best work

An exploratory study of factor

s

affecting undergraduate

employabilit

y

David J. Finch, Leah K. Hamilton, Riley Baldwin and Mark Zehner
Bissett School of Business, Mount Royal University, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Abstract

Purpose – The current study was conducted to increase our understanding of factors that influence
the employability of university graduates. Through the use of both qualitative and quantitative
approaches, the paper explores the relative importance of 17 factors that influence new graduate
employability.
Design/methodology/approach – An extensive review of the existing literature was used to
identify 17 factors that affect new graduate employability. A two-phase, mixed-methods study was
conducted to examine: Phase One, whether these 17 factors could be combined into five categories;
and Phase Two, the relative importance that employers place on these factors. Phase One involved
interviewing 30 employers, and Phase Two consisted of an empirical examination with an additional
115 employers.
Findings – Results from both the qualitative and quantitative phases of the current study
demonstrated that 17 employability factors can be clustered into five higher-order composite
categories. In addition, findings illustrate that, when hiring new graduates, employers place the
highest importance on soft-skills and the lowest importance on academic reputation.
Research limitations/implications – The sectors in which employers operated were not
completely representative of their geographical region.
Practical implications – The findings suggest that, in order to increase new graduates’ employability,
university programmes and courses should focus on learning outcomes linked to the development of
soft-skills. In addition, when applying for jobs, university graduates should highlight their soft-skills and
problem-solving skills.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the body of knowledge on the employability of university
graduates by empirically examining the relative importance of five categories of employability factors
that recruiters evaluate when selecting new graduates.

Keywords Employability, University graduates, Soft skills, Problem solving skills,
Pre-graduate experience, Functional skills, Academic reputation, Employment, Undergraduates

Paper type Research paper

Background
In the past 60 years, participation in post-secondary education has increased
dramatically. Prior to the Second World War, post-secondary education was
constrained to the societal elite that possessed the required economic capacity
(Sutherland, 2008). However, following the Second World War, a combination of public
policy and demographic shifts saw post-secondary education expand considerably in
developed countries. For example, the number of degree granting post-secondary
institutions in Canada expanded from 28 to 87 between 1918 and 2009 (Harris, 1976;
Scott, 2006). Recently in Canada, undergraduate student enrolment has increased at a
rate of approximately 3.1 per cent per annum, while graduate student enrolment has
seen an even faster rate of growth (approximately 5 per cent since 2000; Statistics
Canada, 2009). This increased enrolment has resulted in a significant increase in the
number of credentials granted by these post-secondary institutions. By 2009, over

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0040-0912.htm

Received 22 July 2012
Revised 2 January 2013

Accepted 31 March 2013

Education þ Training
Vol. 55 No. 7, 2013

pp. 681-

704

r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0040-0912
DOI 10.1108/ET-07-2012-0077

681

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

60 per cent of the working-age population in Canada held post-secondary education
qualifications (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009).

Despite the increasing participation rate in post-secondary education, not all
university graduates obtain jobs that fully harness their skills and credentials.
In fact, evidence suggests that one out of every five university graduates is
overqualified for their job, working in a position that only requires a high school
education (Li et al., 2006). In addition, labour market surveys indicate that the
proportion of overqualified university-educated workers has been increasing over
time (Li et al., 2006).

One primary way to improve labour market outcomes for new university graduates
is to ensure they have employability skills. Indeed, Wickramasinghe and Perera
(2010) contend that these employability skills are critical for economic and social
development. Moreover, from an employer’s perspective, an educated and skilled
workforce is vital to sustain a competitive advantage in the market (Lin et al., 2012;
Batra, 2010; Hitt et al., 2001).

Increasing our understanding of factors that influence undergraduate university
students’ successful transition into the labour market is critical, both to reduce the
proportion of new graduates who are overqualified for their jobs, and to ensure
that employers can recruit graduates who have the skills their organisations need to
succeed in the twenty-first century knowledge-based economy. In a recent survey by
McKinsey, 40 per cent of employers indicated that there is a significant skills gap
between graduates and entry-level requirements. McKinsey concluded that “there is an
issue with education systems that fail to produce future workers with the kinds of
skills required by today’s organisations – let alone those of tomorrow” (McKinsey and
Company, 2012, p. 23).

The relationship between education and employability[1] has been examined
from a range of stakeholder perspectives, including university recruiters (Moy, 2006);
faculty members (Aistrich et al., 2006); and employers (Finch et al., 2012). In addition,
some researchers have focused on comparing perceptions of employability across
stakeholder groups (Culkin and Mallick, 2011; Wickramasinghe and Perera, 2010;
Nicholson and Cushman, 2000). For instance, studies have considered how employability
is influenced by specific factors such as age (Van der Heijden et al., 2009b), pre-graduate
experience (Gault et al., 2010; Gabris and Mitchell, 1989) and academic reputation and
brand (Tas and Ergin, 2012; Alessandri et al., 2006). Generally speaking, employability is
examined from one of two perspectives: the organisational perspective is concerned with
the ideal organisational structures and processes that will contribute to an organisation’s
competitive advantage (De Vos et al., 2011; Nauta et al., 2009); in contrast, the individual
perspective considers the factors that are required for individual success in the labour
market (Van der Heijden et al., 2009a).

Despite the attention paid to the relation between education and employability,
researchers have argued that much of the research into employability factors is
theoretical and prescriptive, and that there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting
these theoretical propositions (Wickramasinghe and Perera, 2010). In addition, there
has been a heavy reliance on case studies, which typically suffer from a lack of
generalisability (Wickramasinghe and Perera, 2010). As a result, it is difficult to
extrapolate or compare findings. Ultimately, scholars have identified a need for
additional research that examines the transition of new graduates to the workforce
(Holden and Hamblett, 2007). In this context, the current study seeks to contribute to
the body of knowledge on the employability of new graduates from the individual

682

ET
55,7

perspective by empirically examining the relative importance of factors that recruiters
evaluate when assessing new graduates.

This paper is structured as follow: first, we review the existing literature on
factors that influence undergraduate university students’ successful transition from
the classroom to the workforce. Next, we use the literature review as the basis for
conducting a qualitative study that identifies the key factors considered by employers
when evaluating new graduates. Following this, we extend the qualitative findings
by conducting an empirical study that explores the relative importance that employers
place on these employability factors, examining 17 factors individually and at a
composite level of five categories. Finally, we present our contributions, limitations,
and implications for future research and practice.

Literature review
Employability is a multi-dimensional construct that includes: the ability to secure first
employment; the ability for an individual to transfer between positions at the same
employer; and the ability to secure employment from a new organisation (Hillage
and Pollard, 1998). De Vos et al. (2011) contend that employability incorporates
both objective and subjective elements. In the current study, we identify employers’
subjective perceptions regarding the factors that are important to the employability of
new graduates.

Previous research findings suggest that employability factors may be analysed at
two levels (Bhaerman and Spill, 1988; Longest, 1973). The first level considers specific
employability factors (e.g. listening skills, writing skills, academic performance).
The second level condenses these factors into higher-order categories (e.g. soft-skills,
functional skills). For instance, Finch et al. (2012) measured 46 individual employability
factors relevant to 253 marketing practitioners and found that the 46 factors loaded
onto seven higher-order composite categories. In Finch et al.’s (2012) study, the higher-
order category “meta-skills” contained specific employability factors such as listening
skills, professionalism, and interpersonal skills. These findings are similar to those
suggested by Bhaerman and Spill (1988), who proposed three higher-order categories
consistent with the US Department of Labour’s Job Training Partnership Act: first,
pre-employment and work maturity skills (i.e. labour market knowledge, initiative,
professionalism); second, basic education skills (i.e. communications, analysis, and
reasoning); and finally, job-specific skills (i.e. entry-level or advance functional skills of
a field). While individual employability factors (e.g. writing skills) are important, there
are benefits associated with grouping categories of related employability factors
into higher-order categories. These categories are consistent with the approach taken
by previous researchers, and they provide a parsimonious classification system for
both employers and university educators who have a vested interest in increasing
employability among university graduates.

Next, we review the breadth of literature associated with employability. This section
is structured based on five proposed higher-order categories soft-skills; problem-
solving skills; job-specific functional skills; pre-graduate experience; and academic
reputation. Within these higher-order categories, we review literature on 17 individual
factors (indicated by italics).

Soft-skil

ls

Recently, educational researchers and employers have placed increasing attention on
the importance of soft-skills (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010). While discipline-specific

683

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

knowledge is typically content specific, soft-skills are non-academic skills (e.g.
communication skills) that are presumed to be useful in a range of working
environments (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010). Evidence suggests that soft-skills are
an important predictor of employability (Finch et al., 2012; Lievens and Sackett, 2012;
Nickson et al., 2012; Rynes et al., 1997). Specific soft-skills that may affect employability
include the following types of communication skills: written communication skills
(Ariana, 2010; Graham et al., 2010; Andrews and Higson, 2008; Gardner et al., 2005);
verbal communication skills (Gray, 2010; Gardner et al., 2005); and listening skills
(Cooper, 1997; Goby and Lewis, 2000). Similarly, professionalism has been identified as
contributing to employability (Ashton, 2011; Mat and Zabidi, 2010; Shafer et al., 2002;
Cable and Judge, 1996). Lastly, scholars have identified interpersonal skills – such as the
ability to work effectively in teams – as an important employability factor (Wellman,
2010; Borghans et al., 2008; Chowdhury et al., 2002). In sum, research conducted from a
range of disciplines and occupations converges on the finding that soft-skills influence
employability.

Problem-solving skills
Several researchers have identified that problem-solving skills are core to
employability (Reid and Anderson, 2012; Stiwne and Jungert, 2010; Wellman, 2010;
Fallows and Steven, 2000). Similar to soft-skills, problem-solving skills are important
across disciplines (e.g. engineering, marketing) and employer type (Stiwne and Jungert,
2010; Wellman, 2010). Problem-solving skills are higher-order cognitive skills that are
complex, requiring “judgment, analysis, and synthesis; and are not applied in a rote or
mechanical manner” (Halpern, 1998, p. 451). Problem solving is a competency closely
related to intelligence (or general mental ability; Scherbaum et al., 2012), which is the
best predictor of job performance across a variety of occupations (Schmidt and Hunter,
1998, 2004). Problem solving incorporates a range of competencies including critical
thinking skills (Reid and Anderson, 2012; Halpern, 1998), creativity (Kilgour
and Koslow, 2009; Halpern, 1998), leadership skills (Conrad and Newberry, 2012), and
adaptability (Jabr, 2011; Barr et al., 2009).

Job-specific functional skills
Job-specific functional skills – including job-specific competencies, job-specific technical
skills (e.g. Rosenberg et al., 2012), and knowledge of software (Perry, 1998) – are essential
when considering an individual’s employability (Huang and Lin, 2011; Laker and
Powell, 2011; Smith et al., 2008; Pang and To Ming, 2005; Bhaerman and Spill, 1988;
Longest, 1973). Generally speaking, these skills send a signal to employers that a new
graduate has mastered the specific proficiencies needed to perform highly on a
particular job (Bhaerman and Spill, 1988). It is important to note that job-specific
functional skills are more context specific than soft-skills and problem-solving skills.
For instance, the technical skills required by a software engineer will differ from those
required by a business analyst.

Pre-graduate experience
The relationship between pre-graduate experience and employability has been studied
extensively (Hopkins et al., 2011; Gault et al., 2010; Callanan and Benzing, 2004; Gault
et al., 2000; Gabris and Mitchell, 1989). Pre-graduate work experience may include
in-programme experiential learning opportunities (e.g. co-op and internships) or more
informal career-related work experience such as part-time or summer employment.

