professional degrees). Let’s admit it: the UK government has long removed itself from any duties towards young people (deemed irresponsible and blamed for their struggle and failure, especially if they do not buy into the myth of the knowledge economy) (Tomlinson 2008). So is it really the role of HEIs to solve all these issues for young people in a world ruled by individualisation? Are educational institutions not supposed to uphold, and therefore exclusively be responsible for, the role of nurturing knowledge? At the same time, in a world where young people (and graduates) are required to become resilient, show flexibility and adaptability, is it wrong to raise our expectations of what HEIs can deliver? Education should not be limited to formal education. Several of the transferable research skills and personal attributes referred to earlier are indeed lifelong skills (such as critical thinking, social skills, the ability to be resourceful). So how do we re-envision HEIs?
Reshaping pedagogy in all disciplines, so that there is a greater emphasis on active and inquiry-based learning, will make university education move beyond the current instrumental use. This starts with making degrees interdisciplinary, and providing students with a sound foundation in lifelong learning education. This new vision, although ambitious, would build a learning environment suited for non-linear life trajectories (Aspin et al. 2001).
Interdisciplinary changes should not be limited to just the academic disciplines, but ideally should involve a university-wide opening up of doors to industry, government and charitable organisations for all degree programmes, professional and non-professional. Although effort and decision-making will still lie with students, universities can provide a platform for exchange between the ‘real world’ and the academy.
Links with other educational institutions should also become the norm rather than a subject-specific requirement. Connecting skills across the educational spectrum is another area where university teachers can be self-reflective of their practice. University teachers should work to build stronger relationships between high school, further education colleges and other universities. This would ensure that skills are developed over a lengthy period of time and more consistently. University and high-school teachers can work together in setting up common practices for recurrent activities throughout a person’s student life (e.g. effectively communicating the presentation of findings). This would not only ensure that learning leans towards a lifelong process (at least while in the educational system), but also that students have a longer period of time to master and perfect their skills.
So where does all of this leave me (or us now, since I hope to have triggered avenues of reflections)? Research-based education is a valuable pedagogy that, if implemented intentionally, can contribute to the success of university students within and beyond academia. In the long run, it will provide students with an opportunity to identify and develop skills useful for their future workplace (and with time, for life). Yes, this will require a fundamental re-thinking of the role of the twenty-first-century HE sector and call for the strength of more than one individual and department. All of this is unlikely to happen overnight. To be more realistic, both staff and student motivation are crucial, but it starts with (a team of) teachers who would see the benefit that research-based education can bring to students and the academic community. Self-awareness will therefore be primordial in beginning this journey.
Case study: Object-based teaching and learning as innovative assessment in undergraduate education studies
I joined the Education Department at Middlesex University to teach youth studies to final-year students. Although I had gained previous experience as a postgraduate teaching assistant, this was my first comprehensive teaching role post-PhD. I was very excited to know that I was to work with a very forward-looking module leader who could not stop thinking of different ways to make teaching more interactive to raise student engagement levels. One of the areas we worked on was innovative assessment. Since then, I have implemented this practice in my roles at Birkbeck and now at the University of Birmingham. I will discuss, here, my students’ Term 2 assessment (at Middlesex University), a design implemented for the first time in the department: a critical analysis of an artefact related to youth in the form of a presentation. Lost? Let me explain.
For their individual fifteen-minute presentation followed by a short Q/A session with two moderators and me, all students were required to use an artefact (defined as a physical object, visual aid, piece of music and/or film extract) and critically discuss it by bringing in youth-related theoretical frameworks, relevant research work and political debates. This assessment was built on several transferable research skills: innovating, attitude of inquiry, resourcefulness, debating, ability to apply knowledge, and presentation and communication (see Section 3, ‘Research-based teaching equals building employability skills’, for more information on these skills).
Novelty in teaching can be perceived as a ‘no-go’ area, especially for final-year students (who have other priorities than engaging in their teacher’s experiments!); or it can be completely welcomed by students. There is no middle ground. From my own experience, let me admit: ‘no!’ and even ‘never!’ were the overwhelming student reactions.
Yes, my students felt thrown into the unknown (at first). They had other issues to worry about such as their dissertations, and other ‘traditional’ assessments to prepare for (presumably requiring a known and well-rehearsed intellectual effort applicable to all exams). Nevertheless, I managed to reassure or at least minimise my students’ fears by doing the following:
I modelled the exercise in class; this gave students an opportunity to see exactly what was expected of them (for information, I used a game controller to discuss youth culture and consumption).
I led several formative sessions where students were able to get peer feedback and also practise their presentation. Many also took advantage of the sessions to brainstorm with their peers.
I shared a clear set of assessment guidelines with students and also verbally explained and discussed these in class, highlighting the learning outcomes. This allowed students to ask further questions and raise any concerns they had well before the assessment date.
Most importantly, I signposted the students: I explained in detail all the skills they already had and that were transferable to this particular assessment. These included presentation skills (communication, body language, eye contact), use of presentation software (PowerPoint and Prezi) and engaging in critical discussion of the artefact (akin to writing a critical essay).
