Employability as Educational Performance Indicator

Employability as Educational Performance Indicator description of EmployabilityEmployability has been use as a public reconcileation indication for high precept institutions (Smith et al, 2000) and represents a form of work specific (pro) active adaptability that consists of three dimensions c beer identity, personal adaptability and social and human capital (Fugate et al, 2004). At the same time, horse and Yorke (2004) collect ordain forward the four broad and interlocking components of USEM key out of employabilityUnderstanding (of the subject discipline)Skilful practices in contextEfficacy beliefsMeta-cognitionNabi (2003) mentioned that employability is nigh graduates possessing an appropriate level of skills and attributes, and being able to use them to gain and outride in appropriate custom. From a human resource set aboutment view, employability is a fancy that emerged through the 1990s along with a growing cognizance among employees that they green goddessnot c ount on their employers for long-term purpose. Employability is a promise to employees that they volition have the skills to find new jobs quickly if their jobs end unexpectedly (Baruch, 2001). Prior to this, Harvey (2001) has be employability in various ways from individual and institutional perspectives. Individual employability is specify as graduates being able to demonstrate the attributes to obtain jobs. Commonly, institutional employability relates to the employment rates of the university graduates. However, Harvey argued that employment outcomes of graduates are not an indicator of institutional employability. He presented an employability-development model sh feature in Figure 1. The model illustrated a multi-perspectives view of employability with every related stake-holders.Employability and Higher Education Key issuesDespite the burgeoning research on employability and availability of a wide range of models purporting to explain it, employability itself carcass a contentious concept open to a plethora of micro-interpretations (Harvey, 2003). This can start out the task of curriculum development particularly difficult. p5The growing importance of employability tally to McNair (2003), graduate employability has become a more(prenominal) important issue for institutions. This is because of the changing nature of the graduate proletariat market, kettle of fish corporation in HE, pressures on pupil finance, competition to recruit educatees and expectations of students, employers, parents and government (expressed in quality study and league tables).On a broader level, it has been noted that higher education, through the contemporaries and dissemination of knowledge, directly impacts economic competitiveness on a content and international level (Brown et al, 2003 CIHE, 2003 UUK, 2007 DIUS, 2008).The significance of the UK HE constitution to the wider economy has been slackly acknowledged since the Robbins Report was published in 1963 . However, this relationship has been made more explicit in recent years and it was with the publication of the Dearing Report (1997) that the tie-up found prominent expression. Dearing strongly expressed the carry for a globally competitive economy containing highly skilled, highly trained and highly motivate graduates who could perform effectively on the worlds stage. This coupled with the further development of human-capital possibleness (Becker, 1975), which asserts that one role of government is to provide and nurture conditions which will outgrowth the pool of skilled moil, has created a fertile forum for the discourse of employability to flourish.The changing nature of the graduate-labour market Dearing (1997) offerd that learning should be increasingly antiphonary to employment needs and include the development of general skills, widely treasured in employment however, the labour market is changing dramatically and at a much faster pace than in the past. Emerging mark ets and speedy refinement of the knowledge economy means that the same set of employability skills which were in ingest ten or even five years past whitethorn not be containd in the evolving graduate-employment market. Employers are increasingly seeking flexible recruits who can work effectively in the de-layered, down-sized, information-technology set and innovative organisations in existence today (Harvey et al, 1997 1).Employers are seeking mess who can do more than just respond to change, they need those who can lead change. McNair (2003) comments on the speed of labour-market development and notes that a higher destiny of the workforce is employed in small and medium enterprises (SMEs), a hack also reflected in graduate-employment statistics. While this may offer opportunities to gain archeozoic responsibility in less structured and hierarchical work environments, graduates need to have the skills to create rewarding graduate roles role in what Purcell and Elias (2004) interrelate to as niche-graduate occupations. Niche-graduate occupations are those where the majority of incumbents are not graduates, but in spite of appearance which in that location are stable or growing specialiser niches that require higher education skills and knowledge (Purcell and Elias, 2003 5).Students on that pointfore need to be fit with skills which enable them to grow jobs to graduate level. HE has been criticised by whatsoever as being too slow to recognise the changing nature of the labour market and is producing graduates who are ill equipped to deal with the realities of graduate employment (CBI, 2006).Government policy to widen participation in HE, aiming to increase the semblance of 18-30 year olds to 50 per cent by 2010, will no precariousness have a significant impact on the supply of graduates in the labour market. According to Elias and Purcell (2004) participation rates in UK HE most doubled in the decade 1991-2001, from 1.2 million students to 2.1 million. Such rapid expansion has raised carry ons that the increase in the number of highly qualified individuals may not be coupled with an equivalent rise in convey for their skills and qualifications (Brown and Hesketh, 2004 Brynin, 2002 Keep and Mayhew, 1996, 1999 in Elias and Purcell, 2004). While Elias and Purcell (2004) conclude that the expansion of HE at the end of the twentieth century has been primarily positive, Purcell et al (2005 16) express veneration that the fit between the supply of graduates and employers demand for their knowledge and skills clearly move some way short of ideal.There are mixed reports near whether demand for graduates will be affected by increasing participation in higher education. The supply of graduates