The Australian Government has proposed a National Skills Passport (NSP) to provide a central digital source for an individual’s qualifications, certifications and skills. There is constant debate around the responsibility of universities to prepare graduates for the workforce not just with disciplinary competencies but also with skills directly applicable in an employment scenario. This paper aims to explore the role played by universities in articulating the non-technical skills of their students and consider their utility in a new NSP.
This scoping review encompasses academic literature, grey literature, expert interviews, and peer-to-peer dialogue in an interdisciplinary, innovative educative partnering of academic-industry-student. This methodology was adopted to broaden the remit of the research, and the recency of the Australian Government announcement necessitated outreach to understand stakeholder perspectives and shed light on areas not yet fully explored in academic literature.
The review finds that despite their ubiquity in Australian higher education, institution-stated ‘graduate attributes’ struggle to resonate with both students and industry. An NSP provides an opportunity for higher education institutions to reframe the content, disciplinary connection and usage of these attributes, delivering tangible buy-in from industry and amplifying the likelihood of adoption by students as the first users of the Passport.
This study brought together an industry organisation, the Universities Admissions Centre (“UAC”), the University of Sydney and its students in partnership to consider this complex problem in an experiential, interdisciplinary work-based learning environment. It is believed to be the first demonstrable output of academia-student-industry co-designed scholarly research on this topic, activating student agency in this manner, in Australia.
1. Introduction and background
The National Skills Passport (“NSP”) is an initiative proposed by the Australian Government that aims to redefine how skills and qualifications are documented, shared and verified throughout the nation. Announced in September 2023 as part of the Employment White Paper (The Treasury, 2023), the NSP is envisioned as a comprehensive digital portfolio of an individual’s skills, certifications and competencies across both vocational education and training (VET) and higher education sectors (The Treasury, 2023).
According to the National Skills Passport Consultation Paper (Department of Education, 2024b), the NSP would focus on skills and competencies, as opposed to solely qualification outcomes. It aims to bridge the gap between education and employment, acting as a practical support system for individuals and employers alike. For individuals, the NSP will provide a digital record of qualifications, technical certifications and non-technical skills, facilitating job search activity as well as opportunities for upskilling or reskilling. Employers will benefit from streamlined processes if a certified record can be provided that is easily portable. For the government, the NSP aligns with broader policy objectives of promoting lifelong learning, addressing skills shortages, and fostering a dynamic and inclusive labour market (Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, 2023).
Tertiary institutions will play a critical role in assisting their graduates to articulate the non-technical skills to be captured by an NSP. The Australian Government aims to increase the proportion of adults aged 25 to 34 with a tertiary qualification from 45% to 55% by 2050 (Department of Education, 2024a), framing institutions as the primary educators of the workforce. Whilst Australian universities have created “graduate qualities” (Naqvi, 2021), also commonly known as “graduate attributes”, almost as a charter of promise to industry as to the characteristics possessed by graduates of that institution, there remains a disconnect:
Martin and Mahat (2017) reported from their research that across the bulk of surveyed universities in Australia, whilst professing graduate qualities or similarly-worded characteristics on their public-facing websites and in programme [sic] documentation, most actually did very little measuring of student attainment of these qualities. (Naqvi, 2021, p. 45)
This disconnect arises in part because the communication of workforce-relevant skills, often termed “soft skills”, is not systematically embedded in the educational experiences of university students (Sharma, 2018).
These qualities are essential for sustained success by ensuring individuals who possess these skills have the flexibility and career resilience to contribute meaningfully to a dynamic workforce (Bellos et al., 2024; Sharma, 2018). As Western society now reflects a trend towards non-linear career paths, where individuals navigate multiple roles and industries throughout their lives (Mainiero and Gibson, 2018), this calls for clear, accessible ways for individuals to identify and showcase their competencies, ensuring they can transition between jobs and disciplines with ease.
In light of the NSP development, the co-authors of this paper consider it valuable to re-examine and explore the role of graduate qualities in higher education institutions in developing non-technical, or employability, skills as part of entry into the workforce.
The advent of the NSP concept occurs at a time of a “credibility gap” for Australian higher education institutions. Singh et al. (2014) reported the industry belief that graduates lack skills such as teamwork, problem-solving, critical thinking and communication. University research partnerships with industry are found to be problematic due to cultural differences between the two parties (Berman, 2008). Only 37% of 18-year-olds choose university as a post-secondary school destination (Learning Creates Australia, 2023). Even the bastion of industry-tertiary institution connection – internships and placements – are showing signs of fraying under shifting expectations from students (Naqvi, 2024).
Efforts to bridge this gap continue. Scholars such as Villarroel et al. (2018) note the shift to authentic assessment in higher education to cultivate the “softer” skills of negotiation, situational analysis, risk management and evaluation. Yet the problem persists. STEM students, for example, were found to increasingly lack some of the non-technical skills deemed essential in the workplace, such as collaboration and conflict resolution (Karimi and Pina, 2021).
This scoping review study aims to examine contemporary studies and perspectives from a variety of sources in a unique co-authored paper between academia, industry and higher education students who will likely be the first users of any NSP in Australia. It was conducted and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR statement.
This paper continues as follows: section two elucidates the research question. It also details the methodologies used, including the project approach, search strategy, selection criteria and quality assessment of the included data sources. Section three presents the results of data extraction with an overview and descriptive analysis. Finally, section four will discuss the research results, including limitations of this study and recommendations for further research.
2. Research question and methodologies
2.1 Research question
This study is guided by these overall questions: “what role do the graduate attributes promoted by Australian higher education institutions play in developing non-technical skills of their students? What considerations exist for their use in a new NSP?”
Graduate attributes, sometimes known as “graduate qualities” in Australia, can be defined as “skills, knowledge and abilities of university graduates, beyond disciplinary content knowledge, which are applicable to a range of contexts” (Barrie, 2004, p. 62).