684

ET
55,7

In one study of 142 recent university graduates, students who completed internships
reported both higher job acquisition skills and job satisfaction (Gault et al., 2000).
The researchers concluded that “experiential education plays a vital role in enhancing
the preparation and success of undergraduates in the entry-level job market” (Gault
et al., 2000, p. 52). Similarly, in a qualitative interview study investigating graduate and
employer perspectives of employability, findings suggest that UK employers highly
value graduates’ work experience, viewing it as an indicator of workplace readiness
(Andrews and Higson, 2008). Professional confidence is a construct that is closely
related to pre-graduate work experience, in part because it is increased by experiential
learning opportunities (Overton et al., 2009). Like pre-graduate work experience,
professional confidence is associated with employability (Brown et al., 2003).
In sum, the literature suggests that pre-graduate experience influences employability
as it enables students to develop their overall skills by experiencing real-world
challenges and applications (Gabris and Mitchell, 1989).

Academic reputation
Academic reputation has a significant impact on a variety of outcomes of interest to
employers, policy makers, and academics alike. For instance, researchers have
examined how student retention and perceptions are affected by: institutional image
(Pampaloni, 2010); institutional branding (Bennett and Ali-Choudhury, 2009; Judson
et al., 2008); institutional ranking (Capobianco, 2009); and programme structure (Sauer
and O’Donnell, 2006). Comparatively, few studies have explored the relationship
between academic reputation and employability.

Reputation is a social construct that is defined as the generalised level of esteem for
an organisation held by a stakeholder (Deephouse and Carter, 2005; Dalton and Croft,
2003; Fombrun and Shanley, 1990). Evidence suggests that the academic reputation of
a specific school (e.g. Harvard) or a category of schools (e.g. Ivy League) may enhance
employability of graduates from these institutions (Chevalier and Conlon, 2003).
Evidence suggests that academic reputation and its relationship to employability
should be considered at three levels. The first level considers institutional-level
reputation. Institutions and the ranking systems that have emerged in the past two
decades (e.g. Maclean’s University Rankings, Forbes Top Colleges List) influence
the employability of new graduates (Alessandri et al., 2006; Capobianco, 2009). Second,
scholars have identified that programme-level reputation also can influence the
perception of employability skills (McGuinness, 2003). For example, the Financial
Times (2012) releases an annual ranking of MBA programmes which may influence
the employability of graduates from these programmes. Lastly, individual academic
performance (e.g. grade-point average) contributes to the employability of a new
graduate (Ng et al., 2010) and is frequently used in selection systems for entry-level
positions (Rynes et al., 1997).

In sum, consistent with Finch et al. (2012), our literature review identified five
higher-order composite categories of employability factors: soft-skills; problem-solving
skills; job-specific functional skills; pre-graduate experience; and academic reputation.
Within these five higher-order categories are 17 individual employability factors.
The goal of the current study is to empirically examine the relative ranking of these
17 measures and five composite categories among a sample of employers. To this end,
we conducted a mixed-methods study that incorporates two phases. In Phase
One we conducted a qualitative study to provide preliminary support for the
importance of the 17 individual employability factors and their associated five

685

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

composite categories. Based on our findings from Phase One, in Phase Two we
developed a measure that allowed us to explore the relative importance of the
employability factors and their composite categories.

Operationalising employability factors
Phase One: qualitative interview study
Methodology. In Phase One of this study, we used qualitative methods to further
explore and verify the employability factors and categories identified in our literature
review. Specifically, we conducted 30 one-on-one interviews with hiring managers and
influencers. To ensure participation by diverse employers (Creswell, 2009), we engaged
in purposeful sampling methods based on Statistics Canada data. Three stratification
criteria were used to identify candidates: first, confirmation that individuals directly
hired or had significant influence on the hiring decision of new graduates; second, a
broad representation of industry sectors; and finally, a mix of small, medium,
and large organisations. Based on these criteria, a pool of candidates was recruited
through the local chamber of commerce and the local human resources professional
association in a large western Canadian city. Table I presents individual profiles of the
participants.

We conducted standardised, structured interviews that included a variety of open-
ended questions. This format was chosen to provide sufficient structure to explore
major themes, while maximising objectivity and ensuring that participants were not
led to predetermined responses (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Of central importance to the
current study, the majority of questions focused on the identification of employability
factors for new graduates. In addition, participants responded to questions about their
professional background and hiring experience.

Each participant was interviewed independently in a private location. The mean
interview length was 20:29 minutes. All interviews were digitally recorded and then
transcribed. To maximise objectivity, each interview was independently coded by
two members of the research team (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). First, the researchers
independently reviewed the audio tapes of each interview in their entirety. This
provided a holistic perspective of each interview. Moreover, this process enabled the
researchers to independently code major themes at the individual participant level.
The second stage of the reduction process eliminated duplicate or overlapping themes.
This reduction process was done in a manner that identified the composite themes
without losing the integrity of each interviewee’s contribution (Moustakas, 1994).
To mitigate this risk during the reduction process, a separate document was
maintained by the researchers of all participant content removed during the analysis.

Results. During the first phase of the coding process, a total of 31 major themes were
independently identified by the researchers. The second stage consolidated these into
eight major composite themes. The researchers then sought to compare these themes to
the 17 employability factors identified during the literature review. Based on both the
literature review and interview data, Table II illustrates support for the five composite
categories, while Table III illustrates a range of support for the 17 employability
factors. Interpersonal skills (29/30) and programme-level reputation (27/30) were the
most consistently identified individual factors during the interviews. In contrast,
knowledge of software (10/30) was the factor that was mentioned the least frequently.
Ultimately, the qualitative research provided additional background and context that
enabled a better understanding of the scope and relationship between employability
factors. This proved invaluable during the empirical phase of this study.

686

ET
55,7

Phase Two: an empirical examination of employability factors
Methodology. Phase One provided preliminary support for the 17 individual
employability factors and their associated five composite categories. In Phase Two
we expanded these findings by empirically examining the relative importance of these
factors amongst practitioners. Employability is one of the central objectives of higher
education (Poropat, 2011). Consequently, the target population for our empirical study
was employers who have direct influence on hiring decisions pertaining to new
graduates. To reach a large and diverse group of professionals from a wide range of
industries, functional roles, and business sizes, we partnered with the chamber
of commerce and the economic development authority in a large western Canadian
city. The chamber facilitated data collection by distributing the survey link to the 1,200
members who subscribe to their weekly e-newsletter. In addition, the survey link was
posted on the economic development authority’s web site. In both cases, we specified
that managers who were responsible for hiring new graduates were invited to
participate. Data were collected over a 14-day period.

Participant Title Industry
Size of organisation
(no. of employees)

Participant 1 Manager, passenger experience Transportation Medium (50-499)
Participant 2 Manager, talent acquisition Transportation Large (500þ )
Participant 3 Senior chef Hospitality Large (500þ )
Participant 4 Executive sous chef Hospitality Large (500þ )
Participant 5 Manager, daily programmes Recreation Medium (50-499)
Participant 6 Manager, human resources Recreation Medium (50-499)
Participant 7 Operations manager Hospitality Large (500þ )
Participant 8 General manager Hospitality Small (1-49)
Participant 9 President Arts and culture Small (1-49)
Participant 10 Operations manager Arts and culture Small (1-49)
Participant 11 President and chief executive

officer
Energy and utilities Small (1-49)

Participant 12 Chief operating officer Energy and utilities Small (1-49)
Participant 13 Senior sales coordinator Energy and utilities Large (500þ )
Participant 14 Team lead, early talent Energy and utilities Large (500þ )
Participant 15 Vice president Professional services Large (500þ )
Participant 16 Business analyst Energy and utilities Large (500þ )
Participant 17 Manager, campus recruitment Energy and utilities Large (500þ )
Participant 18 Senior auditor Energy and utilities Large (500þ )
Participant 19 Manager, human resources Energy and utilities Large (500þ )
Participant 20 Engineering manager Energy and utilities Small (1-49)
Participant 21 Manager, talent acquisition Energy and utilities Large (500þ )
Participant 22 Marketing director Arts and culture Small (1-49)
Participant 23 Provincial director Non-profit Large (500þ )
Participant 24 Chief executive officer Non-profit Small (1-49)
Participant 25 Finance director Arts and culture Medium (50-499)
Participant 26 Programme manager Arts and culture Small (1-49)
Participant 27 President and chief executive

officer
Non-profit Medium (50-499)

Participant 28 Director Non-profit Large (500þ )
Participant 29 President Arts and culture Small (1-49)
Participant 30 Operations manager Entertainment Small (1-49)

Table I.
Practitioner interviewees

687

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

F
a
ct

o
r

L
it

er
a
tu

r

e
su

p
p

o
rt

In
te

rv
ie

w
su

p
p
o
rt

S
co

p
e

S

o
ft

-s
k

il
ls

L
ie

v
en

s

a
n

d
S

a
ck

et
t

(2

0
1
2
),

R
y

n
es

et

a
l.

(1
9
9
7
)

2
8
/3

0
T

h
e

i

m
p

o
rt
a
n

ce

o
f

so
ft

-s
k
il
ls

w

a
s

c

o
n

si
st

en
tl

y
id

e

n
ti

fi
ed

b

y

b

o
th

th
e

in
te

rv
ie

w

e
es

a
n

d

a
ss

o
ci

a
te

d
li

te
ra

tu
re

.
W

h
en

a
sk

e

d
to

d
ef

i

n
e

so
ft
-s
k
il
ls

,
in

te
rv

i

e
w

e
es

ci
te

d
co

m
m

u
n

ic

a
ti

o
n
a
n

d
p

ro
fe

ss
io

n

a
li

sm
a
s

d

o
m

in
a
n

t
ch

a
ra

ct
er

is
ti

cs
P

r

o
b

l

e
m

-s

o
lv

i

n
g

sk
il

ls
R

ei
d

a
n

d
A

n
d

e

r
so

n
(2

0
1
2
),

K
il

g

o
u

r
a
n

d
K

o
sl

o
w

(2
0
0
9
)

2
5
/3

0
In

te
rv
ie
w

ee
s

in
d

ic
a
te

d
th

a
t

it
is

es
se

n
ti

a
l

fo
r

n
ew

g
ra

d
u

a
te

s
to

b
e

“

p
ro

b
le

m
so

l

v
er

s”
.

In
te
rv
ie

w
ee

s
id

en
ti

fi
ed

ch
a
ra

ct
er
is
ti

cs
su

c

h
a
s

cr
it

ic
a
l

t

h
in

k
in

g

,
cr

ea
ti

v
it

y,
le

a
d

er
sh

ip
,

a
n

d
a
d

a
p

t

a
b

il
it

y
a
s

c

o
re

t

o
p

ro
b

le
m

so
lv

in
g

F
u

n
ct

io
n

a
l
sk
il

ls
H

u
a
n

g
a

n

d
L

in
(2

0
1
1
),

L

a
k

er
a
n

d
P

o
w

el
l

(2
0
1
1
),

S
m

i

t
h

e

t
a

l.

(2
0
0
8
),

L
o
n

g
es

t
(1

9
7
3
),

P
a
n

g
a
n

d
T

o
M

in
g

(2
0
0
5
)

2
8
/3

0
Jo

b
-s

p
ec

if
ic

fu
n

ct
io

n
a
l

sk
il

l

s
em

er
g

e

d
a
s

a
cr

it
ic

a
l
cr
it

er
io

n
in

2
8
/3

0
in

te
rv
ie
w

s

.
T

h
es

e
fu

n
ct
io
n
a
l
sk
il

ls
v

a
ry

b
a
se

d
o
n

th
e
p
ro

fe
ss

io
n

.
F

u
n
ct
io
n
a
l
sk
il

l

s
w

er
e

o
ft

en
ci

t

e
d

a
s

jo
b

–

s
p

ec
if

ic
co

m
p

et
en

ci
es

o
r

m
o

re

g
en

er
a
l

sk
il

ls
su

ch
a
s

k
n

o
w

le
d

g
e

o
f

sp
ec

if
ic
so
ft

w

a
re

p
ro
g
ra
m
m

es
A

ca
d

em
ic

r

e
p

u
ta

ti
o
n

A
le

s

s
a

n

d
ri

et
a
l.

