The Key to Employability

Developing a practical model of graduate employability

Lorraine Dacre Pool and Peter Sewell

Centre for Employability,

University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.

Abstract

Purpose

This paper introduces a straightforward, practical model of employability that will

allow the concept to be explained easily and that can be used as a framework for

working with students to develop their employability.

Design/methodology/approach

The model was developed from existing research into employability issues and the

experience of the authors. The various elements of employability included in the

model are discussed and their inclusion justified on the basis of existing research.

Research limitations

The relationships between and the interaction of the elements within the model

remain theoretical. Further research to test the model is planned and will be reported

on at a later date.

Practical implications

The model can be used to explain the concept of employability to those new to the

subject, and particularly to students and their parents. It will be a useful tool for

lecturers, personal tutors, careers advisors and any other practitioners involved in
employability activities. It will also be used to develop a measurement tool for

employability.

Originality/value

This paper seeks to fill the gap between in depth, scholarly and complex articles or

books about employability and very simple descriptive articles. It sets out for the first

time exactly what is meant by employability, in clear and simple terms, and the model

suggests directions for interaction between the various elements. It will be of value

to anybody with an interest in employability issues.

Keywords: employability model, career development, higher education

Paper type: Research paper

Introduction

In recent years a number of models of employability have been proposed. Whilst

these models go some way towards capturing the meaning of this elusive concept of

employability, they are either too elaborate to be practically useable or too simple to

do justice to this multifaceted issue. For many people employability is simply about

getting a job and the term is increasingly used carelessly and interchangeably with

’enterprise’ which in turn is confused with ‘entrepreneurship’. The aim of this paper is

to present a practical, coherent model, that is firmly based on existing research

findings in employability and on the various individual elements that make up the

framework. Employability is an issue of concern in many areas of the economy, but

in this context the focus is on students and graduates in UK Higher Education.

Employability in Higher Education

Current interpretations of employability range from the use of simple measures, such

as whether or not a graduate has secured a job (using graduate first destinations

surveys), to in depth scholarly books on the subject. If employability is measured in

the simplistic terms of whether or not a graduate has managed to secure a job within

six months of graduating, it only provides a very vague and imprecise indication of

what the student has gained. Questions need to be asked about whether or not the

graduate is using the skills, knowledge and understanding gained in their degree

studies in a ‘graduate level job’, which in turn opens up a whole new debate about

what exactly a ‘graduate level job’ entails. There is so much more to employability

than gaining employment and first destination statistics do not take into account the

fact that some graduates may have taken lower level jobs in order to deal with

financial pressures, particularly after incurring debts through their studies.

Hillage & Pollard (1998) suggest that:

“In simple terms, employability is about being capable of getting and keeping

fulfilling work. More comprehensively employability is the capability to move

self-sufficiently within the labour market to realise potential through

sustainable employment.” (p 2).

They propose employability consists of four main elements. The first of these, a

person’s ‘employability assets’ consists of their knowledge, skills and attitudes. The

second, ‘deployment’ includes career management skills, including job search skills.

Thirdly, ‘presentation’ is concerned with ‘job getting skills’, for example CV writing,

work experience and interview techniques. Finally, Hillage & Pollard also make the

important point that for a person to be able to make the most of their ‘employability

assets’ a lot depends on their personal circumstances (for example family

responsibilities) and external factors (for example the current level of opportunity

within the labour market).

Bennett, Dunne & Carré (1999) proposed a model of course provision in higher

education which included five elements: disciplinary content knowledge, disciplinary

skills, workplace awareness, workplace experience and generic skills. This model

goes some way towards including all the necessary elements to ensure a graduate

achieves an optimum level of employability but is still missing some vital elements.

The USEM account of employability (Yorke & Knight, 2004, Knight & Yorke, 2004) is

probably the most well known and respected model in this field. USEM is an

acronym for four inter-related components of employability:

• Understanding
 • Skills

• Efficacy beliefs

• Metacognition

The authors suggest that behind the USEM model is:

“an attempt to put thinking about employability on a more scientific basis, partly

because of the need to appeal to academic staff on their own terms by referring to

research evidence and theory…” (Knight & Yorke, 2004, p 37).