2.2 Project approach
This project commenced in June 2024 under the parameters of a capstone work-integrated learning subject (Pattison et al., 2023).
The project followed a four-phase approach aligned to the Double Diamond framework (Design Council, 2024). Figure 1 illustrates the framework.
The illustration shows two diamonds arranged in a horizontal series, with the four edges of each diamond composed of individual clockwise arrows. Each diamond is divided into two equal vertical sections via a dashed vertical line. From left to right, the four sections are labeled as follows: “Discover” and “Define” in the first diamond, and “Develop” and “Deliver” in the second diamond. A text box is positioned below the diamonds. The corresponding text for the four categories within the text box is as follows: “Discover: The first diamond helps people understand, rather than simply assume, what the problem is. It involves speaking to and spending time with people who are affected by the issues.” “Define: The insight gathered from the discovery phase can help you to define the challenge in a different way.” “Develop: The second diamond encourages people to give different answers to the clearly defined problem, seeking inspiration from elsewhere and co-designing with a range of different people.” “Deliver: Delivery involves testing out different solutions at small-scale, rejecting those that will not work and improving the ones that will.”Double diamond framework. Figure courtesy of Design Council (2024)
The illustration shows two diamonds arranged in a horizontal series, with the four edges of each diamond composed of individual clockwise arrows. Each diamond is divided into two equal vertical sections via a dashed vertical line. From left to right, the four sections are labeled as follows: “Discover” and “Define” in the first diamond, and “Develop” and “Deliver” in the second diamond. A text box is positioned below the diamonds. The corresponding text for the four categories within the text box is as follows: “Discover: The first diamond helps people understand, rather than simply assume, what the problem is. It involves speaking to and spending time with people who are affected by the issues.” “Define: The insight gathered from the discovery phase can help you to define the challenge in a different way.” “Develop: The second diamond encourages people to give different answers to the clearly defined problem, seeking inspiration from elsewhere and co-designing with a range of different people.” “Deliver: Delivery involves testing out different solutions at small-scale, rejecting those that will not work and improving the ones that will.”Double diamond framework. Figure courtesy of Design Council (2024)
The Double Diamond framework was chosen for this project due to its effectiveness in structuring design and innovation processes. It is also useful in an interdisciplinary context (Kochanowska et al., 2021), which aligns with the composition of this research team, hailing from the disciplines of communication, science, public policy, English literature, pharmacology, gender studies and accounting (Tarkang et al., 2017).
The framework consists of four phases – Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver. The work was guided by these phases as the research team conducted the scoping review, ensuring an understanding of the complexities surrounding graduate attributes, their usage and implementation. It also maximised engagement opportunities with stakeholders, ensuring that any onward discussions occur through a lens of viability, desirability and feasibility.
2.3 Research methods and justifications
In seeking to establish a breadth of research methodologies for the project to capture as diverse insights as possible for the review, the team decided to map the chosen research methodologies to the phases of the Double Diamond model. Table 1 details the methods chosen by phase, with accompanying justification.
Overview of chosen research methods for the study, mapped to the double diamond model
| Phase | Research method | Justification |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1: Discover | Systematic literature search (incl. grey literature) | Provides a comprehensive overview of existing knowledge, identifies gaps, and establishes a theoretical foundation for further research (Murdoch University, 2024) |
| Online questionnaire | Allows for easy distribution to a large sample size and collection of both quantitative and qualitative data, enabling efficient data gathering and analysis (Regmi et al., 2017). Convenience and snowball sampling used | |
| Expert interviews | Offers insights from education experts, providing valuable context and specialised knowledge to inform the research (Bogner et al., 2009) | |
| Quantitative analysis (Descriptive Statistics) | Enables statistical analysis of numerical data, identifying patterns and trends to support evidence-based decision-making (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). Microsoft Excel was used | |
| Phase 2: Define | Empathy mapping | Used to understand and identify recurring themes in qualitative data, providing deeper insights into user needs, emotions and behaviours (Pileggi, 2021) |
| Thematic analysis | Allows for systematic organisation and analysis of qualitative interview data, facilitating the identification of key themes and supporting evidence (Nowell et al., 2017) | |
| Ideation design process | Using the requirements identified, it enables continuous improvement through repeated cycles of design, testing, and refinement, leading to more effective and user-centred solutions (Tomitsch et al., 2021) | |
| Phase 3: Develop | Brainstorming technique | Encourages creative thinking and the generation of diverse ideas, fostering innovation and problem-solving. The specific approach adopting the “SCAMPER” acronym (Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, and Reverse) detailed in Tomitsch et al. (2021) was used in a similar research project looking at undergraduate student perceptions of employability (Sarkar et al., 2017) |
| Stakeholder feedback loops | Ensures ongoing input from key stakeholders, promoting alignment with user needs and organisational goals (Freeman, 1984) | |
| Phase 4: Deliver | In-person workshops | Enables collaborative learning and idea generation in an educational setting, fostering engagement and diverse perspectives (Tomitsch et al., 2021) Re-engages the primary stakeholders of the project and invites them to continue to contribute towards emergent thinking (Freeman, 1984; Tomitsch et al., 2021) |
Phase 1
2.3.1 Search strategy for scholarly works
The authors conducted a structured literature search in the following databases: ERIC, A+ and Google Scholar with the assistance of a university librarian. Additional databases such as Web of Science and JSTOR were used in a more formative manner by the project team to provide the student co-authors with an opportunity to develop their skill in developing a search strategy using specific databases.
The team chose the five-step procedure of Arksey and O’Malley (2005) for this scoping review:
Identify the research question;
Identify relevant studies;
Select studies using the PRISMA protocol;
Chart the data and,
Collate, summarise and report the results.
The research questions (step 1) can be seen in section 2.1 of this paper. For step 2, the team wished to take the opportunity that exists with a scoping review (as compared to a systematic review) by broadening the search beyond academic literature. This also aligned with the interdisciplinary nature of the project team. Thus, multiple steps constituted step 2.