(2
0
0
7
)

1
9
/3

0
T
h
e

q
u

a
li

ta
ti

v
e

re
se

a
rc

h
a
n

d
li
te
ra
tu
re

r

e
v

ie
w

i

d
en

ti
fi

ed
th

e
in

fl
u

e

n
ce

o
f
b
o
th

in
st

it
u

ti
o
n

a
l-

a
n
d
p

ro
g

r

a
m

m
e-

le
v

el
re

p
u

ta
ti
o
n

.D
im

e

n
si

o
n

s
o
f

a
ca

d
em

ic
re

p
u
ta
ti
o
n

w
er

e
id

en
ti
fi
ed

in
1
9
/3

0
in
te
rv
ie
w

s
a
s

a
co

n
si

d
er

a
ti
o
n

in
h

ir
in

g
.

T
h

es
e

in
te
rv
ie
w
ee

s
o
ft

en
ci
te
d
th
e

im
p

o
rt
a
n

c

e
o
f

sp
ec

ia
li

se
d

tr

a
in

in
g

t

h
a
t

is
u

n
iq

u
e

to
ce

rt
a
in

p
ro
g
ra
m
m

es
.

In
th

is
se

n
se

,
th

es
e

h
ir

in
g

m
a
n

a
g

er
s

o
ft
en
ci
te
d
p
ro
g
ra
m
m

e
re

p
u
ta
ti
o
n
a
s
m
o

re
re

le
v
a
n

t
th

a
n
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
a
l

re
p

u
ta
ti
o
n

P
re

-g
ra

d
u
a
te

w

o
rk

ex
p

er
ie

n
ce

C

a
ll

a
n
a
n
a
n

d
B

en
zi

n
g

(2
0
0
4
),

G

a
u

lt
et

a
l.

(2

0
1
0
),

G
ab

ri
s

a
n

d
M

it
ch

el
l

(1
9
8
9
)

1
9
/3
0
T
h
e

fi
n

a
l

th
em

e
id
en
ti
fi
ed

w
a
s

th
e
im
p
o
rt
a
n

ce
o
f

p
re

-g
ra
d
u
a
te

w
o

rk

ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
a
s
a
n

em
p

lo
y

ab
il

it
y

fa
ct

o
r.

T
h

is
p

re
-g

ra
d

u
a
te

w
o
rk

ex
p
er
ie
n
ce

m

a
y

in
cl

u
d

e
in

-p
ro

g
ra
m
m

e
ex

p
er

ie
n

ti
a
l

le

a
rn

in
g
o
p

p
o

rt
u

n
it

ie
s

(i
.e

.
co

-o
p

a
n

d
in

te
rn

sh
ip

s)
o
r

m
o

re
in

fo
rm

a
l
w

o
rk
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce

su
ch

a
s

re
la

te
d

p
a
rt

-t
im

e
o
r

s

u
m

m
er

em
p
lo
y

m
en

t.
T

h
is

re
fl

ec
ts

p
re

v
io

u
s

li
te

ra
tu

re
id

en
ti

f

y
in

g
th

e
v

a
lu

e
o
f
w
o
rk
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
fo
r
th
e
em
p
lo
y
ab
il
it
y
o
f
g
ra
d
u
a
te

s
(C

a
ll
a
n
a
n
a
n
d
B
en
zi
n
g

,
2
0
0
4
;
G

a
u
lt
et

a
l.,

2
0
1
0
;
H

o
p
k
in

s
et

a
l.,

2

0
1
1
)

Table II.
Employability factors –
composite categories

688

ET
55,7

F
a
ct
o
r
L
it
er
a
tu

re
su

p
p
o
rt
In
te
rv
ie
w
su
p
p
o
rt
S
co
p
e

W
ri

tt
en

co
m

m
u

n
ic

a
ti
o
n
sk
il
ls

G

a
rd

n
er

et
a
l.

(2
0
0
5
),

A
ri

a
n

a
(2

0
1
0
),

G
ra

h
a
m

et
a
l.

(2

0
1
0
)

2
1
/3

0
B

ei
n

g
ab

l

e
to

co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
te

ef
fe

ct
iv

el
y

th
ro

u
g

h
w

ri
ti

n
g

i

s
th

e
m
a
in
fo
rm
o
f
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
ti
o
n

i

n
o
u

r
so

ci
et

y
a
n

d
is

a
v

a
lu

ed
sk

il
l

th
a
t

in
cr

ea
se

s
em

p
lo

y
ab

il
it

y
o
p

p
o
rt
u
n
it
ie
s

(G
ra

h
a
m

et
a
l.,

2
0
1
0
;G

a
rd
n
er
et
a
l.,

2
0
0
5
).

In
th

e
cu

rr
en

t
st

u
d

y

,
w

e
u

se
d

w
ri

tt
en
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
ti
o
n
a
s

a
fa

c

t
o
r

em
p
lo
y
er
s

co
n

si
d

e

r
w

h
en
h
ir
in
g
n
ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te

s
b

ec
a
u

s

e
it

is
a

ta
n

g
ib

le
sk

il
l
th
a
t

ca
n

b
e
ef
fe
ct
iv
el
y

e

v
a
lu

a
te

d
V

e

r
b

a
l
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
ti
o
n
sk
il
ls

G
a
rd

n
er
et
a
l.
(2
0
0
5
),
G
ra

y
(2

0
1
0
)
2
5
/3
0
T

o
co

m
m
u
n
ic
a
te
ef
fe
ct
iv

el
y,

g
ra
d
u
a
te

s
en

t

e
ri

n
g
th
e
w
o

rk
fo

rc
e

n
ee

d
to

m
ee

t
h

i

g
h

s

t
a
n

d
a
rd

s
o
f

o
ra

l
co

m
m
u
n

ic
a
ti

o
n
(G
ra

y,

2
0
1
0
).

N
ew

g
ra
d
u
a
te
s
th
a
t
ca
n
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
te

i

d
ea

s
a
n

d
a
sk

q
u

es
ti

o
n
s
to

g
a
in

in
fo

rm
a
ti

o
n

w
il

l
b

e
m
o
re
p
ro
d
u
ct
iv

e
a

n

d
ef

fi
ci

e

n
t

in
th

e
w
o
rk

en
v

ir
o
n

m
en

t.
In

th
e

cu
rr

en
t

st
u

d
y,

w
e

d
ef
in
e
v
er

b
a
l

co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
ti
o
n

a
s:

sk
il

ls
u

se
d

to
ef

fe
ct

i

v
el

y
co

m
p

re
h

en
d

,
cr

it
iq

u
e,

a
n

d
a
n

a
ly

se
in

fo
rm
a
ti
o
n

;
co

m
m
u
n
ic
a
te

cl
ea

rl
y

a
n
d
p

er
su

a
si

v
el

y
;

a
n

d
ex

p
re

ss
id

ea
s

L
is

te
n

in
g
sk
il

ls
C

o
o
p

er
(1

9
9
7
),

G
o
b

y
a
n
d
L

ew
is

(2
0
0
0
)

2
2
/3

0
L

is
te

n
in

g
sk

il
ls
a
re

h
ig

h
ly

v
a
lu

e

d
b

y
em

p
lo

y
er

s
w
h
en
a
n
a
ly

si
n

g
d

es
ir

ab
le

sk
il

l

s
in

n
ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te
em
p
lo
y
ee
s

(G
o
b

y
a
n
d
L
ew
is

,
2
0
0
0
;

C
o
o
p

er
,

1

9
9
7
).

H
a
v

in
g

ex
ce

p
ti

o
n
a
l

li
st

en
in

g
sk
il
ls

is
a
n

in
d
ic
a
ti
o
n
o
f
h
ig
h
ly
p
ro
d
u
ct
iv
e
in

d
iv

id
u

a
ls

th
a
t

u
lt

im
a
te

ly
le

a
d
s
to

b
et

te
r

em
p
lo
y
ab
il
it
y

(C
o
o
p

er
,1

9
9
7
).
In
th
e
cu
rr
en
t
st
u
d

y,
w

e
d

ef
in

e
li

st
en

in
g
sk
il

ls
a
s:

s

e
le

ct
iv
el
y
p
er

ce
iv

in
g
,
in

te
rp

re
ti

n
g

,
u

n
d

er
st

a
n
d
in

g
,

a
ss

ig
n

in
g

m
ea

n
in
g
,

re
a
ct

in
g

,
re

m
em

b
er

in
g

,
a
n

d
a
n
a
ly
si
n

g
w

h
a
t

is
h

ea
rd

P
ro

fe
ss
io
n
a
li

sm
M

a
t
a
n

d
Z

ab
id

i
(2

0
1
0
),

S
h

a
fe

r
et

a
l.

(2
0
0
2
);

C
ab

l

e
a
n

d
Ju

d
g

e
(1

9
9
6
)

1
7
/3

0
T
h
e
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
l

ro
le

th
a
t
in
d

i

v
id

u
a
ls

a
cc

ep
t

w
h

en
en

te
ri
n
g

ce
rt

a
in
in
d

u
st

ri
es

re
q

u
ir

es
sp

ec
if

ic
p

ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
l
o
b

li
g

a
ti
o
n

s,

a
tt

ri
b

u
te

s,
in

te
ra
ct
io

n
s,

a
tt
it
u

d
es

,
a
n

d
ro

l

e
b

e

h
a
v

io
u

rs
(M

a
t
a
n
d
Z
ab
id

i,
2
0
1
0
).

P
ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
li

sm
ca

n
d

ir
ec

tl
y

re
fl

ec
t

th
e
q
u
a
li

ti
es

a
n

d
v

a
lu

es
o
f

a
n

o
rg

a
n

is
a
ti

o
n
a
n
d
em
p
lo
y
er

s
n

ee
d

to
ev

a
lu
a
te
th
e
p
er

so
n

–
o
rg

a
n
is
a
ti
o
n

fi
t

w
h

en
a
n

a
ly
si
n
g
th
e
p
ro
fe
ss
io

n
a
li

sm
o
f

a
n

ew
g

ra
d
u
a
te

(C
ab

le
a
n
d
Ju
d
g

e,
1
9
9
6
).

T
h

e
im

p
o

rt
a
n

ce
o
f
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
li

sm
is

v
a
lu

e

d
h

ig
h

l

y
b

y
em
p
lo
y
er
s
b
ec
a
u

s

e
th

ei
r

em
p
lo
y
ee
s
re
p
re
se
n
t
th
e
o
rg
a
n
is
a
ti
o
n

in
p

u
b

li
c

o
n
a
d

a
il

y
b
a
si
s

(c
o
n

ti
n

u
ed
)

Table III.

Employability

factors – individual

689

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

F
a
ct
o
r
L
it
er
a
tu
re
su
p
p
o
rt
In
te
rv
ie
w
su
p
p
o
rt
S
co
p
e
In
te

rp
er

so
n
a
l
sk
il

ls
L

ie
v

e

n
s

a
n
d
S
a
ck
et
t

(2
0
1
2
),

R
y
n
es
et
a
l.
(1
9
9
7
)

2
9
/3

0
T
h
e
in
d
iv
id

u
a
l

ca
p

a
b
il
it

y
to

u
se

in
te
rp
er
so
n
a
l
sk
il

ls
to

b
u

il
d

re
la
ti
o
n
sh
ip
s
a
n
d
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
te

w
it

h
o

th

er
s
ca
n
b
e

a
st

ro
n

g
p

re
d

ic
to

r
o
f

fu
tu

re
su

cc
es

s
fo

r
n

ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te

s
(L

ie
v
en
s
a
n
d
S
a
ck

et
t,

2
0
1
2
).

