Nurturing Graduate Attributes through a First Year Student Experience Which Promotes the Formation of Effective Learning Communities

Doris Y.P. Leung^1, and David Kember²

¹The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, Hong Kong

²Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania, Newnham Campus, Tasmania, Australia

Cite this paper:
Doris Y.P. Leung and David Kember. Nurturing Graduate Attributes through a First Year Student Experience Which Promotes the Formation of Effective Learning Communities. American Journal of Educational Research. 2013; 1(7):230-239. doi: 10.12691/education-1-7-3

Abstract

Many students enter university with naïve epistemological beliefs and study approaches incompatible with the goals of higher education or the display of attributes such as critical or creative thinking. This study examines whether a first year experience can promote the formation of effective learning communities, which in turn can provide a mechanism for nurturing a range of graduate attributes. The curriculum encompasses initiatives to assimilate students into the university, prompts the adaptation of appropriate university study behaviour, and contains a general education component to broaden the student experience. The impact of the first year experience was examined by collecting quantitative data which measured students’ perceptions of the effectiveness of assimilation, adaptation of study behaviour, the impact of the broadening component, and the nurturing of attributes. The data were analysed with structural equation modelling. A model in which the curriculum elements impacted on the development of graduate attributes showed a good fit to the data. Effective learning communities played a key role both in assimilation into the university community and the adoption of appropriate study behaviours.

Keywords:
first year experience learning communitie graduate attributes study behaviours general education structural equation modeling

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

References:

[1]	Hong Kong Special Administration Region Education Commission, Review of education systems: Reform proposals, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Printing Department, Hong Kong, 2000.
[2]	Hong Kong Special Administration Region Education Commission, Learning for life, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region: Education Commission, Hong Kong, 1999.
[3]	Barrie, S.C, “Rethinking generic graduate attributes,” Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia News, 27(1), 1-6, 2005.
[4]	Longworth, N. and Davies, W.K, Lifelong learning, Kogan Page, London, 1996.
[5]	Arum, R., Roksa, J. and Cho, E, Improving undergraduate learning: Findings and policy recommendations from the SSRC-CLA longitudinal project, Social Science Research Council, New York, 2011.
[6]	Johnstone, D. B, “College at work: Partnerships and the rebuilding of American competence,” Journal of Higher Education, 65(2), 168-182, 1994.
[7]	Daly, W.T, “Teaching and scholarship: Adapting American higher education to hard times,” Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 45-57, 1994.
[8]	de la Harpe, B., Radloff, A. and Wyber, J, “Quality and generic (professional) skills,” Quality in Higher Education, 6(3), 231-243, 2000.
[9]	Yorke, M, Employability in higher education: What it is - what it is not, The Higher Education Academy, York, 2006.
[10]	Tait, H. and Godfrey, H, “Defining and assessing competence in generic skills,” Quality in Higher Education, 5(3), 245-253, 1999.
[11]	de la Harpe, B, “Lessons learned from three projects to design learning environments that support ‘generic’ skill development,” Journal of Learning Design, 1(2), 21-34, 2006.
[12]	Smith, C. and Bath, D, “The role of the learning community in the development of discipline knowledge and graduate outcomes,” Higher Education, 51(2), 259-286, 2006.
[13]	Thompson, D., Treleaven, L., Kamvounias, P., Beem, B. and Hill, E, “Integrating graduate attributes with assessment criteria in business education: Using an online assessment system,” Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 5(1), Article 4, 2008.
[14]	Barrie, S.C, “Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates,” Higher Education, 51(2), 215-241, 2006.
[15]	Drummond, I., Nixon, I. and Wiltshire, J, “Personal transferable skills in higher education: The problems of implementing good practice,” Quality Assurance in Education, 6(1), 19-27, 1998.
[16]	Leckey, J.F. and McGuigan, M.A, “Right tracks ─ wrong rails: The development of generic skills in higher education,” Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 365-378, 1997.
[17]	Barrie, S, “The National GAP: Institutional systems and curriculum renewal to achieve graduate attributes,” Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia News, 3(1), 3-4, 2009.
[18]	Brownlee, J., Walker, S., Lennox, S., Exley, B. and Pearce, S, “The first year university experience: Using personal epistemology to understand effective learning and teaching in higher education,” Higher Education, 58(5), 599-618, 2009.
[19]	Tinto, V, “Drop-out from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research,” Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89-125, 1975.
[20]	Tinto, V, Leaving college, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987.
[21]	Durkheim, E, Suicide (Spaulding, J. & Simpson, G. trans.), The Free Press, Glencoe, 1961.
[22]	Yan, L.W.F, “Learning out of the classroom: The influence of peer group work on learning outcome,” PhD dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 2001.
[23]	Yan, L. and Kember, D, “Avoider and engager approaches by out-of-class groups: The group equivalent to individual learning approaches,” Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 27-49, 2004.
[24]	Yan, L. and Kember, D, “Engager and avoider behaviour in types of activities performed by out-of-class learning groups,” Higher Education, 48(4), 419-438, 2004.
[25]	Yan, L. and Kember, D, “The influence of the curriculum and learning environment on the learning approaches of groups of students outside the classroom,” Learning Environments Research, 6(3), 285-307, 2003.
[26]	Yan, L. and Kember, D, “Contextual influences on the formation and behaviour of out-of-class study groups,” Curriculum and Teaching, 20(2), 59-79, 2005.
[27]	Kember, D., Hong, C. and Ho, A, “From model answers to multiple perspectives: Adapting study approaches to suit university study,” Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 23-35, 2012.
[28]	Birenbaum, M. “Assessment 2000: Towards a pluralistic approach to assessmen,” In M. Birenbaum & F. J. R. C. Dochy (Eds.), Alternatives in assessment of achievements, learning processes and prior knowledge (pp. 3-30), Kluwer, Boston, 1996.
[29]	Kember, D. and Leung, D.Y.P, “The influence of active learning experiences on the development of graduate capabilities,” Studies in Higher Education, 30(2), 155-170, 2005.
[30]	Kember, D. and Leung, D.Y.P, “The influence of the teaching and learning environment on the development of generic capabilities needed for a knowledge-based society,” Learning Environments Research, 8(3), 245-266, 2005.
[31]	Kember, D. and Leung, D.Y.P, “Characterising a teaching and learning environment conducive to making demands on students while not making their workload excessive,” Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 185-198, 2006.
[32]	Kember, D. and Leung, D.Y.P, “Development of a questionnaire for assessing students’ perceptions of the teaching and learning environment and its use in quality assurance,” Learning Environments Research, 12(1), 15-29, 2009.
[33]	Kember, D., Leung, D.Y.P. and Ma, R.S.F, “Characterising learning environments capable of nurturing generic capabilities in higher education,” Research in Higher Education, 48(5), 609-632, 2007.
[34]	Leung, D.Y.P. and Kember, D, “Comparability of data gathered from evaluation questionnaires on paper and through the internet,” Research in Higher Education, 46(5), 571-591, 2005.
[35]	Leung, D.Y.P. and Kember, D, “The influence of the part-time study experience on the development of generic capabilities,” Journal of Further and Higher Education, 29(2), 91-101, 2005.
[36]	Leung, D.Y.P. and Kember, D, “The influence of teaching approach and teacher-student interaction on the development of graduate capabilities,” Structural Equation Modeling, 13(2), 264-286, 2006.
[37]	Kember, D. and Leung, D.Y.P, “Disciplinary differences in student ratings of teaching quality,” Research in Higher Education, 52(3), 278-299, 2011.
[38]	Bentler, P.M, EQS structural equations program manual, Multivariate Software, Encino, 2006.
[39]	West, S.G., Finch, J.F. and Curran, P.J, “Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies,” In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 56-75), Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1995.
[40]	Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R, “Alternative ways of assessing model fit,” In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-161). Sage, Newbury Park, 1993.
[41]	Bentler, P.M, “Comparative fit indexes in structural models,” Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246, 1990.
[42]	Hoyle, R, “The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues,” In R.H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 1-15), Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1995.
[43]	Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M, “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55, 1999.
[44]	Schmitt, M. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350-353.
[45]	Chou, C.-P. and Bentler, P.M, “Model modification in covariance structure modeling: A comparison among likelihood ratio, Lagrange multiplier, and Wald tests,” Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 115-136, 1990.