Exploring the Practise and Development of Generic Skills Through Web-Based Learning.

This article reports on a project that explored the incidental learning achieved through the implementation of a Web-based learning setting. In particular, the study explored the capacity of the environment to develop the generic skills of the students using the skills framework proposed by Bennett, Cane, and Dunne (1999). The results showed that the learning environment provided many opportunities for students to practise a broad range of generic skills and that the students perceived this practice to contribute in significant ways to their skills development. The article concludes with a discussion of the outcomes and a description of future planned research.

There is a growing awareness among educators today that effective university teaching and learning extends far beyond the development of skills and knowledge in specific subject domains (Dearing Report, 1997). A holistic view of education suggests other forms of skills and knowledge that many argue are important outcomes of a university education. For example, Candy, Crebert, and O'Leary (1994) argued that some forms of holistic lifelong learning skills should form the core of every undergraduate degree with some emphasis evident in every unit of the degree. The competencies and knowledge, which form the basis of these lifelong learning skills, are often referred to as generic skills. Generic skills are the skills that students need to become successful learners and successful practitioners in their fields of study and work and in other aspects of their life and are an important outcome of university education (Havard, Hughes, & Clark, 1998).

The use of technology as a component of daily living has been an influencing factor in the emergence of generic skills development as an important outcome of formal education. Many of the generic skills relate to students' abilities to make meaningful use of technology. The need for technological skills coupled with emerging opportunities for students learning with technology appear to create a powerful synergy for generic skills development. The use of technology in teaching and learning already has been shown to provide many opportunities to teachers and learners (Oliver, Oman, & Herrington, 1998). These opportunities include among other things, increased access to learning, increased flexibility for learners, and enhanced learning outcomes in domain specific knowledge outcomes. If it can be shown that particular forms of technology use can also provide opportunities for learners' generic skills development, teachers and institutions can be guided by these findings into modifications and changes to their t echnology-based learning environments to provide even greater returns on their investments and efforts.

DEFINING GENERIC SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES

Defining the full range of generic and transferable skills that are useful (or essential) for university students is an exhaustive process. It is as almost as exhaustive as finding agreement in the terms that might best be used to describe the set. In the context of this article the term generic skills is used to describe the generic and transferable skills that are considered to be essential life skills for people both in and out of the workforce.

There has been interest in generic skills as outcomes of education for many years now. It was perhaps the Finn Report (1991) which introduced this concept into Australia. The Finn Report used the term key competencies to describe "certain essential things that all young people need to learn in their preparation for employment." The subsequent Mayer Committee (1992), further clarified the concept of employment-related key competencies in compulsory education and training. The key competencies proposed by the Mayer Committee were:

* collecting, analysing, and organising ideas and information;

* expressing ideas and information;

* planning and organising activities;

* working with others and in teams;

* using mathematical ideas and techniques;

* solving problems; and

* using technology.

In different countries, different sets of skills are listed, all with similarity and consistency to each other. The 1993 New Zealand Curriculum Framework proposed eight essential skills as important outcomes of New Zealand schooling. These were: communication skills; information skills; self- management and competitive skills; physical skills; numeracy skills; problem solving skills; co-operative skills; work; and study skills. In the United Kingdom, The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) developed a set of generic skills that the government and much of industry consider as essential for successful lifelong learning and a flexible workforce. The QCA generic skills are comprised of six main areas; communication skills; information technology skills; application of numbers; skills in working with others; skills to improve learning and performance; and problem solving skills.