In
te
rp
er
so
n
a
l
sk
il

l

s
a
re

a
ss
o
ci
a
te

d
w

it
h

o
th

er
fa

ct
o
rs

su
ch
a
s:

so
ci

a
l

se
n

si
ti

v
it

y,
re

la
ti

o
n
sh
ip
b
u
il
d
in
g
,
w
o
rk
in
g
w
it
h
o
th

er
s,

li
st
en
in
g
,
a
n
d
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
ti
o
n
sk
il

ls
(L

ie
v
en
s
a
n
d
S
a
ck
et
t,
2
0
1
2
).

F
o
r

th
e
p
u

r

p

o
se

o
f
th
e
cu
rr
en
t
st
u
d
y,
in
te
rp
er
so
n
a
l
sk
il
ls
a
re
d
ef

in
ed

a
s
o
n

e’
s

ab
il
it
y

to
w

o
rk
a
n
d
co
m
m
u
n
ic
a
te
w
it
h
o
th
er
s
w
h

il
e

b
ri

n
g
in
g
v
a
lu
e
to
th
e
o
rg
a
n
is
a
ti
o
n

C
ri

ti
ca

l
th

i

n
k

in
g
sk
il
ls
R
ei
d
a
n
d
A
n
d

er
so

n
(2
0
1
2
),

H

a
lp

er
n

(1
9
9
8
)

2
0
/3

0
T
h
e
ab
il
it
y

to
th

in
k
cr
it

ic
a
ll

y
a
ll

o
w
s
in
d
iv
id
u
a
ls

to
g

en
er

a
te
n
ew
id
ea
s
to

re

a
ch

d
es

ir
ed

a
n

d
ra

ti
o
n
a
l
o
u

tc
o
m

e

s
(R

ei
d
a
n
d
A
n
d
er
so

n
,

2
0
1
2
).

F
ro

m
a
n
em
p
lo
y

er
’s

p
er
sp
ec

ti
v

e
it

i

s
im

p
o
rt
a
n

t
to

h
av

e
em

p
lo

y
ee

s
th
a
t
g
en

er
a
te

o
ri

g
in

a
l
id
ea
s
to

o
v

er
co

m
e

o
b

st
a
cl

es
to

a
cc
o
m

p
li

sh
co

m
p
a
n

y
g

o
a
ls

.
C

ri
ti

ca
l

th
in
k
in

g
is

a
p

ro
ce

ss
in

v
o
lv

in
g

cr
ea

ti
v
e
th
in
k
in
g

,
d

ec
is

io
n

m
a
k

in
g

,
p

ro
b
le
m
so
lv
in
g
,
re

a
so

n
in
g
,
a
n

d
k

n
o
w

in
g

h
o
w

to
le

a
rn

fr
o
m

p
re
v
io
u
s

si
tu

a
ti
o
n
s
(R
ei
d
a
n
d
A
n
d
er
so

n

,
2
0
1
2
).

A
cr

it
ic
a
l
th
in

k
er

is
g

o
a
l

o
ri

en
te

d
a
n

d
lo

o
k

s
fo
r
w
a
y
s
to
a
ch
ie
v
e
d
es
ir

ed
g

o
a
ls

(H
a
lp

er
n

,
1
9
9
8
).

F
o
r
th
e
p
u
rp
o
se
o
f

th
is

st
u

d
y

cr
it
ic
a
l
th
in
k
in
g
is
d
ef
in
ed
a
s:
th
e
co
n

ju
n

ct
io

n
o
f

k
n
o
w
le
d

g
e,

sk
il

ls
,

a
n

d
st

ra
te

g
ie

s
th
a
t
p
ro

m
o
te

s
im
p
ro

v
ed

p
ro
b
le
m
so

lv
in

g
,

ra
ti

o
n
a
l

d
ec

is
io

n
m

a
k
in
g
,
a
n
d
en
h
a
n

ce
d

cr
ea
ti
v
it
y

C
re

a
ti
v
e
th
in
k
in
g
sk
il
ls
K
il

g
o
u

r
a
n
d
K
o
sl
o
w

(2
0
0
9
),

H
a
lp
er
n
(1
9
9
8
)

1
2
/3

0
C

re
a
ti

v
e
th
in
k
in
g
is
u
n

iq
u

e
to
in
d
iv
id
u
a
ls
th
a
t
ca
n
cr
ea

te
o
ri

g
in
a
l
id
ea
s
a
n
d
b

ri
n

g
th

em
to

th
ei

r
w
o
rk

p
la

ce
,

g
iv

in
g
th
ei

r
o
rg

a
n
is
a
ti
o
n
a
co
m
p

et
it

iv
e

ed
g

e
(K

i

l
g

o
u
r
a
n
d
K
o
sl
o
w

,
2
0
0
9
).

F
o
r
th
e
p
u
rp
o
se
o
f
th
is
st
u
d
y,
cr
ea
ti
v
e
th
in
k
in
g

is
d

ef
in
ed
a
s
th
e
cr
ea
ti
v
e
p
ro
ce

ss
es

in
d
iv
id
u
a
ls
b
ri
n
g
to
th
ei
r
w
o

rk
en

v
ir

o
n
m
en
t
a
n
d
th
e
v
a
lu
e
th
ei
r
id
ea
s
b
ri
n

g
to

th
a
t
b
u
si
n

es
s.

C
re
a
ti
v
it
y
a
n
d
th
e
p
ro
ce
ss
es
o
f
g
en

er
a
ti

n
g
u
n
iq
u
e
id
ea
s
a
re

n
o
t

a
o
n

e-
si

ze
fi

t
a
ll

p
ro

p
o
si

ti
o
n

,
b

u
t

n
ee
d
to
b
e

ta
il

o
re
d
to
in
d
iv
id
u
a
ls
a
n
d
th

e
en

v
ir
o
n
m
en

t
in

w
h

ic
h

th
ey

a
re
a
p
p
li

ed
(H

a
lp
er
n

,
1
9
9
8
)

(c
o
n
ti
n
u
ed
)

Table III.

690

ET
55,7

F
a
ct
o
r
L
it
er
a
tu
re
su
p
p
o
rt
In
te
rv
ie
w
su
p
p
o
rt
S
co
p
e

L
ea

d
er
sh
ip
sk
il
ls
C
o
n
ra
d
a
n

d
N

ew
b

er
ry

(2
0
1
2
)

1
7
/3
0
C
o
n
ra
d
a
n
d
N
ew
b
er
ry

(2
0
1
2
)s

ta
te

th
a
t
o
n
e
o
f
th
e

la
rg

es
t

sk
il
l
g
a
p

s
cu

rr
en
tl
y

in
a
ca

d
em

ia
is

n
o
t

te
a

ch

in
g
st
u
d
en

ts
le

a
d
er
sh

ip
sk

il
ls
v
a
lu

ed
b

y
p

ro
sp

ec
ti

v
e
em
p
lo
y

er
s.

L
ea
d
er
sh
ip

is
v

it
a
l

t

o
em

p
lo
y
er

s
lo

o
k
in
g
fo
r
n
ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te
em
p
lo
y
ee
s

(

C
o
n

ra
d
a
n
d
N
ew
b
er
ry
,
2
0
1
2
).
In
th
e
cu
rr
en
t
st
u
d
y,
w
e
d
ef
in
e
le
a
d
er
sh

ip
a
s

th
e
ab
il
it
y

to
m

o
ti

v
a
te

o
th

er
em

p
lo
y
ee
s
a
n
d
g

u
id

e
th
em
to

su
cc

es
s

A
b

il
it
y
to
a
d
a
p
t
to

te
ch

n

o
lo

g
y

B

a
rr

et
a
l.
(2
0
0
9
),

Ja
b

r
(2

0
1
1
)
1
2
/3
0
C
h
a
n
g
in

g
te

ch
n

o
lo
g
y
is
a

v
a
ri

ab
le
th
a
t

is
fo

rc
in

g
st

u
d

en
ts

to
a

d

a
p
t
to

ch
a
n

g
in
g
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en

ts
to

st
a
y

co
m

p
et

it
iv

e
(B

a
rr
et
a
l.,

2
0
0
9
;
Ja

b
r,

2
0
1
1
).

B
ei

n
g
te
ch

n
o
lo

g
ic

a
ll

y
a
st

u
te
a
ll
o
w
s
n
ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te
s
th

e
ab

il
it
y
to
b
e
co
m
p
et
it
iv
e
in

a
w

o
rk
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en

t
(J

a
b

r,
2
0
1
1
).

T
h
u
s

b
ei

n
g
ab
le
to
a
d
a
p
t
to
te
ch
n
o
lo
g
y
m
a
k

es
o
n

e
m
o
re
d
es

ir
ab

le
to

em
p
lo
y
er
s.
F
o
r
th
e
p
re
se
n
t
st
u
d

y
th

e
ab
il
it
y
to
a
d
a
p
t
to
te
ch
n
o
lo
g
y
is
d
ef
in
ed
a
s
th
e
ab
il
it
y

to
u

se
cu

rr
en

t
te

ch
n
o
lo
g
y
to
le
a
rn
a
n
d
p
ro
b
le
m
so
lv

e
Jo

b
-s
p
ec
if
ic
co
m
p
et
en
ci

es
H

u
a
n
g
a
n
d
L
in
(2
0
1
1
),
L
o
n
g
es
t
(1

9
7
3
)

2
2
/3

0
E

m
p
lo
y
er
s
v
a
lu
e
p

o
st

-s
ec

o
n

d
a
ry

in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
s
th
a
t
p
la

ce
a

h
ig

h
v

a
lu

e
o
n

tr
a
in

in
g
jo
b
-s
p
ec
if
ic
co
m
p
et
en
ci
es

(P
a
n

g
a
n
d
T
o
M
in
g

,
2
0
0
5
).

In
d

ee
d

,
a
cc

u
m

u
la

ti
n

g
jo

b
–

sp
ec
if
ic
co
m
p
et
en
ci

es
o
v

er
ti

m
e
a
ll
o
w
s
a
g
ra
d
u
a
te

to
b

ec
o
m

e
su
cc
es

sf
u

l
in

h
is

/

h
er

ch
o
se

n
ca

r

e
er

p
a
th

Jo
b

-s
p
ec
if

ic
te

ch
n
ic
a
l
sk
il
ls
L
a
k
er
a
n
d
P
o
w
el
l
(2
0
1
1
),
S
m
it
h
et
a
l.
(2
0
0
8
),
P
a
n
g
a
n
d
T
o
M
in
g
(2
0
0
5
)
2
5
/3
0
In
d
u

st
ry

h
a
s
in
d
ic
a
te
d
th
a
t

it
w

a
n

ts
a
ca

d
em

i

a
to

p
ro
d
u

ce
n

ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te
s
th
a
t
h
av

e
st

ro
n
g
te
ch
n
ic
a
l
sk
il

ls
(S

m
it

h
et

a
l.,

2
0
0
8
).