The search strategy involved using numerous free-text terms grounded in the themes of “graduate attributes”, “graduate qualities” and “employability skills”. The team used these exact terms in the A+ database, as this is focused on education research within Australia thus the terminology would be familiar. In the other databases, terms such as “higher education outcomes” were combined using the Boolean operator of AND with concepts such as “soft skills”, “employability” and “graduate preparedness”. As this progressed, terminology variations were identified and incorporated with the Boolean operator OR. This process continued until 29 November 2024.
Project members from the Universities Admissions Centre (“UAC”) provided search support across grey literature such as consultation submissions, government white papers, discussion papers, as well as their own in-house research undertaken by their Business Analytics team. The search results represented the artifacts used by UAC on this topic to fulfil their organisation’s strategic mission and operational objectives.
At Step 3, all search results from the academic databases were exported, as well as business publication sources, and the data were then cleaned to remove duplicates before further analysis. The resultant clean search garnered 2,428 results, then after the application of the selection criteria (see section 2.3.1.1 below), this was reduced to 492 results. Further filtering, using the selection criteria devised by the project team, saw 61 results taken forward to full-text review. The selection criteria were applied in phases as an educative component for the student co-authors in charge of conducting the search strategy. Team members screened a sample of the studies reviewed (n = 18) to confirm the initial determination to accept or reject. Where there was conflict on this point, deliberation occurred until a consensus determination was reached.
At the completion of the full-text review, which was undertaken by four team members, a total of 23 scholarly articles were incorporated into this study. Figure 2 visualises the PRISMA flowchart for the study selection.
The flowchart starts at the top with two boxes arranged in a horizontal series. The text box on the left is labeled “Records identified through database searching (n equals 2428)” and the text box on the right is labeled “Additional records identified through other sources (n equals 18).” Individual downward arrows from each text box lead to a third text box positioned at the center below. It is labeled “Records after duplicates removed (n equals 1172).” A downward arrow from the third text box leads to the fourth text box positioned below, labeled “Records screened (n equals 492).” A rightward arrow points from the fourth text box to the fifth text box, positioned to the right (in a horizontal series with the fourth text box), labeled “Records excluded (n equals 431).” A downward arrow connects the fourth text box to the sixth text box positioned below, labeled “Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n equals 61).” A rightward arrow points from the sixth text box to the seventh text box, positioned to the right (in a horizontal series with the sixth text box), labeled “Full text articles excluded Reason 1: Insufficient connection to R Qs (n equals 19). Reason 2: Lack of clear outcomes (n equals 12). Reason 3: Focus on specific academic disciplines (n equals 7).” A final downward arrow points from the sixth text box to the seventh, labeled “Studies included (n equals 23).”PRISMA flowchart for this study. Figure courtesy of PRISMA, 2020
The flowchart starts at the top with two boxes arranged in a horizontal series. The text box on the left is labeled “Records identified through database searching (n equals 2428)” and the text box on the right is labeled “Additional records identified through other sources (n equals 18).” Individual downward arrows from each text box lead to a third text box positioned at the center below. It is labeled “Records after duplicates removed (n equals 1172).” A downward arrow from the third text box leads to the fourth text box positioned below, labeled “Records screened (n equals 492).” A rightward arrow points from the fourth text box to the fifth text box, positioned to the right (in a horizontal series with the fourth text box), labeled “Records excluded (n equals 431).” A downward arrow connects the fourth text box to the sixth text box positioned below, labeled “Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n equals 61).” A rightward arrow points from the sixth text box to the seventh text box, positioned to the right (in a horizontal series with the sixth text box), labeled “Full text articles excluded Reason 1: Insufficient connection to R Qs (n equals 19). Reason 2: Lack of clear outcomes (n equals 12). Reason 3: Focus on specific academic disciplines (n equals 7).” A final downward arrow points from the sixth text box to the seventh, labeled “Studies included (n equals 23).”PRISMA flowchart for this study. Figure courtesy of PRISMA, 2020
Appendix 1 provides details of the search strategy.
As part of Step 4, the team performed a quality assessment of the included studies. As many of the studies were “close but not quite” in their focus compared to the project’s research questions, and some were exploratory in nature, it was felt prudent to do so. No studies were excluded during the quality assessment process. A modified version of a quality assessment tool used in Hasselgren et al. (2020) was used, as it was viewed to possess the flexibility to be used across different literature types, noting the presence of grey literature in this study from the composition of the project team. As it eventuated, the quality assessment was performed only on academic sources. This was because the industry partners were able to be much more forensic in their human sourcing of artifacts based on their working knowledge of the topic. Without the variations that can occur using search databases, a determination of inclusion or exclusion at Step 2 was a more streamlined process.
Step 4 also saw the full-text review data charted using Microsoft Excel. The data extracted were the details of the publication (authors, publication type, publication year, keywords), abstract, study aims and research question (where present), country of study and the main findings.
At Step 5, these data were then collated and summarised with the assistance of a coding frame based on the emerging themes of the studies. This assisted with the development of subsequent reporting (see Table 3) as well as determining key insights for the Discussion (section 4). The quality assessment was also reported (see Table 4).