The conceptualisation of generic skills is problematic in many ways. Bennett, Dunne, and Cane (1999) described a number of synonyms including personal, transferable, generic, common, work, and employment related skills. The generic skills that are reported as important outcomes of schooling tend to be broad and extensive. In university teaching, the skills set is often narrowed to focus on those that are not, or cannot, be taught as discrete components of coursework. At the same time, the generic skills sought by university education assume learners are numerate and literate as a consequence of the requirements of university entrance. The generic skills included in the mission statements of most universities tend to include higher-level aims relating to critical thinking, inquiry and a capacity for lifelong learning. Generic skills described in the literature for university graduates include:

* skills that students need to develop to becoming successful and self-sufficient learners; for example, information literacy, metacognitive skills (Candy et al. 1994);

* the development of intellectual and imaginative powers, understanding and judgement, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills and an ability to see relationships (Ramsden, 1992);

* personal and interpersonal skills needed for communication, cooperative and collaborative teamwork, and leadership (Ashcroft & Foreman-Peck, 1994; Gibbs, Rust, Jenkins, & Jaques, 1994); and

* skills required for successful work practices including time management, task management, leadership, and self evaluation (Gibbs et al., 1994; Blumhof, Honeybone, Perlman, & Pinn, 1996).

Bennett, Dunne, and Cane (1999) offered an elegant model to conceptualise generic skills in the higher education sector by suggesting a framework comprised of four broad managerial skills. The authors argue that the important generic skills are fundamentally those associated with being able to manage self, others, information, and task. They proposed that such a model can be applied "to any discipline, to any course and to the workplace and indeed to any other context" (p. 77). Table 1 displays this framework and shows the various elements within.

DEVELOPING GENERIC SKILLS

By their very nature, generic skills are difficult to teach through formal instruction. Most writers argue that the skills are best developed in meaningful contexts and through instructional approaches integrated into the normal teaching programs. Gibbs et al. (1994), argued that the development of such skills involves an experiential learning cycle which includes experiencing the skills, reflecting on performance, formalising the gained knowledge, and planning and preparing activities. Many of the activities associated with the development of generic skills are activities that can provide support for meaningful learning in the various subjects being studied formally.

The provision of generic skills and competencies can be undertaken through a variety of forms. Traditionally it has been attempted through three main types of learning activity: integrated approaches, stand alone approaches, or approaches where generic skills are developed in parallel with the conventional curriculum. (Drummond et al. 1997 cited in Bennett, Dunne & Carre, 1999). Many writers question whether it is really possible for the learning taking place in university settings to be transferable to vocations and the workplace. One school of thought suggests that through situating learning in meaningful contexts, this transfer can be facilitated (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989). Contemporary thinking is that university learning can be significantly strengthened through workplace-based practica and applications (Seagraves, Kemp, & Osborne, 1996).

Much of our work has explored the use of technology to support the implementation of situated learning environments and inherent in much of this work has been the development of learners' generic skills (Herrington & Oliver, 1997). Our recent explorations of problem-based learning environments (Oliver, Oman, & Stoney, 1999) has furthered our interest in this area and provided the impetus for this article and line of inquiry.

Online Problem-Based Learning

We have been using the World Wide Web (WWW or Web) in our university teaching for several years now and recognise that one of the major benefits of the use of this technology is the facility it provides to support student-centred learning settings, many of which incorporate learning activities that may help develop students' generic and transferable skills. In the introductory multimedia course in our undergraduate program, we have embraced a web-supported problem-based learning environment. The system involves learners working in collaborative groups to explore the solutions to a number of open-ended and ill-defined problems related to the course content.

The Learning System

The online system we have been using is a database driven Web-based learning system. The database elements enable the system to record, manage, and support the interactions of a large number of students and a large number of tutors. The system supports problem-based learning by providing a means for students to collaborate on set problems, to share resources, to post solutions, and to compare and review answers from other groups. The system was designed with a degree of flexibility in mind to enable it to be used in a variety of ways in a variety of units and courses. Typical use of the system in a course of study is expected to revolve around the following activities, which were characteristic of our initial implementations and trials. The following activities are undertaken using online technologies:

* each week students are presented with a problem that has been designed to provide a meaningful and authentic context for the course content;

* students work within established groups of three or four to explore the problem, locate relevant information and resources, consider the various options and outcomes, and to create a response which is informed and well argued;

* each group posts their solution to the Web bulletin board, an action which then reveals to them the solutions of the other groups in their cohort. Each group is asked to review the solutions of the others and through their feedback, the solutions are given a peer-assessed grade. Each tutor also reads the solutions and gives a mark, which is added to the peer-assessed grade to give an overall mark for the solution; and

* students are able to view the marks achieved each week in a number of ways and this mark accumulates throughout the semester as each new problem is solved.