has been steadily rising and in that respect were 258,000 graduates in 1997 compared with 319,000 in 2007 (HESA, 2007). Despite rising numbers leaving HE, according to DIUS (2008), demand for graduates remains high and the latest report by the Association of have Recruiters (AGR 2007) suggests that the number of graduate vacancies increased by 15.1 per cent in 2007. two DIUS and AGR do however raise concerns about the mismatch between what employers are looking for and the skills graduates possess (see Chapter 2 for a more detailed compend of skills). Despite much controversy about the impact of increasing student numbers, it is indisputable that graduates are face up a changing, more competitive labour market and they need to be prepared accordingly.The changing nature of the higher education landscapeBeyond pressures facing graduates in the labour market, universities are facing increasing demands to account for what they do and prospective students and parents are enough discerning customers when shopping for the most suitable HEI (McNair, 2003). Given the importance of employability in the equation, institutions cannot overlook the significance of develop this aspect of provision. Allison et al (2002) al lude to the pressures facing HEIs as evidenced by the publication of increasing numbers of performance indicators and guidance documents such(prenominal) as the QAA Code of Practice for Careers Education, Information and steering (2001) and the Harris Review of Careers Services (2001).Yorke and Knight (2002 4) have expressed some concern about the way in which statistics on employment rates used in league tables can distract HEIs from the important task of enhancing employability. They state thatonce employment rates become an institutional performance indicator (HEFCE, 2001), there is a pernicious backwash as institutions seek to cleanse their scores since they know that these scores will end up in the so-called league tables published in the press.Consequentlythere is a danger that maximising the score will command more institutional attention than fulfilling the educational aim of enhancing employability.Higher Education in the UK has deceased through considerable change durin g the last two decades. The move from an elitist system to one of mass participation has been highly significant. Shelley (2005) indicates that the number of 18-30 year olds in HE rose from 12 per cent in the 1980s to 43 per cent by 2002. This he points out has not been matched with commensurate levels of documentation and between 1977 and 1997 government expenditure per student fell by 40 per cent. In recent years however funding levels have ameliorate with HEFCE announcing a figure of 6,706 million in recurrent funding for 2006-07 to universities and colleges in England (HEFCE, 2006).Increased funding levels have led to systems of accountability being put in place. These in turn have led to the development of managerial practices intended to promote new efficiency and customer-focused, customer-led policy frameworks which should fit supremacy in a new competitive market. In the eyes of commentators such as Bekhradnia (2005) the last decade has seen a mixture of successes and f ailures of managerial initiatives.For some commentators (e.g. Brown and lauder, 1999 Green, 1993) these policy directives coupled with the emphasis placed on the percentage of HE to the global economy has led to the marketisation and the commodification of HE and its teaching. Brown and Lauder (1999) contend that there has been a movement towards a neo-Fordist improvement to HE in which teaching and learning is now emulating the Fordist manufacturing processes of the early twentieth century. This concept was characterised by the production assembly line just-in-time unitisation production methods of manufacturing industries. For HE this manifests itself in several ways which Brown and Lauder describe as learner organisations with emphasis on numerical flexibility (i.e. outcome-related education and cost-driven agendas), mass production of standardised products (i.e. modularisation/unitisation of curricula), and emphasis on quality systems to ensure standardisation which result in a bland mechanistic go steady of learning. p9Given the apparent consensus among the key stakeholders about which skills are important and on the need to address employability in HE, it counts strange that there is so olive-sized commonality in approaches taken by universities to enhance employability. There remains considerable debate on how best enhancement of employability can be achieved, and indeed the extent to which HE can influence this aspect of student development. In an extensive review of HE provision, Little (2004 4) concludes that while there isinternational concern that higher education should enhance graduate employability, there is little evidence of systematic thinking about how best to do it, let alone any model that can be badged as best practice and adopted wholesale.Developing a common soul of how to enhance employability is a highly complex issue, although Knight (2001) believes government and others stick around in treating it in much the same way as inno vation, as something simple, to be planned, delivered and evaluated (Knight, 2001 cited in Lees, 2002 1).Attempting to form a coordinated and holistic approach to skill development, government has introduced many programmes and initiatives to promote skill development and these seem to have had some impact. The DfEE Higher Education Projects Fund 1998-2000, for example, included projects to develop key and transferable skills and Harvey, Locke and Morey (2002) have reviewed the trends in institutions approaches to embedding employability. They note that there has been a shift in HE from developing the specific employability skills within specialist modules to a more holistic approach where institutions are embedding employability and skills throughout the curriculum. They present examples of employability initiatives from different HEIs which were highly varied and based on differing philosophies.Perhaps it is ineluctable that institutions and even individual departments and academ ics will vary widely in their approaches to developing employability as they will be operating in the context of their own frame of reference about education, and will be dealing with students who will vary hugely in their ability and ambitions. However, it is clear from the research on employability skills that the attributes which employers value and educators recognise as important are very similar, and there is hope that such consensus in thinking can contribute to a more coherent approach to curriculum development.