Assessment tool – adapted from Hasselgren et al. (2020)
| Query | Measure (0, 1, 2) |
|---|---|
| Is the source situated in the higher education discipline? | 0 (Little relevance to research question) 1 (Some relevance) 2 (High relevance) |
| Does the source focus on the role of university education and its ability to equip graduates with non-technical (or “soft”) skills? | 0 (Little relevance to research question) 1 (Some relevance) 2 (High relevance) |
| Are the source’s perspectives clearly defined to enable a comparison to our research question? | 0 (Little relevance to research question) 1 (Some relevance) 2 (High relevance) |
| Are the main discussion points of the source salient to our research question? | 0 (Little relevance to research question) 1 (Some relevance) 2 (High relevance) |
Overview of scoped data
| ID | Type | Year | Author | Publisher | Main points |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Journal article | 2003 | Young | Carfax | Compares the national qualifications frameworks of several nations, noting that the AQF is especially “weak” – it has little power to influence the practice of education without institutional collaboration |
| 2 | Conference Paper | 2005 | Sargison et al. | University of Queensland | A pilot usage of an ePortfolio tool throughout a university unit showed an increased insight and demonstration into the graduate attributes of the university as perceived by staff, though student awareness levels remained neutral |
| 3 | Conference Paper | 2005 | Cranney et al. | UniServe Science | Discusses the implementation of a “graduate attributes portfolio” into a course at a university, showing that students found it useful for identifying their employability skills and communicating them to employers |
| 4 | Conference Paper | 2008 | Muldoon | Pearson Education | Discusses certification of extra-curricular activities at a university as a framework to develop graduate attributes, emphasising intercultural communication and personal development in university settings |
| 5 | Conference Paper | 2008 | Nagarajan and Edwards | Australian Computer Society | Explores non-technical work experiences of Australian IT graduates. Research demonstrates major challenges and gaps that exist in integrating technical knowledge with workplace expectations for IT graduates |
| 6 | Conference Paper | 2008 | Oliver | Australian Universities Quality Agency (“AUQA”) | Highlights the importance of aligning graduate attributes with industry demands through stakeholder feedback, curriculum mapping, and work-integrated learning Advocates for building teaching staff capacity, fostering collaboration with industry, and incorporating real-world scenarios to enhance work-readiness |
| 7 | Journal Article | 2009 | Green et al. | Routledge | Graduate attributes are conceptually unclear and it is difficult to integrate skills education into modern tertiary education institutions. Argues that skills education would require substantial institutional investment, including from government stakeholders |
| 8 | Journal Article | 2009 | Nair et al. | Taylor & Francis | Proposes re-engineering graduate skills through a case study approach, emphasising the importance of aligning education outcomes with industry requirements |
| 9 | Book chapter | 2010 | McInnis | Springer | Recognises the role of the Australian Qualifications Framework (“AQF”) in the national strategy for lifelong learning |
| 10 | Conference Paper | 2010 | Oliver et al. | AUQA | Introduces the Graduate Employability Indicators (GEI) to capture broader stakeholder perspectives on the achievement and importance of employability attributes |
| 11 | Journal Article | 2011 | Oliver et al. | Emphasises the importance of key capabilities. However, employers and academics stress the need for better demonstration of these skills by new graduates, recommending improvements through authentic assessments and clearer identification of curriculum-developed capabilities | |
| 12 | Journal Article | 2012 | Donleavy | Emerald Publishing | Examines how the graduate attribute frameworks of various Australian universities align to TEQSA accreditation requirements, finding that graduate attributes tend to be “confus[ing] and ineffective …” as a consequence of a conflict between training “citizenship, society and ethics” and managing employment-based outcomes |
| 13 | Journal Article | 2012 | Jackson and Chapman | Society for Research in Higher Education (SRHE) | Australian business graduates have similar graduate attributes to those in the UK, although Australian academics studied focus on cognitive skills and less on social skills than their UK counterparts |
| 14 | Journal Article | 2013 | Thomas et al. | Cambridge University Press | Graduate attributes have been developed to address the needs of industry. Incorporation of graduate attributes into curricula has been difficult and slow. Industry was surveyed on the non-technical skills in most demand and still reported that university graduates are not well-prepared for entry into industry |
| 15 | Book Chapter | 2013 | Sadler et al. | Sense Publishers | Discusses the assessment of graduate attributes, embracing the subjective nature of it and empowering assessment via psychometric methods, as these qualities are often psychological constructs |
| 16 | Journal Article | 2014 | Nagarajan and Edwards | Graduate attributes are often seen more as a compliance tool than a focus for teaching and learning in curriculum. Discipline-specific skills are often not embedded in an institution’s overall graduate attributes | |
| 17 | Conference Paper | 2015 | Bennett et al. | Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA) | University graduates are not gaining the graduate attributes that employers are looking for within their education, and interventions can be developed within their institutions to account for this |
| 18 | Journal Article | 2016 | Hill et al. | Routledge | Brief overview of graduate attribute program development in higher education institutions which establishes the contemporary research context |
| 19 | Journal Article | 2016 | Sandri et al. | Carfax | Explores the use of vignettes as a type of assessment method of graduate attributes |
| 20 | Journal Article | 2017 | Jorre de St Jorre and Oliver | HERDSA | Examines a case study where graduate capabilities were renamed as graduate learning outcomes. Study found that these were still very generic and a greater context to the wider employability discussion and an ability to assess them would be beneficial |
| 21 | Journal Article | 2017 | Sarkar et al. | University of Sydney | Discusses an intervention in the form of a workshop held within a university faculty to explore the topic of skills and graduate employability, as well as student preparedness. The workshop was well-received by students who felt it was a more effective way of communicating the skills-employability nexus |
| 22 | Journal Article | 2018 | Oliver and Jorre de St Jorre | Routledge | Graduate attribute frameworks are poorly communicated to the public, especially students. Institutional data collection practices do not align with graduate attribute frameworks, resulting in poor quality data available regarding the efficiency of these programs. Recommends actions to align attributes with future employment needs, including explicit assessment, contextualising and communicating attributes at the course level, and regularly updating attributes to remain relevant in a rapidly changing environment |
| 23 | Journal Article | 2018 | Cook, P. | Berghahn Books | Examines the graduate attribute agenda of Australian universities. Finds that graduate attribute frameworks tend to focus on job-related outcomes of education and find little support within academic curriculum design as a consequence |
| 24 | Book chapter | 2021 | Naqvi | IGI | Graduate qualities are not linked to curriculum (including assessments) in individual university subjects |
| 25 | Journal article | 2021 | Hammer et al. | Routledge | Australian universities conceptualise graduate attributes as outside of broader outcome-based initiatives |
| 26 | Journal Article | 2022 | Cook, E. | Deakin University | Identifies significant issues with how graduate attribute frameworks are commonly deployed, including: the reduction of university education to job training, the unclear relation between graduate attributes and employability, the weak integration of graduate attribute frameworks into curriculum, and the conflict between graduate attributes as “generic” and “specific” and teachable separate from disciplinary curricula |
| 27 | Book chapter | 2023 | Bean et al. in Dawkins et al. | Melbourne University Press | Recommends a national “platform infrastructure to define and connect skills and capabilities” with “rich skill descriptors” and a “framework for assessment” |