Learner Activities

This style of problem-based learning involves a number of activities and tasks that appear to provide strong support for the development of a number of generic skills. The nature of the learning involves high degrees of self-regulation on the part of the students. There is minimal tutor support provided during the problem solution with guidance and feedback provided only after solutions have been submitted. The activities that the students are required to undertake each week include:

* Information Seeking. The tasks require students to seek information from given sources to create an answer that reflects current thinking and knowledge. The students are able to use the WWW as an information source but have to isolate from among the myriad of resources available, those that are relevant and helpful.

* Critical Thinking. Having obtained relevant information, the students are required to apply this to the immediate setting to explore the options and possibilities available in developing a solution. The students have to examine the information, consider the scope of their inquiry and decide the parameters in which they are going to work. The students then create a response that must be well argued on the basis of the materials they have used.

* Collaboration. Each group has a number of members. The problem solving task requires members to organise themselves into productive teams who share the workload, undertaking separate tasks, and maintaining tight deadlines and schedules from one week to the next. Such activities demand that students consider the requirements of others, be adaptive, be responsible, and flexible.

* Problem Solving. Each task is different and needs to be tackled in varying ways. Students need to use their initiative and intellects to consider the form the solution will take and to consider ways in which the solution can be expressed concisely and succinctly.

Our previous experiences with this problem-based learning setting provided considerable evidence of learners engaged in various tasks which caused them to practice a range of behaviours which might normally be associated with generic skills development (Oliver & McLoughlin, 1999). This study was planned to explore the extent to which students practised these sorts of behaviour with the view to determining the scope to which they might be leading to the development of students' generic skills. In particular the study sought to explore which skills were being practised and developed and by what proportion of the students.

METHOD

The problem-based learning environment was implemented in a first year university course with an enrolment of 90 students. The students in the course participated in the problem solving activities through weekly problems across 10 weeks of the course. A questionnaire was administered to students in the eigth week of the course after they had completed seven problem-solving activities. The questionnaire provided students with a list of the generic skills described by Bennett, Dunne, and Cane (1999) and students were asked to reflect on:

* the level of practice that the problem-based learning environment encouraged in relation to each skill; and

* the extent to which this practice contributed to their development of the discrete skills.

The instrument used a Likert Scale to enable learners to show their responses. The questionnaire took 15 minutes to administer and was completed by the students in their class settings.

To explore the level of practice encouraged by the problem-based learning environment, students were given a table showing each of the generic skills listed in Table 1 and asked the question: "How often did you practise the following during the problem solving activities?" They responded using a Likert scale with the options: never, a little, and regularly. Table 2 shows the students responses as a percentage of the options chosen. A weighted index was calculated to determine the relative amount of practice each skill received on a scale from 0 to 2, with 0 representing no practice and 2 representing regular practice. In a similar fashion, students were asked to report their perceptions of the extent of skills development as a consequence of participation in the course. Again a summary statistic in the range 0-4 was calculated to enable responses between the skills to be compared.

RESULTS

The responses of the students to the various questions in the instrument are shown in the following section. The responses have been summarised for each question and cross each of the four broad generic skills descriptions.

Self Management

The results indicated the large majority of students perceived that the learning setting provided them with substantial opportunity and encouragement to practise a broad variety of skills associated with self management (Table 2). The task that students collectively considered that they practised the most in the list was that of taking responsibility for their own learning with 74% of the students reporting that they practised this skill regularly throughout the course. The remainder of the tasks were reported to be practised more than a little by the majority of the students apart from the task, coping with stress, which students reported little practising little in the course. In fact a number of the students indicated that the course with its student-centred focus and self-regulation emphasis was the cause of a degree of stress.

In response to the question seeking students' perceptions of the degree to which the course helped them to develop their skills in self management, the results revealed mixed responses (Table 3). There were a number of skills that students felt were not particularly developed through their learning activities. These were the skills with a weighted index of less than two and included, managing time effectively, dealing with constructive criticism, and coping with stress. On the other hand, the students reported strong development of a number of skills including taking responsibility for their own learning, showing intellectual curiosity, and purposefully reflecting on their own learning.