F
o
r
th
e
p
u
rp
o
se
o
f
th
e
cu
rr
en
t
st
u
d
y,
jo
b

–
sp

ec
if
ic
te
ch
n
ic
a
l
sk
il
ls
a
re
d
ef
in
ed
a
s

u
si

n
g
sp
ec
if
ic
te
ch
n
ic
a
l
sk
il
ls
to
p
ro
b
le
m
so

lv
e

in
o
rd

er
to

co
m

p
le

te
o
n

e’
s
jo
b
.
T

ec
h

n
ic
a
l
sk
il
ls
a
re
o
ft

en
ta

n
g

ib
le

a
n

d
sp

ec
if

ic
,

fo
r

ex
a
m

p
le
,
cr
ea
ti
n
g
a
b

a
la

n
ce

sh
ee

t
o
r
a
n
a
ly
si
n
g
a

d
a
ta

se
t

u
si
n
g

st
a
ti

st
ic

s
K

n
o
w
le
d
g
e
o
f
so
ft

w
a
re

S
h
o
em
a
k

er
(2

0
0
3
),

M
cC

o
rk

le
et

a
l.

(2
0
0
1
)

1
0
/3

0
G

ra
d
u
a
te
s
a
re
co
n
ti
n

u
a
ll

y
b
ei
n
g
p
u
t

in
fr

o
n

t
o
f

n
ew
a
n

d
ev

o
lv
in
g
so
ft
w
a
re

in
w

o
rk
en
v
ir
o
n
m
en

ts
(M

cC
o
rk

le
et
a
l.,

2
0
0
1
).

H
a
v
in
g
st
u
d
en

ts
ex

p
o
se
d
to
so
ft
w
a
re
u
se
d
in
th
ei

r
d

is
ci

p
li
n
e

w
o
u

ld
p

re
p
a
re
th
em
fo
r
th
e
fu
tu

re
,

th
u

s
b
ri
n
g
in

g
co

n
fi

d
en

ce
to

em
p
lo
y
er
s.

If
g

ra
d
u
a
te
s
a
re
ex
p
o
se
d
to
a
n

d
fa

m
il

i

a
r

w
it

h
d

if
fe

re
n

t
ty

p
es

o
f
so
ft
w
a
re
w
it
h
in
th
ei
r
d
is
ci
p
li

n
e,

th
is
w
il

l
cr

ea
te

co
n

fi
d

en
ce

in
th
e
em
p
lo
y
er

’

s
m

in
d
w
h
il
e

lo
w

er
in

g
th
e
ri

sk
o
f

h
ir
in
g
a
n
ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te

(S
h

o
em
a
k
er
,

2

0
0
3
)

(c
o
n
ti
n
u
ed
)
Table III.

691

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

F
a
ct
o
r
L
it
er
a
tu
re
su
p
p
o
rt
In
te
rv
ie
w
su
p
p
o
rt
S
co
p
e
P
re
-g
ra
d
u
a
te
w
o
rk
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce

C
a
ll

a
n
a
n
a
n
d
B
en
zi
n
g
(2
0
0
4
),

G
a
u

lt
et
a
l.

(2
0
1
0
),

G
ab
ri
s
a
n
d
M
it
ch
el
l
(1
9
8
9
)

2
7
/3

0
T
h
e
cu
rr
en
t
st
u
d
y
d
ef

in
es

p
re
-g
ra
d
u
a
te
w
o

rk
ex

p
er
ie
n

ce
a
s

p
re
v
io
u
s
w
o

rk
in

v
o
lv

em
en

t
in
th
e
fo
rm
o
f
in
te

rn
sh

ip
s,

co
-o

p
s

a
n
d
w
o
rk

te
rm

s
o
r

o
th

er
a
ct

iv
it

ie
s.

P
re

–
g

ra
d
u
a
te
w
o
rk
ex
p
er
ie
n
ce
h
a
s

b
ee

n
d
ir
ec
tl
y

li
n

k
ed

to
fu

tu
re
em
p
lo
y
m
en
t
a
n
d
is
a
fa

ct
o
r

th
a
t

is
ca

n
d

id
ly

lo
o
k

ed
a
t

b
y

em
p
lo
y
er
s
w
h

en
ev

a
lu
a
ti
n
g
n
ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te

p
o
te

n
ti
a
l

(C
a
ll

a
n
a
n
a
n
d
B
en
zi
n
g

,
2
0
0
4
).

E
v

id
en

ce
su

g
g

es
ts

th
a
t

ev
en

a
v

er
a
g

e
p

er
fo

r

m
in

g
in
te
rn
s
a
re

m
o
re

li
k

el
y

to
re

ce
iv

e
jo

b
o
ff

er
s

th
a
n

st
u
d
en

ts
w

h
o

d
id

n
o
t
co
m
p
le

te
in

te
rn
sh
ip

s
(G

a
u
lt
et
a
l.,
2
0
1
0
).
T
h
u
s
p
re
v
io
u
s
w
o
rk
ex
p
er
ie
n

ce
th

ro
u

g
h
in
te
rn
sh

ip
s

g
iv

es
n

ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te
s
a
co
m
p
et
it
iv

e
a
d

v
a
n

ta
g

e
b
ec
a
u

se
th

ey
a
re

ex
p
o
se
d
to

re
a
l

w
o
rk
in
g
co
n
d

it
io

n
s
P
ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
l
co
n
fi
d
en
ce

C
h

o
w
d
h

u
ry

et
a
l.

(2
0
0
2
),

W
ie

n
er
et
a
l.

(1
9
9
9
),

K
n

o
u

se
et

a
l.

(1
9
9
9
)

2
1
/3

0
A

h
ig

h
le

v
el
o
f

se
lf

-c
o
n

fi
d
en
ce

is
li

n
k

ed
d

ir
ec
tl
y

to
p

er
fo

rm
a
n

ce
,
su
ch
th
a
t
h
ig
h
er
le
v

el
s

o
f
p
er
ce
iv

ed
co

n
fi
d
en

ce
le

a
d
to
a
m
o
re
ef
fe
ct
iv
e
in
d
iv
id
u
a
l

(W
ie

n
er
et
a
l.,

1
9
9
9
).

A
h

ig
h

ly
co

n
fi
d
en

t
em

p
lo
y
ee
w
il

l
p

er
fo

rm
to

a
h

ig
h

er
q

u
a
li

ty
th

a
n
h
er

/h
is

p
e
er

s
m
a
k
in
g
th
em

se
lv

es
a
n

d
th
ei
r
o
rg
a
n
is
a
ti
o
n
m
o
re
ef
fe
ct
iv

e
(C

h
o
w
d
h
u
ry
et
a
l.,

2
0
0
2
).

C
o
n
fi
d
en
ce
a
ll
o
w
s
fo
r
a
n
in
d
iv
id
u
a
l

to
ta

k
e

ri
sk

s
a
n

d
se

p
a
ra

te
th

em
se

lv
es

fr
o
m
th
ei

r
p

e
er
s
to
m
ee

t
g

o
a
ls

(C
h

o
w
d
h
u
ry
et
a
l.,

2
0
0
2
;K

n
o
u
se
et
a
l.,
1
9
9
9
).
In
th
e
cu
rr
en
t
st
u
d

y
w

e
d
ef
in
e
p
ro
fe
ss
io
n
a
l
co
n
fi
d
en
ce
a
s
o
n
e’
s
ab
il
it
y
n
o
t

to
fe

a
r
ce
rt
a
in
si
tu
a
ti
o
n

s,
re

m
a
in

a
ss
er
ti
v
e

in
-g

ro
u

p
d

is
cu

ss
io
n
s
a
n

d
re

m
a
in
co
n
fi
d
en
t
in
d
ec
is
io
n
m
a
k
in
g

A
ca

d
em
ic
p
er
fo
rm
a
n

ce
N

g
et

a
l.

(2
0
1
0
)

1
6
/3

0
T
h
e
cu
rr
en
t
st
u
d
y

se
ek

s
to

ev
a
lu

a
te
th
e
im
p
o
rt
a
n
ce
o
f

a
cu

m
u
la
ti
v
e

G
P

A
w

h
en
em
p
lo
y
er
s
a
re
a
ss

es
si

n
g
n
ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te
s
to

fi
ll

jo
b

p
o
st

in
g

s.
G

P
A

is
a
ta
n
g
ib
le
a
n
d
ea

si
ly

m
ea

su
re

d
p
er
fo
rm
a
n

ce
in

d
ic

a
to
r
a
n
d
is
o
ft

en
a
sk

ed
fo

r
b
y
p
ro
sp
ec
ti
v
e
em
p
lo
y
er
s

(N
g

et
a
l.,
2
0
1
0
).

G
P
A

sa
y

s
a

lo
t

ab
o
u

t
a
ca
n
d
id
a
te
a
n

d
ca

n
b

e
a

m

a
jo

r
d

et
er

m
in
in
g
fa
ct
o
r
w
h

en
se

cu
ri

n
g
a
jo
b
(c
o
n
ti
n
u
ed
)
Table III.

692

ET
55,7

F
a
ct
o
r
L
it
er
a
tu
re
su
p
p
o
rt
In
te
rv
ie
w
su
p
p
o
rt
S
co
p
e

P
o
st

-s
ec
o
n
d
a
ry
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
a
l
re
p
u
ta
ti
o
n
A
le

ss
a
n

d
ri
et
a
l.
(2
0
0
7
)
1
7
/3
0
In

st
it

u
ti

o
n
a
l
re
p
u
ta
ti
o
n

is
im

p
o
rt
a
n
t
to
u
n
d
er

st
a
n

d
a
s
a
n
ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te
se
ek
in
g
em
p
lo
y
m
en

t
b

ec
a
u

se
ea

ch
p

o
st
-s
ec
o
n
d
a
ry
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
cr
ea

te
s

it
s

o
w

n
im

a
g
e
a
n
d
ca

rr
ie

s
it

s
o
w

n
re

p
u
ta
ti
o
n
a
m
o
n
g
in
d
u

st
ri

es
(A

le
ss

a
n
d
ri
et
a
l.,

2
0
0
7
).

U
n

iv
er

si
ti

es
h

a
v
e
b
ec
o
m
e
m
o
re
co
m
p
et
it
iv
e
w
it
h
in
th
e
m

a
rk

et
tr

y
in
g
to
a
tt

ra
ct

th
e

b
es

t
st
u
d
en
ts
a
n
d
in

tu
rn

p
ro
v
id
e
th
e
b
es
t
jo
b
o
p

p
o
rt

u
n

it
ie

s
fo

r
th

e
st
u
d
en
ts
th
a
t
h
a
v
e
b

ee
n

re
cr

u
it

ed
(A

le
ss
a
n
d
ri
et
a
l.,
2
0
0
7
).
T
h

is
a
ll

o
w
s
p
o
st
-s
ec
o
n
d
a
ry
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
s
to
cr
ea
te
a
co
m
p
et
it
iv

e
ed

g
e
b
y
a
tt
ra
ct
in
g
to
p
st
u
d
en

ts
a
n

d
in
tu
rn
to
p
co
m

p
a
n

ie
s
P
ro
g
ra
m
m
e
re
p
u
ta
ti
o
n

B
ri

n
t
et
a
l.
(2
0
1
1
),

H
el

g
es
en
a
n
d
N
es
se

t
(2

0
0
7
),

M
cG

u
in

n
es

s
(2

0
0
3
)
2
7
/3

0
S

p
ec
if
ic
p
ro
g
ra
m
m

e-
le

v
el
re
p
u
ta
ti
o
n
h
a
s
b
ee

n
id

en
ti
fi
ed

to
co

n
tr

ib
u

te
to

th
e
a
ca
d
em
ic
re
p
u
ta
ti
o
n
o
f
a
n
in
st
it
u
ti
o
n
a
n
d
u

lt
im

a
te

ly
in

fl
u
en
ce
p
er
ce
iv

ed
em

p
lo
y
ab
il
it

y
sk

il
ls

(M
cG

u
in
n
es

s,
2
0
0
3
).