| 28 | Journal Article | 2023 | Gouda-Vossos et al. | Open Access Publishing Association | Discusses an intervention in the form of a capstone style, for-credit elective career development module, which addresses the skills gap, through developing transferable skills, and awareness of those skills required by employers for students in STEM. The module positively impacted student self-perceived employability, with the greatest impact in the areas of “awareness of opportunity”, “perceptions of future success”, and “confidence in skills” |
| 29 | Survey (n = 86) | 2024 | n/a | n/a | Majority of respondents have not heard of the “Graduate Qualities/Attributes” of their institution Majority of respondents believe that university education has prepared them for the workforce at most “moderately well” Qualities in the areas of disciplinary expertise, critical thinking/problem solving, and oral/written communication were commonly considered relevant Students within technical disciplines struggled to connect socially-oriented skills to their education Students feel they are insufficiently guided in their skills education, and feel they identify their soft skills absent of institutional support or recognition Students feel that soft skills are valued by employers, and want more support to develop them from their institutions |
| 30 | Expert Interview 1 | 2024 | Evans, M | Personal communication | Graduate quality framework at (University) is intended to develop skills and capabilities to support work and career readiness Students struggle to identify their skills and capabilities, and this leads them to have a lower ability to adapt to different working contexts after graduation “Adaptability” is recognised as the most critical soft skill, and one which most others support in some part Graduate quality frameworks need to be highly adaptable to changing circumstances, especially changes in industry |
| 31 | Expert Interview 2 | 2024 | Rampe, M and Saddiqui, S | Personal communication | (University) does not use a graduate quality framework in their curriculum design process, and interviewee believed that this made course learning outcomes less clear Graduate qualities are difficult to communicate by graduates to employers, largely as a result of employers having little to no guidance on their meaning It is difficult to integrate soft skills education into curriculum design as they are inherently complex to measure, therefore it is not feasible to validate their acquisition through assessment Students show interest in an approach to soft skills education that lets them decide which skills they want to focus on |
| 32 | Expert Interview 3 | 2024 | Pardy, K | Personal communication | While universities tend to be efficient at developing student’s graduate qualities, they struggle to instil a sense among students of how these qualities are developing The language used in graduate qualities frameworks can be difficult to parse for students early in their education, leading them to only understand the purpose of the framework closer to graduation Graduate quality frameworks tend to be outdated and need “reinterpretation” for a contemporary context of employment and education Degree of integration of graduate quality framework relatively consistent between faculties and programs |
| 33 | Expert Interview 4 | 2024 | Anonymous | Personal communication | International students feel especially unsupported by their universities in communicating skills to employers, alongside further issues that complicate their employment in the Australian workforce While extracurricular activities, such as internships, have an outsized impact on graduate outcomes, these are primarily being utilised by students from higher socio-economic backgrounds who would nevertheless have had largely positive outcomes. Students with greater need for career support tend not to have the resources to engage with it Students are not comfortable communicating their skills to employers. More collaboration between academic and career-supporting departments are needed in Australian universities |
| 34 | Expert Interview 5 | 2024 | Anonymous | Personal communication | Graduate qualities at (university) are aligned to accreditation requirements, meaning they are limited in scope by what learning outcomes are expected at the regulatory level. This allows (university) a relatively strong ability to validate the success of their graduate quality framework, as audits can be held alongside regulatory data collection Students rarely engage with information about programs before adopting them, causing them to have little comprehension of how graduate qualities are developed early in their educational pathway New developments in curriculum design at (university) more effectively communicate to students about key graduate qualities such as critical thinking |
| 35 | Industry Report | 2024 | Hennessy | Personal communication | There is considerable commonality in the articulation of graduate qualities/attributes across higher education institutions in Australia. In some instances, almost a uniformity for attributes such as problem solving/critical thinking, communication, and lifelong learning/ongoing inquiry. Refer Table 5 in the Discussion section of this paper |
| 36 | Government Submission | 2024 | Learning Creates Australia | Learning Creates Australia | A co-design approach to designing a national skills taxonomy (integral to an NSP) is advocated for in response to a Consultation by national agency Jobs and Skills Australia |
| 37 | Government Submission | 2024 | Universities Australia | Universities Australia | Supports the establishment of a national taxonomy of skills (integral to an NSP) which “gives learners, workers, and employers an understanding of the skills they have … in a format … most appropriate to their needs.” |
| 38 | Conference Paper | 2024 | Kitto | UMAP 2024 | Analyses the current context of skills passports internationally, finding that they are barely differentiated from “ePortfolio” solutions such as LinkedIn. Argues that future skills passport development will need to account for data aggregation from diverse sources and be portable across a variety of locations and contexts to be truly successful, proposing some solutions to these challenges |
| 39 | Journal Article | 2024 | Geertshuis et al. | Routledge | Focuses on the teaching of generic capabilities and leans into classic theories to propose that for greater success in this regard, students need to be enthused, have the chance to explore, extend themselves, and exhibit their capabilities |
Quality assessment of included academic literature from Table 3
| ID | Year | Q1 higher education discipline | Q2 university education/skills nexus | Q3 comparable to RQ | Q4 discussion salient to RQ | Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2003 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| 7 | 2009 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| 8 | 2009 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| 9 | 2010 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 11 | 2011 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 12 | 2012 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| 13 | 2012 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| 14 | 2013 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| 15 | 2013 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| 16 | 2014 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6 |
| 18 | 2016 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| 19 | 2016 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| 20 | 2017 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| 21 | 2017 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| 22 | 2018 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| 23 | 2018 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| 24 | 2021 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 7 |
| 25 | 2021 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| 26 | 2022 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 |
| 27 | 2023 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| 28 | 2023 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 7 |
| 39 | 2024 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| MEAN | 1.86 | 1.46 | 1.27 | 1.46 | 6.05 | |
| STD DEV| | 0.34 | 0.58 | 0.45 | 0.50 | 1.36 | |
Note(s): Scoring criteria: 0 (Little relevance to research question); 1 (Some relevance); 2 (High relevance)
2.3.1.1 Selection criteria
As part of the above procedure, selection criteria defined by the project team were used to progress through the steps. Search returns were analysed by title, abstract and full text. They were further filtered by the following inclusion criteria: a publication date of later than 2000; geographical focus (Australia); and at a secondary level, jurisdictions where there are established nationalised skills passports for citizens; and finally, where there was deemed to be an intersection of themes relating to non-technical workplace skills and the graduate attributes promoted by universities.