Management of Others

The management of others is a skill which many employers see as valuable in graduates. It tends to be suggestive of a capacity for leadership and an ability to work in a team setting. In the web-based learning environment that constituted this course, the students reported varying levels of practice of the skills described in the skills framework (Table 4). The tasks that they perceived to practise the most from this set included respecting the views and values of others, working in a cooperative context, adapting to the needs of the group, and assisting and supporting the learning of others. Those tasks that they perceived to practise the least included delegating and standing back, defending and justifying views and actions, and taking the role of chairperson. These tasks are characterised by relatively high degrees of structure and were perhaps not necessary components of the learning setting.

In response to the questions seeking their perceptions on the extent of the development of skills associated with management of others in this course, the students listed carrying out agreed tasks, respecting the views and values of others, and working in a cooperative context as skills in this category that the course developed the most (Table 5). The skills least developed by the course included those they described as being least practised and also included, adapting to the needs of the group, negotiating, and offering constructive criticism. Once again these skills appeared to be those requiring proactivity on the part of the learners and skills that provided students with some element of choice in the extent of their practice. Clearly many students were not inclined to practise these skills although there were opportunities if they so wished.

The management of task is a skill which describes students' abilities to work in an independent and self-regulated fashion to successfully complete activities of an open-ended and ill-structured nature. The forms of activity involved in management of task are often those associated with success in open learning courses. Students' responses to the question of whether this learning environment pushed them to practise the various skills associated with task management were very positive Table 6). The tasks, which appeared to have been practised the most included, identifying key features, setting and maintaining priorities, conceptualising ideas, planning and implementing courses of action and assessing outcomes. The tasks perceived by students to be least practised were organising sub-tasks and identifying strategic options, although even these were reported by more students to have been practised than not practised.

The students' perceived levels of development of task management skills were in close accord with their reported levels of practice (Table 7). The skills that students reported as being least developed included identifying strategic options, organising sub-tasks and assessing outcomes. The remaining tasks, mainly those associated with establishing steps and procedures in the problem solving process, returned relatively positive results.

Management of Information

Management of information is a task that students are frequently required to do in a variety of self paced learning activities. The difficulty and complexity of the task is influenced to a degree by the extent of the information with which students are required to work. In this setting, the students were provided with extensive amounts of information through web links and had even further resources at their disposal through their own inquiry and searching. Not surprisingly, the students reported considerable levels of practise of information management across the majority of the skills in the metric employed (Table 8). The information management skills which students reported practising the least were those associated with creative and alternative uses of the information.

The levels of information management skills development reported by the students were strong across all tasks in the framework. Those that students perceived to have developed the most, were those associated with managing and organising large amounts of materials from various media sources and technology forms (Table 9). The students appeared to perceive the online setting as a catalyst for supporting and developing skills in the use of the various information and media sources provided by the electronic setting.

COMPARISONS OF SKILLS PRACTISE

It is interesting to explore general comparisons of the relative levels of practise reported by students across the four management areas (Table 10). The area that appeared to provide the greatest levels of practise was that of information management. The remaining three areas were reported by students to have been practised in roughly equivalent proportions.

The students also perceived that information management skills were those that the environment helped most to develop (Table 11). The students tended to be more divided in their responses concerning the levels of development of the remaining skills. In general, management of others was the skill perceived to be least developed together with self management. It is interesting to note that students considered the environment to be more supportive of the development of the cognitive skills, management of task and management of information, than the social skills, those with managing themselves and their collaborating peers.

An immediate question that springs to when this information is considered is the extent to which conventional environments might also support the development of such skills. There will likely be many teachers who would argue that the practise and development of the generic skills described in this study could equally be supported by conventional face-to face classroom teaching. It could be that it is the problem-solving environment more than the technology-based setting that has contributed to the generic skills development reported.