Jobs are not for life; students need to be ready to adapt quickly and respond quickly to the demands of the labour market. I believe that the above assessment did exactly that. Innovative research-based assessments build resilience among students, which is crucial in an ever-changing world. It breaks the routine by setting up new challenges, calling for students to think (or in this case act) ‘differently’.
Note
1.These were a series of major reports that looked into the future of higher education in the UK and were published in 1997. They constituted the second largest inquiry on HE commissioned by the then Conservative Government. The major recommendation was related to funding of undergraduate degrees, which led to the introduction of tuition fees by the then Labour Government in 1998.
2.See Gee (2014) for an introduction to discourse analysis.
References
Allen, D., Donham, R. and Bernhardt, S. 2011. Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Winter 2011, 21–9.
Andrews, J. and Higson, H. 2008. Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business knowledge: A European study. Higher Education in Europe 33, 411–22.
Aspin, D.N., Chapman, J. D., Hatton, M., Sawano, Y. (eds). 2001. International Handbook of Lifelong Learning. New York: Springer.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.
Brew, A. 2010. Imperatives and challenges in integrating teaching and research. Higher Education Research & Development 29, 139–50.
Brown, P., Hesketh, A. and Williams, S. 2003. Employability in a knowledge driven economy. Journal of Education and Work 16, 107–26.
Dearing, R. 1997. Higher Education in the Learning Society. London. Available at: dearing1997.html. [Accessed 1 July 2016].
The Economist. 2017. Growing Competition Between Universities is Changing Student Life. Available at: 21717402-universities-must-now-battle-each- other-attract-students-how-changing-them-growing. [Accessed 2 August 2017].
Foley, B. and Brinkley, I. 2015. Unemployed and Overqualified?: Graduates in the UK Labour Market. London: Work Foundation.
Furedi, F. 2011. Introduction to the marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer. In Molesworth, M., Scullion, R. and Nixon, E. (eds) The Marketisation of Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Gee, J.P. 2014. How to Do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit. Abingdon: Routledge.Gill, R. 2014. Academics, cultural workers and critical labour studies. Journal of Cultural Economy 7, 12–30.
Grasha, A. 2002. The dynamics of one-on-one teaching. College Teaching, 50, 139–46.
Hannafin M. J., Hill, J. R., Land, S. M. and Lee, E. 2013. Student-centered, open learning environments: Research, theory, and practice. In Spector J., Merrill, M., Elen, J. and Bishop, M. (eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology. New York: Springer.
Hannan, L., Duhs, R. and Chatterjee, H. 2016. Object-based learning: A powerful pedagogy for higher education. In Boys, J. (ed.) Museums and Higher Education Working Together: Challenges and Opportunities. London: Routledge.
Healey, M. 2005. Linking research and teaching to benefit student learning. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 29, 183–201.
Heinz, Walter R. (2004). From work trajectories to negotiated careers: The contingent work life course. In Mortimer, Jeylan T. and Shanahan, Michael J. (eds) Handbook of the Life Course. New York: Springer.
Lauder, H., Young, M., Daniels, H., Balarin, M. and Lowe, J. 2012. Educating for the Knowledge Economy? London: Routledge.
McDonald, S. and Thompson, A. 2016. What happens if you graduate in a recession? HEFCE. Available at: [Accessed 2 August 2017].
McGrath, W. 1978. Relationships between hard/soft, pure/applied, and life/nonlife disciplines and subject book use in a university library. Information Processing & Management 14, 17–28.
McLinden, M., Edwards, C., Garfield, J. and Moron-Garcia, S. 2015. Strengthening the links between research and teaching: Cultivating student expectations of research-informed teaching approaches’. Education in Practice 2, 24–9.
Molesworth, M., Scullion, R. and Nixon, E. (eds). 2011. The Marketisation of Higher Education. London: Routledge.
Murray, J., Lachowsky, N. and Green, N. 2017. Enquiry-based learning online: Course development and student experience of a first-year enquiry-based learning seminar. CELT 10, 129–42.
OECD. 1996. The Knowledge-Based Economy. Paris: OECD.
Schapper, J. and Mayson. S. 2010. Research-led teaching: moving from a fractured engagement to a marriage of convenience. Higher Education Research & Development, 29, 641–51.
Tomlinson, M. 2008. ‘The degree is not enough’: Students’ perceptions of the role of higher education credentials for graduate work and employability. British Journal of Sociology of Education 29, 49–61.
Woodall, T., Hiller, A. and Resnick, S. 2014. Making sense of higher education: Students as consumers and the value of the university experience. Studies in Higher Education 39, 48–67.
Ziniel, Curtis E. and Ghalib, Asad K. 2016. Research Informed Teaching – A Mixed Methods Approach to Assessing Perception and Practice Within a Higher Education Setting. Sage, Sage Case Studies Online. Available at: . [Accessed 2 August 2017].
2.10.Connecting graduates with the real world: Transferring research-based skills to the workplace
Previous Chapter
Next Chapter
Additional Information
Project MUSE Mission
Project MUSE promotes the creation and dissemination of essential humanities and social science resources through collaboration with libraries, publishers, and scholars worldwide. Forged from a partnership between a university press and a library, Project MUSE is a trusted part of the academic and scholarly community it serves.