2.3.1.2 Quality measures
There was a continual feedback loop between the review teams. Documents and downloaded readings were stored in a shared location and categorised according to the progress of their review. An assessment tool for each academic artifact was established to assist in the review process, as seen in Table 2.
2.3.2 Online questionnaire
An online survey using Google Forms (stored in a secure IT environment connected to university enterprise login credentials) was developed to examine student cohort understanding and perception of an institution’s graduate attributes.
The survey involved closed-ended multiple-choice questions and open-ended extended-answer questions, as can be seen in Appendix 2.
2.3.3 Expert interviews
A total of 22 identified individuals from 11 universities were approached, and this resulted in five successful interviews. These semi-structured interviews were conducted with career advisers and teaching and learning staff within these institutions.
Interviews were conducted in teams of two; one team member would lead the interview whilst the other would take notes and ask follow-up questions based on responses. Interview questions are in Appendix 3.
Phase 2
2.3.4 Data analysis (quantitative, empathy mapping and thematic)
The team analysed survey data in Excel using quantitative and qualitative methods to understand student perceptions and experiences. Descriptive statistics were applied to closed-ended questions.
Empathy mapping is commonly used in design thinking processes to visualise the perspectives of different stakeholders (Pileggi, 2021). It also assists researchers to place more structure around qualitative responses. See Appendix 4 for the mapping created by the team.
Thematic analysis helped the team systematically identify key insights and recurring themes across expert feedback for interviews (see Appendix 5).
Phase 3
2.3.5 Develop ideas
Taking the information obtained and using design thinking techniques, the team focused on possibly adapting, modifying and merging existing frameworks. This approach ensured a continued empathy for the structural status quo of higher education institutions and the framing of ideas through a lens of desirability, feasibility and viability.
Phase 4
2.3.6 Workshops
Three co-authors conducted two student workshops in the class cohort to explore some of the themes and ideas that had been generated through the work of the earlier phases.
Three workshops were held with seven academic and industry experts from three different universities to understand the feasibility of ideas generated and explore potential future directions to optimise the success of any future NSP. The universities chosen were sourced from Table A and Table B providers in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 ((Cth), s. 16–15, 16–20). The selection was designed to capture a representative cross-section of the Australian higher education landscape across demography and geography. A mix of established research-intensive universities and those reputed for their applied focus with a stronger focus on professional education were included, reflecting the diverse historical development of the sector.
Additionally, the team considered institutions’ approaches to course delivery, including those with a strong on-campus learning focus and others with significant online offerings. This allowed for an exploration of how different modes of study might influence the development and articulation of graduate attributes. Relevant methods that involved human participants (sections 2.32–2.34, as well as 2.36) were reviewed and approved (21 August 2024) to proceed using the university’s ethics coursework approval process for negligible/low-risk projects within the parameters of a scoping review.
3. Findings
This section presents a summary of the scoped data in the review, including the academic literature.
Some core findings from the review:
Structural challenges and systemic barriers: educational practice can differ considerably within universities, making the consistency of a graduate attributes framework difficult to identify; graduate attribute frameworks are scarcely aligned to unit/module design in any meaningful way to enable student engagement with them.
Industry disconnect: many universities proffer a set of critical skills to industry that are embedded within their graduates, yet they are insufficiently developed or difficult to demonstrate.
Student experience: student awareness levels are low of the graduate attributes being communicated by their universities to industry; there is a strong desire from students for more guidance and equity in developing the skills students are meant to possess at graduation.
Multiple interventions are being pursued by institutions by way of designing capstone modules, embedding career development learning, or using assessment design to establish student ePortfolios. Whilst success is mixed, there is a positive response to such moves from students.
Data capture on the efficacy of graduate attribute frameworks is limited, further stymieing efforts to demonstrate their impact; calls for a national, skills-based taxonomy with clear assessment frameworks are growing.
Table 3 provides an overview of the data scoped into the research across all avenues as outlined in sections 2.31–2.36.
Table 4 details a quality assessment of the academic studies included in Table 3. It adopts the scoring design of Table 2 to generate a score based on relevance to this research. Please note conference papers were excluded as there was not a consistent disclosure as to their peer-review status. Accordingly, they were categorised as grey literature.
The maximum score possible is eight, with the lowest score zero. The lowest mean score occurred with works possessing comparable research questions, and the highest mean score confirmed the focus of the search strategy. The quality assessment total varies with a standard deviation of 1.36 from the total mean score, with a scoring range of 3–8.
4. Discussion
The following themes emerged from the review and shape this section:
Student perspectives on graduate attributes reveal their limitations in fostering professional identity, underscoring a need for a fuller expression of individual strengths.