The feedback provided some tentative information to answer this concern. The students' responses concerning levels of skills development involved a degree of comparison with conventional teaching. The indicators used comparisons with the forms of development with which they ere accustomed. On this basis an average response of 2.00 signalled a perceived level of skills development commensurate with their previous experiences. The results from this study revealed students perceiving greater than average skills development in the vast majority of instances. What was seen from this study was a learning environment that appeared capable of supporting the development of a very broad range of generic skills in ways that exceeded the capacities of conventional settings. It is the demonstration of both the scope of the skills developed and the extent of the development that are the important outcomes of this study. While it is possible that other forms of learning activities are also able to develop generic skills, i t would be difficult to find another setting that is able to provide commensurate levels of practise and support for such a broad range of skills.

Another surprising aspect of the results of this study was the proportion of students who claimed that the environment supported their practise and development of the generic skills. The learning setting gave options to the learners to participate in autonomous ways. The learners made many choices about the scope and extent of their participation. Amidst all this freedom and choice, it was surprising to see so many students reporting practise and development of the full range of the skills. Once again, we were heartened by the degree to which the environment appeared to encourage and support all students in the development of their generic skills and see this as yet another positive outcome of a learning setting that provides so many learning opportunities.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The web-based learning setting that has been described in this study is an active and engaging environment that encourages and supports student learning by providing authentic contexts for learning and a range of learning scaffolds and supports. For this reason alone, many teachers will likely see promise in its use. But at the same time, it also provides a relatively effortless way for the setting to promote the development of students' generic and transferable skills. We see this aspect of the environment as a low-cost bonus and argue that if these outcomes can be achieved with so few overheads, it is a goal worth pursuing by other teachers. The study has revealed that there are some generic skills that are less practised and less developed in this setting than others. Our response to this is simply that if teachers are requiring particular generic skills development, then some purposeful rather than incidental design can be employed to achieve these outcomes.

This study was intended for exploratory purposes and as confirmation of general observations of learning made by the teachers. The findings from the study appear to confirm the teachers' expectations that the learning environment was strongly supportive of students' generic skills development. The study was limited in several respects in terms of the nature of the data collected and the ability of that data to be used in conclusive ways to argue the extent of skills development and the superiority of the learning setting. We intend to pursue our inquiries in these areas with more deliberate and targeted forms of learning activity to explore further ways in which particular generic and lifelong learning skills can become expected outcomes of undergraduate teaching using on-line learning technologies.

Note

A shortened version of this article was presented at ED-MEDIA 2000 and was published in the ED-MEDIA 2000 Conference Proceedings.

References

Ashcroft, K., & Foreman-Peck, L. (1994). Managing teaching and learning in further and higher education. London, UK: The Falmer Press.

Bennett, N., Dunne, E., & Carre, C. (1999). Patterns of core and generic skill provision in higher education. Higher Education, 37(1), 71-93.

Blumhof, J., Honeybone, A., Pearlman, D., & Pinn, K. (1996). Tackling the problem of skills development in a modular degree programme: The Skillswise Project. In G. Gibbs (Ed.), Improving student learning: Using research to improve student learning (pp. 328-339). Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18, 32-42.

Candy, P., Crebert, G., & O'Leary, J. (1994). Developing lifelong learners through undergarduate education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Dearing Report (1997). Higher education in the learning society. London: HMSO.

Finn, B. (1991). Young people's participation in post compulsory education and training. Report of the Australian Education Council Review Committee. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Gibbs, G., Rust, C., Jenkins, A., & Jaques, D. (1994). Developing students' transferable skills. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (1997). Multimedia, magic and the way students respond to a situated learning environment. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 127-143.

Havard, M., Hughes, M., & Clarke, J. (1998). The introduction and evaluation of key skills in undergraduate courses. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 22(1), 61-688.

Mayer, E. (1992). Key competencies. Report of the Committee to advise the ACE and MOVET on Employment Related Key Competencies for Post Compulsory Education and Training. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Oliver, R., & McLoughlin, C. (1999). Using Web and problem-based learning environments to support the development of key skills. In J. Winn (Ed.), ASCILITE '99-Responding to diversity: Proceedings of the 16th annual conference of the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (pp. 249-256). Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Oliver, R., Oman, A., & Herrington, J. (1998). Investigating implementation strategies for WWW computer-based learning environments. International Journal of Instructional Media, 25(2), 121-138.