T
h
e
em
er
g
en
ce
o
f
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e-
le
v
el

ra
n

k
in

g
sy

st
em

s
a
n

d
a
v

er
a
g

e
co

m
p

en
sa

ti
o
n
o
f
n
ew
g
ra
d
u
a
te

s
(e

.g
.

b
u
si
n
es
s

sc
h

o
o
ls

)
a
re

ex
a
m
p
le
s
o
f
th
e
li
n

k
b

et
w

ee
n
p
ro
g
ra
m
m
e-
le
v
el
re
p
u
ta
ti
o
n
a
n
d
em
p
lo
y
ab
il
it
y
Table III.

693

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

For Phase Two of the current study, we created a new measure based loosely
on Paranto and Kelkar’s (1999) measure of employers’ perceptions of skills needed
to succeed in today’s work environment. Our measure included the 17 individual
employability factors identified in the literature review and supported by the findings
from Phase One. Consistent with Paranto and Kelkar’s (1999) measure, respondents
evaluated the importance of each of the 17 factors using a seven-point Likert-type scale
(1¼not important to 7¼very important). Participants were also asked to indicate the
industry in which they are currently employed, the size of their organisation, and their
job title and age.

The final sample consisted of 115 employers. Generally, respondents were either
directly responsible for hiring new graduates (56 per cent) or had a major influence on
hiring decisions (31 per cent). The major sectors represented include: educational
services (22.4 per cent), professional services (17.3 per cent), technology (10.4 per cent),
and energy and utilities (7.5 per cent). The sample was stratified between small- and
medium-sized organisations (1-49 employees; 49 per cent of sample), medium-sized
organisations (50-499 employees; 24 per cent of sample), and large organisations (4500
employees; 27 per cent of sample).

Results. To examine the relationship amongst the 17 individual factors we started
by conducting an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal components
extraction (and a promax rotation). The results of the EFA provided preliminary
support for the proposed five composite categories. To test the internal consistency
of each category, we conducted a Cronbach’s a reliability test (Cronbach, 1951).
The results of the Cronbach’s a’s ranged from 0.51 to 0.79 and offered additional
support for the unidimensional composition of each category. Lastly, we completed
a category-level correlational analysis to examine the relationship amongst the
categories. The relatively low intercorrelations among the five categories suggest these
factors are independent. In summary, our data analysis supports the proposition that
employability factors can be clustered effectively into five unidimensional categories.
Table IV provides a summary of the results from the EFA while Table V illustrates the
intercorrelations between the composite categories.

Table VI presents the category-level ranking. As this table demonstrates, soft-skills
was the highest ranked category, followed by problem-solving skills. In contrast,
academic reputation was the lowest ranked category. Moreover, as illustrated
in Table VII, consistent with the category-level finding, five of the six highest ranked
individual employability factors were from the category of soft-skills. Whereas, three of
the four lowest individual employability factors were measures of academic reputation.

Discussion
This exploratory study considers employers’ views of the factors that are important for
new graduates who are seeking employment. Based on qualitative and quantitative
findings, we identified 17 individual employability factors that can be clustered into
five composite employability categories. These findings contribute to the existing literature
on employability by empirically examining how the extensive list of employability factors
can be aggregated in a way that is both theoretically and practically meaningful.
In addition, we examined how employers prioritise employability factors. Ultimately, these
findings can be used to enhance the employability of new graduates, and should be
considered by researchers and educators alike when reflecting on employers’ hiring
practices and preferences. In what follows, we address our key findings and practical
implications as they pertain to the five employability categories identified in our results.

694

ET
55,7

Soft-skills: our results support a growing body of research that identifies soft-skills as
one of the most important competencies employers look for when hiring new graduates
(Finch et al., 2012; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010). Indeed, of the 17 individual
employability factors measured, five of the six highest ranked factors were from the
category of soft-skills. This suggests that new graduates who demonstrate soft-skills
(e.g. effective communication and interpersonal skills) will be more competitive in the
marketplace than those who do not.

Category Factor loading

Soft-skills (Cronbach’s a¼0.79) Eigenvalue¼2.73
Written communication skills 0.64
Verbal communication skills 0.81
Listening skills 0.68
Professionalism 0.79
Interpersonal skills 0.77
Problem-solving skills (Cronbach’s a¼0.67 ) Eigenvalue¼2.04
Critical thinking skills 0.72
Creative thinking skills 0.83
Leadership skills 0.70
Adaptability 0.57
Functional skills (Cronbach’s a¼0.68) Eigenvalue¼1.87
Job-specific competencies 0.73
Job-specific technical skills 0.75
Knowledge of software 0.78
Pre-graduate experience (Cronbach’s a¼0.51) Eigenvalue¼1.44
Work experience 0.81
Professional confidence 0.71
Academic reputation (Cronbach’s a¼0.76) Eigenvalue¼2.04
Academic performance 0.67
Institutional reputation 0.89
Programme reputation 0.90

Table IV.
Proposed new

graduate employability
categories – factor

loadings and Cronbach’s a

Category Soft-skills Academic reputation Functional skills Problem-solving skills

Soft-skills 1.00
Academic reputation 0.43 1.00
Functional skills ns 0.24 1.00
Problem-solving skills 0.42 0.27 ns 1.00
Pre-graduate experience 0.28 ns ns 0.38

Note: All correlations are significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed)

Table V.
Proposed new graduate

employability categories –
intercorrelations

Category Mean SD

Soft-skills 6.28 0.64
Problem-solving skills 5.80 0.73
Pre-graduate experience 5.35 0.86
Functional skills 4.88 1.07
Academic reputation 4.36 1.04

Table VI.
Mean ranking –

category level

695

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

These findings suggest that learning outcomes linked to soft-skills development
should take priority in the development of both academic programmes (e.g. degrees or
majors) and specific courses within these programmes. On the one hand, evidence
suggests that, when it comes to soft-skills, there is an increasing gap between the
content and skills taught in educational institutions and the needs of industry (Finch
et al., 2012). These findings call into question the perceived value of traditional
undergraduate education among these employers. On the other hand, soft-skills are a
central learning outcome in many post-secondary programmes and disciplines.
Taken together, this suggests that an employer’s view of the competencies needed
in new graduates is changing faster than academic programmes can adapt. Recall
that the prioritisation of soft-skills in new graduates often transcends disciplines and
working environments (Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010). Therefore, our findings
suggest that, to be competitive, universities must emphasise the development of
soft-skills within all of their programmes. This will ensure that graduates enter the
workforce with the number one skill that employers want: soft-skills.

Problem-solving skills: consistent with past research (e.g. Reid and Anderson, 2012;
Stiwne and Jungert, 2010; Wellman, 2010; Fallows and Steven, 2000), in the current
study employers identified problem-solving skills (e.g. critical thinking skills) as an
important factor when assessing new graduates’ employability. Second only to
soft-skills, problem solving was considered a key skill employers assess when hiring
new graduates. The current findings provide additional support for the notion that
problem-solving skills are important across disciplines (Wellman, 2010), perhaps
due to their strong predictive validity when it comes to job performance (Schmidt and
Hunter, 2004, 1998). Taken together, the relatively high importance placed on soft-skills
and problem-solving skills suggests that employers value skills that transcend specific
roles and occupations, and place relatively less value on job-specific functional skills.

Pre-graduate experience: the third most important category of factors, as identified
by employers, is pre-graduate experience. Importantly, findings from both the
qualitative and quantitative phases of the current study illustrate that employers
view the learning opportunities inherent in co-op and internship placements as highly

Individual factor Associated category Mean SD

1. Listening skills Soft-skills 6.41 0.76
2. Interpersonal skills Soft-skills 6.35 0.82
3. Verbal communication skills Soft-skills 6.32 0.76
4. Critical thinking skills Problem-solving skills 6.24 0.87
5. Professionalism Soft-skills 6.19 1.06
6. Written communication skills Soft-skills 6.11 0.93
7. Creative thinking skills Problem-solving skills 6.09 0.83
8. Adaptability Problem-solving skills 5.73 1.09
9. Professional confidence Pre-graduate experience 5.69 0.89

10. Job-specific competencies Functional skills 5.62 1.19
11. Leadership skills Problem-solving skills 5.15 1.32
12. Work experience Pre-graduate experience 5.01 1.20
13. Job-specific technical skills Functional skills 4.76 1.36
14. Academic performance Academic reputation 4.64 1.24
15. Programme reputation Academic reputation 4.30 1.26
16. Knowledge of software Functional skills 4.26 1.49
17. Institutional reputation Academic reputation 4.16 1.30

Table VII.
Mean ranking – individual
measure level

696

ET
55,7

valuable for graduate job-seekers and their prospective employers. This finding
replicates and extends previous literature demonstrating the importance of work
experience for graduate employability (Gault et al., 2010; Callanan and Benzing, 2004).

Job-specific functional skills: the next category identified as an important
employability factor is job-specific functional skills. Within this category, three
individual factors were measured: job-specific competencies, job-specific technical skills,
and knowledge of software. Results demonstrated that these skills are not as important to
employers as the previous three categories identified. To be a successful job applicant as a
new graduate, technical skills are important but ranked intermediate to the other
categories. Employers who have technical requirements understand that they may have
unique software and/or technical processes that graduates may not have been exposed to
in their studies. However, by selecting graduates with strong problem-solving skills,
employers can ensure that it will be easy for their employees to learn these job-specific
functional skills through training or on-the-job experience.

Academic reputation: the final category examined in the current study was academic
reputation (i.e. academic performance, programme reputation, and institutional
reputation). Our results illustrate that, compared to the above-mentioned categories,
employers place the least importance on academic reputation when hiring new
graduates. In fact, of the four lowest ranked individual employability factors, three
were measures of academic reputation. That said, these factors were still ranked above
the mid-point on the scale, suggesting that employers do place some importance on them.
These findings contribute to the relatively small body of literature on the relationship
between academic reputation and employability. Interestingly, it appears that there may
be a disconnect between the importance students place on academic reputation when
choosing their post-secondary institution (Capobianco, 2009) and the relative lack of
importance employers place on academic reputation when hiring graduates.

Directions for future research
There are two employability factors that were not included in the current study: team
work skills and information-processing skills. In the current study, we examined a
variety of soft-skills including communication skills and interpersonal skills. Although
interpersonal skills can include the ability to work effectively in teams, future
researchers may wish to measure team work skills as a separate employability factor
within the soft-skills category (Gault et al., 2000). Similarly, within the problem-solving
category, researchers may wish to examine the role of information-processing skills
(Karakaya and Karakaya, 1996). Both of these factors were also identified by the
National Association of College and Employers (NACE) (2012) as important for
employees but were not specifically measured in the current study.

In the current study results demonstrated that, according to hiring managers who
recruit new graduates, soft-skills are key to employability. This leads to an interesting
question: how are employers evaluating these skills, both at the resume screening
phase (e.g. via screening software) and later in the selection process (e.g. via
assessment centres or structured interviews)? And, are these soft-skills a valid
predictor of job performance? Ultimately these are important empirical questions that
merit attention.

Limitations
We would be remiss not to acknowledge some limitations of the current study.
Although our findings were corroborated by two independent samples, for the

697

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

quantitative (Phase Two) study, we partnered with the chamber of commerce and the
economic development authority in a large western city. While this approach resulted
in a fairly large and diverse sample of employers, the sectors were not completely
representative of the region. Although respondents came from diverse sectors, in
this sample, educational services is significantly overrepresented and other sectors
such as retail, hospitality, healthcare, professional services, and energy and utility
are underrepresented (Calgary Economic Development, 2012). In addition, because the
survey was distributed via e-mail to the chamber’s members, this excluded non-
chamber members from our sample. Future researchers may wish to replicate and
extend the current findings using a larger, more representative sample of employers.
It is also important to note that employers were the target population for this study.
While employers’ perceptions are particularly important for many graduates, we
acknowledge that employability is only one of the many goals of most undergraduate
university programmes. Most programmes also strive to foster a love for lifelong
learning and to develop graduates who are engaged citizens in their communities.