Many students struggle to see how academic tasks in a university curriculum support self-development, resulting in difficulty articulating their skills to employers. This gap calls for clearer connections between coursework and career competencies.
Universities face unique challenges in implementing standardised skill recognition frameworks due to their diverse program offerings and student populations. These challenges, in turn, influence each institution’s outcomes in graduate employability and skill development.
Preparing a workforce capable of thriving in an evolving job market requires nurturing adaptability and enabling individuals to recognise and reapply their existing skill sets.
Implementation of any NSP faces some headwinds based on the status quo, and extensive stakeholder engagement and co-design are likely to be needed to ensure viability in terms of both design and also adoption and ongoing usage.
These will now be discussed in more detail.
Research into Australia’s skills and qualification frameworks highlights the importance of examining existing models to anticipate challenges in developing a NSP. The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) serves as the national policy for regulating educational qualifications across Australia (Australian Qualifications Framework Council, 2013; McInnis, 2010). While the AQF effectively defines qualification levels for institutions and learners, it has limited power in determining graduate employability or educational outcomes (Young, 2003).
Hammer et al. (2021) observed that universities often indirectly incorporate AQF outcomes rather than directly integrating them into curricula. This suggests that institutions view AQF outcomes as foundational benchmarks rather than comprehensive representations of their program offerings. Therefore, graduate attribute frameworks are often used by universities to differentiate themselves from similar institutions (Oliver and Jorre de St Jorre, 2018).
As discussed by Hill et al. (2016), graduate attributes are broader and more encompassing than “employability skills” and they reflect graduates’ citizenship and career competencies. An examination of the term “graduate attributes” shows that they generally convey the same meanings, with only minor variations in wording. This consistency highlights the shared recognition of essential skills that graduates need to be deemed “career-ready”.
Among the 86 students surveyed as part of the review, responses regarding their preparation for the workforce revealed that half of the participants rated their universities as having prepared them only “moderately well” (see Figure 3). Furthermore, 63% of respondents reported that they are either unfamiliar with or have never heard of the graduate attributes of their institution. These findings represent an opportunity for universities to leverage the graduate attributes of their respective institutions to build confidence in their student populations in advance of transitioning into the workforce. If these attributes are exactly the types of skills employers are looking for in graduates, a NSP will only be efficacious if the Passport holders have confidence and belief in the data it contains.
The question at the top reads, “To what extent do you feel your university has prepared you for the workforce?” The pie chart is divided into five segments, and in a clockwise sense from the top, the data from the segments is as follows: Not at all: 5.8 percent. Slightly well: 12.8 percent. Moderately well: 50 percent. Very well: 24.4 percent. Extremely well: 7 percent.Students’ perceived preparedness for employment (n = 86). Figure by authors
The question at the top reads, “To what extent do you feel your university has prepared you for the workforce?” The pie chart is divided into five segments, and in a clockwise sense from the top, the data from the segments is as follows: Not at all: 5.8 percent. Slightly well: 12.8 percent. Moderately well: 50 percent. Very well: 24.4 percent. Extremely well: 7 percent.Students’ perceived preparedness for employment (n = 86). Figure by authors
Students reported that upon learning of the graduate attributes of their institution, it failed to adequately represent their skills, experiences and the specific requirements of their fields. For example, students in technical disciplines such as engineering and science reported difficulty demonstrating qualities like creativity and entrepreneurship. Consequently, many students rely on self-assessment without sufficient guidance. As one student expressed: “Why aren’t we getting more guidance on how to build these skills?”
While some viewed this approach as promoting independence and self-reflection, others believed it created disadvantages for those lacking access to external career support or resources, leading to inequities in career preparedness. These discussions reflect a desire among students to engage more deeply with professional skills and develop them as they prepare to enter the workforce. However, it also highlights the need to introduce a more tailored, discipline-specific way of advocating students’ unique strengths in any NSP construct.
The limited awareness of graduate attributes amongst students accords with existing literature (Sharma, 2018; Hill et al., 2016; Young, 2003). That these gaps persist across disciplines and educational institutions amplifies the opportunity identified in Hill et al. (2016) for a more adaptable framework to convey the specific skills and requirements of individual degrees. An NSP could serve as a catalyst to reimagine the nomenclature and purpose of graduate attributes.
Engagement with experts from several Australian universities offered a deeper perspective on how institutions respond to the unique needs of different student demographics, shaping their program offerings and marketing approaches. One institution, for example, aims to attract mature students, often women in their late 30s or 40s with families, by offering flexible learning modes and practical, skills-focused programs. This same institution emphasises technical over “soft” skills, catering to students seeking to reskill or upskill later in their career journey.
In contrast, another institution focuses on school-leavers with specific job-oriented programs that foster clear, defined goals. This structured curriculum contributes to above-average full-time employment rates among graduates after graduation, though it was noted by the expert that this focus on securing employment after graduation may reduce students’ adaptability in navigating later career shifts. One example shared was a notable trend in undergraduate students finding it challenging to reassess goals and identify transferable skills to different sectors. Experts emphasised the need to bridge this gap by encouraging curiosity and a broader exploration beyond program-specific learning outcomes. This presents a considerable opportunity for any NSP to articulate what such exploration might look like and to signpost to “passport holders” the areas of potential pursuit.
Experts within larger institutions, often with international student cohorts, offer a wide variety of programs in the same disciplinary area, necessitating a decentralised management of curriculum design and learning outcomes. While this approach allows each discipline to meet the specific needs of industries both in Australia and overseas, experts from these institutions highlighted challenges in implementing a standardised skills framework across the institution. For example, one expert noted that this often results in some programs having more skill-focused learning opportunities – such as internships or placements – than others, leading to an imbalance across disciplines. One faculty within one institution has introduced a “Transferable Skills Framework”, emphasising non-technical skills and empowering students with the flexibility to develop skills aligned with their individual goals. Such innovations at a localised level may need surfacing for a broader population if the NSP is to enjoy broad stakeholder buy-in from its target user base.