Oliver, R. Omari, A., & Stoney, C. (1999). Collaborative learning on the World Wide Web using a problem-based learning approach. In J. Chambers (Ed.) Selected papers from the Tenth International Conference on College Teaching and Learning. Jacksonville: FCCJ.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Seagraves. L., Kemp, I., & Osborne, M. (1996). Are academic outcomes of higher education provision relevant to and deliverable in the workplace setting? Higher Education, 32(2), 157-176.

The New Zealand Curriculum Framework 1993. Wellington: Ministry of Education.

Table 1

A Framework for the Development of Key Skills (Bennett, Dunne, & Carre, 1999)

Management of Self

Manage time effectively

Set objectives, priorities and standards

Take responsibility for own learning

Listen actively with purpose

Use a range of academic skills

Develop and adapt learning strategies

Show intellectual flexibility

Use learning in new or different situations

Plan/work towards long-term goals 

Purposefully reflect on own learning

Clarify with criticism constructively

Cope with stress

Management of Others

Carry out agreed tasks

Respect the views and values of others

Work productively in a cooperative context

Adapt to the needs of the group

Defend/justify views and actions

Take initiative and lead others

Delegate and stand back

Negotiate

Offer constructive criticism

Take the role of chairperson

Learn in a collaborative context

Assist/support others in learning

Management of Information

Use appropriate sources of information

Use appropriate technologies

Use appropriate media

Handle large amounts of information

Use appropriate language and form

Interpret a variety of information forms

Present information competently

Respond to different purposes/contexts and audiences

Use information critically

Use information in innovative and creative ways

Management of Task

Identify key features

Conceptualise ideas

Set and maintain priorities

Identify strategic options

Plan/implement a course of action

Organise sub-tasks

Use and develop appropriate strategies

Assess outcomes

Table 2
Students' Perceptions of the Relative Levels of Practice of
Self Management
Management of Self                 Never  A little   Regularly
Manage time effectively             0     67           33
Set objectives, priorities and
standards                           0     65           35
Take responsibility for own
learning                            0     26           74
Listen actively with purpose        4     53           43
Use a range of academic skills      0     54           46
Develop and adapt learning
strategies                          4     59           37
Show intellectual flexibility       0     56           44
Use learning in new or different
situations                          3     56           41
Plan/work towards long-term goals   4     50           46
Purposefully reflect on own
learning                            4     54           42
Clarify with criticism              0     77           23
constructively
Cope with stress                   16     68           16
Average                             3%    57%          40%
Management of Self                  Index (0-2)
Manage time effectively               1.25
Set objectives, priorities and
standards                             1.34
Take responsibility for own
learning                              1.75
Listen actively with purpose          1.41
Use a range of academic skills        1.47
Develop and adapt learning
strategies                            1.34
Show intellectual flexibility         1.44
Use learning in new or different
situations                            1.38
Plan/work towards long-term goals     1.44
Purposefully reflect on own
learning                              1.41
Clarify with criticism                1.22
constructively
Cope with stress                      1.00
Average                               1.37
Table 3
Students' Perceptions of the Relative Levels of Development of
Self Management
Management of Self                 Not at all  A little  Average  Much
Manage time effectively                4          22       49      25
Set objectives, priorities
and standards                          0          28       40      25
Take responsibility for
own learning                           0          10       28      37
Listen actively with purpose           4          25       34      28
Use a range of
academic skills                        0          19       40      34
Develop and adapt learning
strategies                             4          13       49      28
Show intellectual flexibility          0          14       40      46
Use learning in new or different
situations                             4          13       34      39
Plan/work towards long-term goals      4          25       28      25
Purposefully reflect on own
learning                               0          16       34      43
Clarify with criticism
constructively                         0          34       37      25
Cope with stress                      19          31       28      19
Average                                3%         21%      37%     31%
Management of Self                 Very much  Index (0-4)
Manage time effectively                0      1.97
Set objectives, priorities
and standards                          7      2.03
Take responsibility for
own learning                          25      2.53
Listen actively with purpose          10      2.16
Use a range of
academic skills                        7      2.28
Develop and adapt learning
strategies                             7      2.16
Show intellectual flexibility          0      2.34