Conclusion
The goal of increasing our understanding of factors that affect new graduates’
transition into the labour market stems from a pressing issue facing a large proportion
of new graduates: high rates of un- and under-employment (Li et al., 2006). Based on a
two-phase, mixed-methods study that included interview data from 30 employers
and quantitative data from an additional 115 employers, we demonstrated that
employability factors can be clustered into five higher-order composite categories.
In addition, we explored the relative importance of these categories, and found that,
when hiring new graduates, employers place the highest importance on soft-skills and
the lowest importance on academic reputation. By better understanding the value
employers place on employability factors, universities can design curricula based on
the development of key skills that employers desire, and students can better position
themselves in the marketplace (e.g. by highlighting certain attributes – such as
soft-skills – when applying for jobs).

Note

1. Consistent with De Vos et al. (2011), we define employability as “the continuous fulfilling,
acquiring or creating of work through the optimal use of competencies” (p. 438).

References

Alessandri, S., Yang, S. and Kinsey, D. (2006), “An integrative approach to university visual
identity and reputation”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 258-270.

Aistrich, M., Saghafi, M.M. and Sciglimpaglia, D. (2006), “Ivory tower or real world: do educators
and practitioners see the same world?”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 73-80.

Andrews, J. and Higson, H. (2008), “Graduate employability, ‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business
knowledge: a European study”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 411-422.

Ariana, S. (2010), “Some thoughts on writing skills”, Annals of the University of Oradea,
Economic Science Series, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 134-140.

Ashton, D. (2011), “Media work and the creative industries: identity work, professionalism and
employability”, Education and Training, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 546-560.

Barr, S.H., Baker, T., Markham, S.K. and Kingon, A.I. (2009), “Bridging the valley of death:
lessons learned from 14 years of commercialization of technology education”, Academy
of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 370-388.

698

ET
55,7

Batra, J. (2010), “Knowledge management: emerging practices in IT industry in NCR”, IUP
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 Nos 1/2, pp. 57-67.

Bennett, R. and Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009), “Prospective students’ perceptions of university
brands: an empirical study”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 19 No. 1,
pp. 85-107.

Bhaerman, R. and Spill, R. (1988), “A dialogue on employability skills: how can they be taught?”,
Journal of Career Development, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 41-52.

Borghans, L., ter Weel, B. and Weinberg, B.A. (2008), “Interpersonal styles and labor market
outcomes”, The Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 815-858.

Brint, S., Proctor, K., Hanneman, R., Mulligan, K., Rotondi, M. and Murphy, S. (2011), “Who are
the early adopters of new academic fields?”, Higher Education, Vol. 61 No. 5, pp. 563-585.

Brown, B., O’Mara, L., Hunsberger, M., Love, B., Black, M., Carpio, B., Crooks, D. and Noesgaard,
C. (2003), “Professional confidence in baccalaureate nursing students”, Nurse Education in
Practice, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 163-170.

Cable, D.M. and Judge, T.A. (1996), “Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and
organizational entry”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 67
No. 3, pp. 294-311.

Calgary Economic Development (2012), “Calgary: Western Canada’s business centre”, December,
available at: www.calgaryeconomicdevelopment.com/economic-research/studies-reports/
whats-new (accessed 20 December 2012).

Callanan, G. and Benzing, C. (2004), “Assessing the role of internships in the career-oriented
employment of graduating college students”, Education and Training, Vol. 46 No. 2,
pp. 82-89.

Canadian Council on Learning (2009), “Post-secondary education in Canada: meeting our
needs?”, available at: www.ccl cca.ca/pdfs/PSE/2009/PSE2008_English (accessed 13
December 2012).

Capobianco, F. (2009), “Reputation versus reality: the impact of US news and world report
rankings and education branding on hiring decisions in the job market”, unpublished
doctoral thesis, Pepperdine University, Malibu, CA.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Arteche, A., Bremner, A.J., Greven, C. and Furnham, A. (2010), “Soft
skills in higher education: importance and improvement ratings as a function of individual
differences and academic performance”, Educational Psychology: An International Journal
of Experimental Educational Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 221-241.

Chevalier, A. and Conlon, G. (2003), “Does it pay to attend a prestigious university?”, Centre for
the Economics of Education, May, ISSN 2045-6557, available at: http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps/
ceedp33 (accessed 13 December 2012).

Chowdhury, S., Endres, M. and Lanis, T.W. (2002), “Preparing students for success in team work
environments: the importance of building confidence”, Journal of Managerial Issues,
Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 346-359.

Conrad, D. and Newberry, R. (2012), “Identification and instruction of important business
communication skills for graduate business education”, Journal of Education for Business,
Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 112-120.

Cooper, L.O. (1997), “Listening competency in the workplace: a model for training”, Business
Communication Quarterly, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 75-84.

Corbin, J.M. and Strauss, A. (1990), “Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria”, Qualitative Sociology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-21.

Creswell, J.W. (2009), “Editorial: mapping the field of mixed methods research”, Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-108.

Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests”, Psychometrika,
Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334.

699

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

Culkin, N. and Mallick, S. (2011), “Producing work-ready graduates”, International Journal of
Market Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 347-368.

Dalton, J.M. and Croft, S. (2003), Managing Corporate Reputation: A Specially Commissioned
Report, Thorogood.

Deephouse, D.L. and Carter, S.M. (2005), “An examination of differences between organizational
legitimacy and organizational reputation”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 42 No. 2,
pp. 329-360.

De Vos, A., De Hauw, S. and Van der Heijden, B.I. (2011), “Competency development and career
success: the mediating role of employability”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 2,
pp. 438-447.

Fallows, S. and Steven, C. (2000), “Building employability skills into the higher education
curriculum: a university-wide initiative”, Education and Training, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 75-82.

Financial Times (2012), “Global MBA ranking 2012”, available at: http://rankings.ft.com/
businessschoolrankings/global-mba-rankings-2012

Finch, D., Nadeau, J. and O’Reilly, N. (2012), “The future of marketing education: a practitioners
perspective”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 54-67, available at: http://
jmd.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/11/14/0273475312465091.abstract (accessed 16
December 2012).

Fombrun, C. and Shanley, M. (1990), “What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate
strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 233-258.

Gabris, G.T. and Mitchell, K. (1989), “Exploring the relationships between intern job
performance, quality of education experience, and career placement”, Public
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 484-504.

Gardner, C., Milne, M.J., Stringer, C.P. and Whiting, R.H. (2005), “Oral and written communication
apprehension in accounting students: curriculum impacts and impacts on academic
performance”, Accounting Education, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 313-336.

Gault, J., Leach, E. and Duey, M. (2010), “Effects of business internships on job marketability: the
employers’ perspective”, Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 76-88.

Gault, J., Redington, J. and Schlager, T. (2000), “The benefits of undergraduate business
internships: implications for the student, university, and business community”, Journal of
Marketing Education, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 45-53.

Goby, V. and Lewis, J. (2000), “The key role of listening in business: a study of the Singapore
insurance industry”, Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 41-51.

Graham, A., Hampton, M. and Willett, C. (2010), “What not to write: an intervention in written
communication skills for accounting students”, International Journal of Management
Education, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 67-74.

Gray, F. (2010), “Specific oral communication skills desired in new accountancy graduates”,
Business Communication Quarterly, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 40-67.

Harris, R. (1976), A History of Higher Education in Canada: 1663-1960, University of Toronto
Press, Buffalo, NY.

Halpern, D.F. (1998), “Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: dispositions, skills,
structure training, and metacognitive monitoring”, American Psychologist, Vol. 53 No. 4,
pp. 449-455.

Helgesen, Ø. and Nesset, E. (2007), “Images, satisfaction and antecedents: drivers of student
loyalty? A case study of a Norwegian University College”, Corporate Reputation Review,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 38-59.

Hillage, J. and Pollard, E. (1998), “Developing a framework for policy analysis”, No. 85, Institute
for Employment Studies, UK Department of Education and Employment.

Hitt, M., Beirman, L., Shimizu, K. and Kochhar, R. (2001), “Direct and moderating effects of
human capital on strategy and performance in professional service firms: a resource
perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 13-28.

700

ET
55,7

Holden, R. and Hamblett, J. (2007), “The transition from higher education into work: tales of
cohesion and fragmentation”, Education and Training, Vol. 49 No. 7, pp. 516-585.

Hopkins, C.D., Raymond, M.A. and Carlson, L. (2011), “Educating students to give them a sustainable
competitive advantage”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 337-347.

Huang, Y. and Lin, C. (2011), “Management trainee core competencies in the hospitality industry:
differences between managers and scholars”, Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality
and Tourism, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Jabr, N.H. (2011), “Social networking as a tool for extending academic learning and communication”,
International Journal of Business and Social Science, Vol. 2 No. 12, pp. 93-102.

Judson, K.M., Aurand, T.W., Gorchels, L. and Gordon, G.L. (2008), “Building a university brand
from within: university administrators’ perspectives of internal branding”, Services
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 54-68.

Karakaya, F. and Karakaya, F. (1996), “Employer expectations from a business education”,
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 9-16.

Kilgour, M. and Koslow, S. (2009), “Why and how do creative thinking techniques work?: trading
off originality and appropriateness to make more creative advertising”, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 298-309.

Knouse, S.B., Tanner, J.T. and Harris, E.W. (1999), “The relation of college internships, college
performance, and subsequent job opportunity”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 36
No. 1, pp. 36-45.

Laker, D.R. and Powell, J.L. (2011), “The differences between hard and soft skills and their relative
impact on training transfer”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 1,
pp. 111-122.

Li, C., Gervais, G. and Duval, A. (2006), “The dynamics of overqualification: Canada’s
underemployed university graduates”, Analytical Paper No. 039, Catalogue No. 11-621-
MIE, Statistics Canada, Ottawa, available at: www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-621-m/11-621-
m2006039-eng (accessed 16 December 2012).

Lievens, F. and Sackett, P.R. (2012), “The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via
situational judgment tests for predicting academic success and job performance”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 460-468.

Lin, C., Tsai, Y., Joe, S. and Chiu, C. (2012), “Modeling the relationship among perceived corporate
citizenship, firms’ attractiveness, and career success expectation”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 83-93.

Longest, B.B. Jr (1973), “Criteria for hiring college graduates as management trainees”, Training
and Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 9, pp. 46-49.

McCorkle, D.E., Alexander, J.F. and Reardon, J. (2001), “Integrating business technology and
marketing education: enhancing the diffusion process through technology champions”,
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 16-24.

McGuinness, S. (2003), “University quality and labour market outcomes”, Applied Economics,
Vol. 35 No. 18, pp. 1943-1955.

McKinsey and Company (2012), “The state of human capital 2012: false summit – why the
human capital function still has far to go”, Research Report No. R-1501-12-RR, McKinsey
and Company.

Mat, N. and Zabidi, Z. (2010), “Professionalism in practices: a preliminary study on Malaysian
public universities”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5 No. 8,
pp. 138-145.

Moustakas, C. (1994), Phenomenological Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Moy, J.W. (2006), “Are employers assessing the right traits in hiring? Evidence from Hong Kong
companies”, International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 734-754.

701

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

National Association of College and Employers (NACE) (2012), “Job outlook 2012”, available
at: www.naceweb.org/infographics/employers-rate-candidate-skills-qualities.aspx
(1 December 2012).

Nauta, A., Vianen, A., Heijden, B., Dam, K. and Willemsen, M. (2009), “Understanding the factors
that promote employability orientation: the impact of employability culture, career
satisfaction, and role breadth self-efficacy”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 233-251.

Ng, E.S., Schweitzer, L. and Lyons, S.T. (2010), “New generation, great expectations: a field study
of the millennial generation”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 281-292.