Lifelong learning featured heavily across the expert interviews. Whether by design or need, experts anecdotally noted an increase in postgraduate students enrolled as a fallback option from not securing desired employment with their undergraduate degree. Any NSP would need to embed support resources for new graduates in understanding how the degree they have just earned and its associated skill profile (both technical and non-technical) may translate into different sectors. Access to advice on transferability and adaptability would ensure an equitable opportunity for graduates, irrespective of their institution of study or other circumstances (e.g. geographical, socio-economic), to understand how best to utilise their degree to enter the workforce and enhance workforce transitions.
As introduced in Table 3, one industry-based co-author conducted a mapping exercise of the graduate attributes of 52 Australian higher education institutions. They included all the institutions listed as Table A and Table B providers in the Higher Education Support Act 2003 ((Cth), s. 16–15, 16–20) as well as smaller higher education providers not accredited under this legislation but which still utilised an Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (“ATAR”) score in the jurisdictions of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. ATAR scores are one of the primary entry mechanisms to gain a place at a higher education institution in Australia.
The graduate attributes of the scoped institutions were accessed from public websites, white papers and policy documents and then analysed to investigate commonalities across the sample. Please see Table 5.
Graduate attributes with the most common occurrence across Australian higher education institutions (n = 52)
| Graduate attribute | Occurrence | Synthesised description from all occurrences |
|---|---|---|
| Problem solving/critical thinking | 48 | Graduates are expected to think critically, apply logical, creative, and problem-solving skills to a range of situations and challenges |
| Communication | 47 | Graduates should communicate effectively, both orally and in writing, across a range of contexts and to diverse audiences |
| Lifelong learning/ongoing inquiry | 45 | Graduates are expected to be self-directed learners who pursue ongoing learning throughout their professional careers and personal development |
| Ethical practice/social responsibility | 44 | Graduates are committed to acting ethically, with integrity and social responsibility in both professional and personal life, considering the broader social, environmental, and economic impacts |
| Global perspective/cultural competence | 41 | Graduates are expected to understand and engage with diverse cultures, have an awareness of global issues, and show respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and perspectives |
| Collaboration/teamwork | 38 | Graduates should be able to work effectively with others, collaborating and engaging in group work in a range of professional and academic settings |
| Professional knowledge/expertise | 37 | Graduates should have deep knowledge in their field of study, with the ability to apply this knowledge in practice, preparing them for professional roles |
| Adaptability/resilience | 33 | Graduates should be flexible, adaptable, resilient, and able to thrive in changing environments and circumstances |
4.1 Limitations and recommendations for further research
During this project, research limitations were identified for noting. Expert interviewees expressed concern that any attempt to resolve the status quo – whether by the catalyst or mandate of an NSP – could impose an additional workload on educators, compounding the already prevalent culture of overwork in Australian universities (Miller, 2019). To address concerns regarding educators’ workload, the NSP might create master “exemplar” lists of discipline-specific and non-technical skills for institutions to review and amend, guiding academic staff in integrating relevant attributes into their curricula. One such example is the List of Graduate Attributes put forward by Kotsiou et al. (2022). There may also be a role for AI in expediting this process.
Experts from higher education institutions also stressed that the NSP would require significant input from industry stakeholders to be viable. Whilst industry stakeholders were invited to be part of the initial consultation period by the Australian government, the authors recommend that future work and research involve direct engagement and co-design with industry groups to not only refine and validate any framework but also enhance stakeholder buy-in (Freeman, 1984).
The authors also recommend conducting further studies with current students from various higher education institutions across Australia. There are multiple stakeholder committees and groups looking at the NSP, but very few have actual students at the table. This paper presents one of the few known opportunities for current students, likely to be the first users of an NSP, to have such an active role.
A strategic opportunity exists to expand the NSP to a wider range of educational contexts, such as TAFE, advanced degrees like master’s and Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) programs, and perhaps even to the senior years of secondary school. It is likely a pilot would launch the NSP, but the composition of the pilot may be an area for further exploration and consideration.
Finally, there was strong recognition from staff working within the higher education sector that whether there is a future NSP or not, there is room in the present to improve what institutions currently do with their students as it relates to the communication, applicability and engagement with graduate attributes.
Interviews with higher education institutional experts revealed a disconnect between formal learning environments and the development of non-technical skills. While universities place required focus upon the curriculum and academic activity, non-technical skills receive insufficient profile to enter the awareness levels of the student population. Too many students do not know what they are, how they relate to the curriculum they are studying, and then how they are meant to translate into the workforce.
Leadership and management in higher education institutions are recommended to take note of these trends, voiced by experts within the sector who work “on the front line” with academics and students but do not often have the opportunity to secure the attention of senior management.
There is a keen interest from both students and experts in the higher education sector for a system that enhances students’ ability to recognise and develop their skills. With an NSP, higher education institutions would have a tangible platform to enhance their value proposition, addressing current credibility gaps with industry and better aligning with the student cohort and their needs, with an eye to the future.
It is also noted that the focus of this research is placed on the Australian higher education jurisdiction. Whilst other jurisdictions have skills passports already in use, such as Singapore and the European Union, future research is intended to investigate best practices of passport design and portability once the Australian iteration has completed its nascent design with local stakeholders.
4.2 Conclusion
Australian universities are actively working to improve graduate employability, navigating the shifting sands of public policy and industry sentiment. What the authors have discovered is that instead of a uniform framework to underpin an NSP, experience with the status quo highlights that a more adaptable approach is necessary to meet the varied needs of the student, academia and industry.
This scoping review has provided a foundation for understanding the current state of play. Now exists the opportunity to build upon these ideas. It is recommended that any development of an NSP proceeds through a co-design model of creation. Only then will the objectives of all stakeholders have the opportunity to be met.
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.