Use learning in new or different
situations                            10      2.41
Plan/work towards long-term goals     19      2.31
Purposefully reflect on own
learning                               7      2.34
Clarify with criticism
constructively                         4      1.97
Cope with stress                       3      1.56
Average                                8%     2.12
Table 4
Students' Perceptions of the Relative
Levels of Practise of Management of
Others
Management of Others                    Never  A little     Regularly
Carry out agreed tasks                   4           25        71
Respect the views and values of others   4           17        79
Work in a cooperative context            5           36        49
Adapt to the needs of the group          0           54        46
Defend/justify views and actions        13           65        22
Take initiative and lead others          7           53        40
Delegate and stand back                 31           59        10
Negotiate                               13           50        37
Offer constructive criticism            22           50        28
Take the role of chairperson            43           45        12
Learn in a collaborative context         7           65        28
Assist/support others in learning       16           50        34
Average                                 14.6%        47.4%     38.0%
Management of Others                    Index (0-2)
Carry out agreed tasks                     1.69
Respect the views and values of others     1.78
Work in a cooperative context              1.47
Adapt to the needs of the group            1.47
Defend/justify views and actions           1.09
Take initiative and lead others            1.34
Delegate and stand back                    0.78
Negotiate                                  1.25
Offer constructive criticism               1.06
Take the role of chairperson               0.66
Learn in a collaborative context           1.22
Assist/support others in learning          1.87
Average                                    1.31
Table 5
Students' Perceptions of the Relative
Levels of Development of Management of
Others' Skills
Management of Others          Not at all  A little  Average  Much
Carry out agreed tasks            4          16       22       42
Respect the views and
values of others                  7          13       18       49
Work in a cooperative
context                           7          13       33       37
Adapt to the needs of
the group                         4          22       42       16
Defend/justify views
and actions                       7          34       33       22
Take initiative and
lead others                      10          16       33       31
Delegate and stand back          31          13       36       13
Negotiate                         7          28       36       19
Offer constructive criticism     16          28       33       10
Take the role of
chairperson                      37          22       25       12
Learn in a collaborative
context                           7          16       36       25
Assist/support others
in learning                       7          22       27       31
Average                          12.0%       20.2%    31.2%    25.6%
Management of Others          Very    Index (0-4)
                              Much
Carry out agreed tasks         16        2.47
Respect the views and
values of others               13        2.50
Work in a cooperative
context                        10        2.31
Adapt to the needs of
the group                      16        1.97
Defend/justify views
and actions                     4        1.88
Take initiative and
lead others                    10        2.16
Delegate and stand back         7        1.50
Negotiate                      10        1.97
Offer constructive criticism   13        1.81
Take the role of
chairperson                     4        1.28
Learn in a collaborative
context                        16        2.28
Assist/support others
in learning                    13        2.22
Average                        11.0%     2.00
Table 6
Students' Perceptions of the
Relative Levels of Practise
of Task Management
Management of Task                 Never   A little  Regularly
Identify key features                0        41        59
Conceptualise ideas                  0        44        56
Set and maintain priorities          0        53        47
Identify strategic options           0        74        26
Plan/implement a course of action    4        50        46
Organise sub-tasks                  20        50        30
Use and develop appropriate          4        53        43
strategies
Assess outcomes                      4        50        46
Average                              4.0%     51.9%     44.1%
Management of Task                 Index (0-2)
Identify key features                 1.59
Conceptualise ideas                   1.44
Set and maintain priorities           1.47
Identify strategic options            1.25
Plan/implement a course of action     1.44
Organise sub-tasks                    1.12
Use and develop appropriate           1.41
strategies
Assess outcomes                       1.44
Average                               1.39
Table 7
Students' Perceptions of the
Relative Levels of Development
of Task Management
Management of Task                 Not at all  A little  Aveage
Identify key features                  0          19       43
Conceptualise ideas                    0          13       46
Set and maintain priorities            4          15       28
Identify strategic options             4          22       42
Plan/implement a course of action      7          22       25