Nicholson, A. and Cushman, L. (2000), “Developing successful employees: perceptions of
industry leaders and academicians”, Education and Training, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 366-371.

Nickson, D., Warhurst, C., Commander, J., Hurrell, S.A. and Cullen, A.M. (2012), “Soft skills and
employability: evidence from UK retail”, Economic and Industrial Democracy, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 65-84.

Overton, G.K., Kelly, D., McCalister, P., Jones, J. and MacVicar, R. (2009), “The practice-based
small group learning approach: making evidence-based practice come alive for learners”,
Nurse Education Today, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 671-675.

Pampaloni, A.M. (2010), “The influence of organizational image on college selection: what
students seek in institutions of higher education”, Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 19-48.

Pang, M. and To Ming, H. (2005), “Preparing business students for the challenge ahead: a case
study”, Journal of Teaching in International Business, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 45-64.

Paranto, S. and Kelkar, M. (1999), “Employer satisfaction with job skills of business college
graduates and its impact on hiring behavior”, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 73-85.

Perry, W. (1998), “What software skills do employers want their employees to possess?”, Business
Education Forum, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 35-38.

Poropat, A. (2011), “The role of citizenship performance in academic achievement and graduate
employability”, Education and Training, Vol. 53 No. 6, pp. 499-514.

Reid, J.R. and Anderson, P.R. (2012), “Critical thinking in the business classroom”, Journal of
Education for Business, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 52-59.

Rosenberg, S., Heimler, R. and Morote, E.-S. (2012), “Basic employability skills: a triangular
design approach”, Education and Training, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 7-20.

Rynes, S.L., Orlitzky, M.O. and Bretz, R.D. Jr (1997), “Experienced hiring versus college recruiting:
practicing and emerging trends”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 309-339.

Sauer, P.L. and O’Donnell, J.B. (2006), “The impact of new major offerings on student retention”,
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 135-155.

Scherbaum, C.A., Goldstein, H.W., Yusko, K.P., Ryan, R. and Hanges, P.J. (2012), “Intelligence 2.0:
reestablishing a research program on g in I-O psychology”, Industrial and Organizational
Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 128-148.

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J. (2004), “General mental ability in the world of work: occupational
attainment and job performance”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86
No. 1, pp. 162-173.

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1998), “The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel
psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 262-274.

Scott, J. (2006), “The mission of the university: medieval to postmodern transformations”, Journal
of Higher Education, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 1-39.

Shafer, W.E., Park, L.J. and Woody, M.L. (2002), “Professionalism, organizational-professional
conflict and work outcomes: a study of certified management accountants”, Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 46-68.

702

ET
55,7

Shoemaker, M.E. (2003), “What marketing students need to know about enterprise resource
planning”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 69-77.

Smith, I., Smarkusky, D. and Corrigall, E. (2008), “Defining projects to integrate evolving team
fundamentals and project management skills”, Journal of Information Systems Education,
Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 99-110.

Statistics Canada (2009), “Education indicators in Canada: fact sheets”, available at:
www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/81-599-x/81-599-x2009003-eng.htm (accessed 13 December 2012).

Stiwne, E.E. and Jungert, T. (2010), “Engineering students’ experiences of transition from study
to work”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 417-437.

Sutherland, J. (2008), “Higher education, the graduate and the labour market: from Robbins to
Dearing”, Education and Training, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 47-51.

Tas, A. and Ergin, E. (2012), “Key factors for student recruitment: the issue of university
branding”, International Business Research, Vol. 5 No. 10, pp. 146-153.

Van Der Heijden, B., Boon, J., Van der Klink, M. and Meijs, E. (2009a), “Employability
enhancement through formal and informal learning: an empirical study among Dutch non-
academic university staff members”, International Journal of Training and Development,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 19-37.

Van der Heijden, B., de Lange, A., Demerouti, E. and Van der Heijde, C. (2009b), “Age effects on
the employability-career success relationship”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 74
No. 2, pp. 156-164.

Wellman, N. (2010), “The employability attributes required of new marketing graduates”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 908-930.

Wickramasinghe, V. and Perera, L. (2010), “Graduates’, university lecturers’ and employers’
perceptions towards employability skills”, Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 236-244.

Wiener, K.K., Oei, T.S. and Creed, P.A. (1999), “Predicting job seeking frequency and
psychological well-being in the unemployed”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 36
No. 2, pp. 67-81.

Further reading

Amaram, D.I. (2005), “Issues in recruitment and retention for the IT workforce”, Journal of
American Academy of Business, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 49-54.

An Tien, H. and Ying Yu, C. (2011), “The influence of employee referrals on P-O fit”, Public
Personnel Management, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 327-339.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2002), “Management education at risk”,
report of the Management Education Task Force to the AACSB International Board of
Directors, AACSB.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (2006), “Business and business schools: a
partnership for the future”, report of the AACSB International Alliance for Management
Education Task Force, AACSB.

Boatwright, E.W. and Stamps, M.B. (1988), “Employers’ importance ratings of student
characteristics: a conjoint analysis approach”, Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 74-78.

Cassidy, S. (2006), “Developing employability skills: peer assessment in higher education”,
Education and Training, Vol. 48 No. 7, pp. 508-517.

Duad, S., Abidin, N., Sapuan, N.M. and Rajadurai, J. (2011), “Enhancing university business
curriculum using an importance-performance approach”, The International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 545-569.

Ghaith, G. (2011), “An exploratory study of the achievement of the twenty-first century skills in
higher education”, Education and Training, Vol. 52 No. 67, pp. 489-498.

Griffin, W. (2008), “From performance to mastery”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 95-108.

703

Factors affecting
undergraduate
employability

Hillard, J. and Pollard, E. (1998), “Developing a framework for policy analysis”, Institute for
Employment Studies, UK Department of Education and Employment, No. 85.

Ismall, W., Omar, R. and Bidmeshgipour, M. (2010), “The relation of strategic human resource
practices with firm performance: considering the mediating role of resource based view”,
Journal of Asia Pacific Studies, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 395-420.

Knight, P. and Yorke, M. (2002), “Employability through the curriculum”, Tertiary Education and
Management, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 261-276.

Lievens, F. and Lievens, P.R. (2012), “The validity of interpersonal skills assessment via
situational judgment tests for predicting academic success and job performance”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 97 No. 2, pp. 460-468.

Persons, O. (2012), “Incorporating corporate social responsibility and sustainability into a
business course: a shared experience”, Journal of Education for Business, Vol. 87 No. 2,
pp. 63-72.

Schwartz, R.H., Kassem, S. and Ludwig, D. (1991), “The role of business schools in managing the
incongruence between doing what is right and doing what it takes to get ahead”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 465-469.

Sung, M. and Yang, S. (2008), “Toward the model of university image: the influence of brand
personality, external prestige, and reputation”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 357-376.

US Bureau of Labor Statistics (2012), “Table a-4. Employment status of the civilian population
25 years and over by educational attainment”, 9 March, available at: www.bls.gov/
news.release/empsit.t04.htm (accessed 18 December 2012).

Verhaest, D. and Omey, E. (2012), “Overeducation, undereducation and earnings: further evidence
on the importance of ability and measurement error bias”, Journal of Labor Research,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 76-90.

Weible, R. and McClure, R. (2011), “An exploration of the benefits of student internships to
marketing departments”, Marketing Education Review, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 229-240.

Yew Ming, C. (2005), “Job offers of multi-national accounting firms: the effects of emotional
intelligence, extra-curricular activities, and academic performance”, Accounting
Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 75-93.

About the authors

David J. Finch is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at Mount Royal University’s Bissett School
of Business in Calgary, Alberta. David holds a PhD in management with a research focus on the
relationship between attitude formation and behaviour. David has published or presented
twenty-one papers in a breadth of peer-reviewed forums in the past four-years. David J. Finch is
the corresponding author and can be contacted at: dfinch@mtroyal.ca

Leah K. Hamilton is an Assistant Professor of Organisational Behaviour at Mount Royal
University’s Bissett School of Business in Calgary, Alberta. Leah has a PhD in Industrial/
Organisational Psychology from the University of Western Ontario.

Riley Baldwin is a recent graduate from Mount Royal University. Riley holds a Bachelor of
Business Administration (Marketing). This study was completed as a component of a senior
tutorial course.

Mark Zehner is recent graduate from Mount Royal University. Mark holds a Bachelor of
Business Administration (Marketing). This study was completed as a component of a senior
tutorial course.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

704
ET
55,7

BDIT CG 10-Feb-2020 L:\GDP\Teaching\T&L\202010\Business Degrees\BBA103\Assessment\1_ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1_2

Semester/Term/Year Semester 1, 2020

Elements / Outcomes 1,2, 4,6.

Due Date
Sunday 29th March 2020, 11:59pm – soft copy only –
submitted via Brightspace.

Assessment Type Annotated Bibliography #2

Value of Assessment 10% for AB assignment #2

Word requirement 300 words (+/-10%)

ASSIGNMENT: Annotated Bibliography #2

You will write 2 annotated bibliographies as part of the assessment for this class.

ASSIGNMENT TASK

Write a 300-word annotated bibliography on the empirical article provided.

You can find a soft copy of this article in your assignment folder.

ARTICLE: An exploratory study of factors affecting undergraduate employability

Authors: David J. Finch, Leah K. Hamilton, Riley Baldwin and Mark Zehner

WHAT IS AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY?

An annotated bibliography presents a quick and effective insight into your information source and includes both

a summative description and critical evaluation of the article’s content as well as a reflection of how this

research article could contribute to your larger writing assignment, the essay.

WHAT DO I NEED TO INCLUDE IN MY ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY?

Your annotated bibliographies provide the foundation – the first research – for your major writing assessment,

an essay, and as such need to relate to the essay question. Your essay question can be found in your essay

assignment guide.

An annotated bibliography has 2 sections:

(1) a citation (the bibliographic details of the article)

(2) an annotation (a summary, evaluation and reflection of the usefulness of the article)

You will be prepared with a ‘how-to- write an annotated bibliography’ guide, model annotated bibliography

and an example reference in your tutorial.

BDIT CG 10-Feb-2020 L:\GDP\Teaching\T&L\202010\Business Degrees\BBA103\Assessment\1_ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 1_2

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY STYLE

ACADEMIC CONVENTIONS

 Using standard English and avoiding American spelling.

 Writing in the third person.

 Avoiding slang terms, clichés and colloquial expressions.

 Avoiding gender bias and sexist language.

 Avoiding emotive language.

 Being direct – use the active rather than the passive voice.

 Being concise.

Annotated Bibliography STYLE GUIDE

1. Font: 11pt, Arial

2. Layout: 1.5-line spacing, double spacing between paragraphs

3. Length: 300 words (+/-10%)

4. Professional, academic appearance (consistent formatting)

5. No cover page necessary. Insert your name, student number in a header (right aligned)

REFERENCING

 Please use APA6 for the reference. More details can be found at

http://holmesglen.libguides.com/apareferencing

** Please be aware that severe penalties exist for cheating, plagiarism (copying) and unauthorized collusion

with other students, or external consultants.

SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT

As above, this assignment will be submitted soft copy in Brightspace. You do not need to include a coversheet

for your annotated bibliographies. Please note late submissions incur a 10% penalty per day.

MARKING CRITERIA

Please refer to the detailed marking rubric in your assignment folder.

Citation (20%)

Citation formatted correctly/details exact -formatting, punctuation, details (as per APA6)

Summary Information (20%)

Accurately and succinctly summarises content including main aims /argument, methods and
findings as relevant to the article

Critical Evaluation (30%)

Critically evaluates content including main arguments/methods/results including the source’s
strengths/limitations

Reflection (30%)

Clearly explains how the source is relevant and connected to the essay question/argument.

http://holmesglen.libguides.com/apareferencing