- Study at Deakin
- Campus life
- Industry and community
- About Deakin
The nomenclature surrounding, and approaches to, the implementation of 'graduate attributes' are varied, but many institutions identify a hierarchy of levels, with general graduate attributes (such as those specified by Deakin) at the top. At the next level, each attribute may have a range of elements that students must demonstrate, which are often program-specific. There may be additional levels of discipline-specific specification between this level and the complete range of individual student learning objectives for a program. The exact approach is institution-specific and would depend on the institutions policy(s) relating to graduate attributes. Apart from specifying the top-level graduate attributes and requiring programs to provide opportunities for students to develop them, the current Deakin policy doesn't articulate a specific approach for translating the top-level attributes into program/discipline learning objectives.
As an example, consider the approach currently taken by the University of Sydney. At the top level, they identify three generic attributes of graduates:
Each of these overarching attributes is considered to be a combination of five overlapping clusters of skills and abilities.
An 'indicative interpretation' is provided for each of the clusters of skills and abilities, for example, Information Literacy might be understood as the ability to:
Normally, university-level lists of graduate attributes are necessarily general, as they nominally apply to students in all programs. It is also common for the lists of graduate attributes published by program accrediting professional bodies to be comparatively general in nature, as many professions now encompass a diversity of practice areas and specialisms, for which it may not be practical to produce a tightly specified list of attributes. Virtually all authors agree that institution- and/or profession-level graduate attributes must be contextualised/interpreted into more meaningful attribute specifications for particular discipline areas and/or discipline specialisms. Returning to the University of Sydney case, Faculties can contextualise the 'indicative interpretation' for each of the attribute clusters into their own disciplinary domain. For example, the Faculty of Medicine contextualises the attribute of Information Literacy as:
Graduates of the Faculty of Medicine will be able to use information effectively in a range of contexts.
Does your School contextualise the standard set of Deakin graduate attributes into more discipline-specific terms for the program(s) that you contribute to? If yes, in what ways are they made more relevant to the program(s)? If no, how could the standard set of Deakin graduate attributes be contextualised into terms more specific for the program(s) that you contribute to?