Organise sub-tasks                    13          30       22
Use and develop appropriate
strategies                             4          18       28
Assess outcomes                        4          25       33
Average                                4.5%       20.5%    33.4%
Management of Task                 Much    Very    Index (0-4)
                                           much
Identify key features               28      10        2.28
Conceptualise ideas                 28      13        2.41
Set and maintain priorities         40      13        2.44
Identify strategic options          25       7        2.09
Plan/implement a course of action   33      13        2.25
Organise sub-tasks                  22      13        1.91
Use and develop appropriate
strategies                          40      10        2.34
Assess outcomes                     28      10        2.16
Average                             30.5%   11.1%     2.23
Table 8
Students' Perceptions of the Relative
Levels of Practise of Information
Management
Management of Information               Never   A little  Regularly
Use appropriate sources of information    0        23        77
Use appropriate technologies              0        11        89
Use appropriate media                     0        26        74
Handle large amounts of information       0        44        56
Use appropriate language and form         0        53        47
Interpret a variety of information        4        43        53
forms
Present information competently           0        56        44
Respond to different purposes/
contexts and audiences                    4        64        32
Use information critically                0        56        44
Use information in innovative and
creative ways                             4        59        37
Average                                   1.2%     43.5%     55.3%
Management of Information               Index (0-2)
Use appropriate sources of information  1.78
Use appropriate technologies            1.91
Use appropriate media                   1.75
Handle large amounts of information     1.56
Use appropriate language and form       1.47
Interpret a variety of information      1.50
forms
Present information competently         1.44
Respond to different purposes/
contexts and audiences                  1.28
Use information critically              1.44
Use information in innovative and
creative ways                           1.34
Average                                 1.55
Table 9
Students' Perceptions of the
Relative Levels of Development
of Information Management
Management of Information            Not at all  A little  Average
Use appropriate sources of
information                              0         13        19
Use appropriate technologies             7          0        16
Use appropriate media                    0          7        31
Handle large amounts of information      0         16        16
Use appropriate language and form       13         10        36
Interpret a variety of information
forms                                    4         10        33
Present information competently          7         10        33
Respond to different purposes/
contexts and audiences                   4          4        57
Use information critically               4         10        39
Use information in innovative
and creative ways                        4         10        30
Average                                  4.3%       9.0%     31.0%
Management of Information            Much    Very much  Index (0-4)
Use appropriate sources of
information                           46        22         2.78
Use appropriate technologies          49        28         2.66
Use appropriate media                 34        28         2.56
Handle large amounts of information   49        19         2.72
Use appropriate language and form     31        10         2.16
Interpret a variety of information
forms                                 40        13         2.50
Present information competently       33        15         2.44
Respond to different purposes/
contexts and audiences                25        10         2.25
Use information critically            37        10         2.34
Use information in innovative
and creative ways                     37        19         2.59
Average                               38.2%     17.5%      2.50
Table 10
Students' Perceptions of the Relative Levels of
Practice of Generic Skills
Generic Skill              Never  A little  Regularly  Weighted
                             %       %          %      Index
                                                       (0-2)
Management of Self           3       57        40      1.37
Management of Others        15       47        38      1.31
Management of Task           4       52        44      1.39
Management of Information    1       44        55      1.55
Average                      6%      50%       54%
Table 11
Students' Perceptions of the Relative
Levels ot Generic Skills Development
Generic Skill           Not     A little  Average  Much   Very
                      at all %     %         %      %    Much %
Management of Self       3         21       37      31      8
Management of Others    12         20       31      26     11
Management of Task       5         20       33      31     11
Management of
Information              4          9       31      38     18
Average                  6%        18%      33%     32%    12%
Generic Skill          Weighted
                      Index (0-2)
Management of Self       2.12
Management of Others     2.00
Management of Task       2.23
Management of
Information              2.50
Average                  2.21