The USEM model forms part of a large body of research based, scholarly work on

employability. However, this strength could also be perceived as a weakness in that

it does not assist in explaining to non-experts in the field, particularly the students

themselves and their parents, exactly what is meant by employability.

The Centre for Employability (CfE) at the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan) in

the UK has been developing practical solutions to enhance the prospects of students

and graduates for over 10 years. As a consequence of the careers service origins of

this unit, the main theoretical model which has underpinned this work has been the

DOTS model (Law & Watts 1977), which consists of:

“planned experiences designed to facilitate the development of:

Decision learning – decision making skills

Opportunity awareness – knowing what work opportunities exist and what

their requirements are

Transition learning – including job searching and self presenting skills

 Self awareness – in terms of interests, abilities, values, etc.” (Watts, 2006, p

9/10).

The value of this model lies in its simplicity, as it allows individuals to organise a

great deal of the complexity of career development learning into a manageable

framework. However, the model has recently attracted some criticism. McCash

(2006) argues that the model is over reliant on a mechanistic matching of person and

environment and therefore underplays other critical issues such as social and

political contexts. He also points out that there is an implication that failure to secure

a ‘self-fulfilling’ occupation can be presented, or experienced, as the fault of the

unsuccessful individual. These criticisms overlook the fact that the elegant simplicity

of the DOTS model is precisely why it has proved so enduring and popular. They

also seem to suggest that students introduced to basic concepts of career

development through DOTS, would be incapable of developing and learning about

more sophisticated analyses through this simple introductory structure.

The concerns raised in the CfE about DOTS in relation to employability are different.

For some time, it has become evident that the model has shortcomings when it is

applied beyond careers education to the broader concept of employability. An early

effort to capture the CfE definition of employability was reported in Hinchcliffe (2001):

“Reflecting the range of views we see Peter Sewell of the CLASS Faculty

Centre for Employability making the career development case and defining

employability as: Having a set of skills, knowledge and personal attributes

that make a person more likely to secure, and be successful in their chosen

occupation.” (p 8).
The most recent articulation of this, which incorporates an important additional new

element of ‘satisfaction’, stems from the recognition that from an individual’s

perspective a person may be successful in their chosen occupation but not

necessarily satisfied.

“Employability is having a set of skills, knowledge, understanding and

personal attributes that make a person more likely to choose and secure

occupations in which they can be satisfied and successful.”

This definition has been used as a starting point from which to develop a new

theoretical and practical framework for employability called ‘The Key to Employability’

model.

It could be argued that in addition to drawing together the essential conceptual issues

that underpin an understanding of the concept of employability, this model also

provides a clear, visual answer to the simple question of what employability is. This

has the benefit of not only articulating the concept of employability in a theoretically

rigorous manner but doing so in a way that is easily accessible both to practitioners

and students. The framework also opens up new opportunities for the development

of assessment tools and research into the impact of various employability

interventions.

The Model

The design of the model reflects an assertion that each component is absolutely

essential and one missing element will considerably reduce a graduate’s

employability. A degree of overlap between some of the components is

acknowledged and this is reflected in the visual presentation of the model. However

it is not suggested that these are the only areas of overlap as this occurs at various

points. For example, in addition to work experience being a valuable part of career

development learning, it may in some cases directly inform subject learning relevant

to the degree course being studied.

Employability

Self-esteem

Self-efficacy Self-confidence

Reflection and
Evaluation

Career Experience Degree Subject

Knowledge, Generic Skills Emotional
Development (Work & Life)
Understanding Intelligence
Learning
& Skills

Figure 1. The essential components of employability

The model depicted in Figure 1 above illustrates the essential components of

employability and also suggests the direction of interaction between the various

elements. The mnemonic CareerEDGE is used as an aid to remember the five

components on the lower tier of the model. It is suggested that providing students

with opportunities for them to access and develop everything on this lower tier and

essentially, for reflecting on and evaluating these experiences, will result in

development of higher levels of self-efficacy, self-confidence and self-esteem – the

crucial links to employability.

The original model detailed in Figure 1 clearly shows all the components and

suggests the direction of interaction. From this, Figure 2 evolved, with the

metaphorical image of a ‘key’. This pictorial version of the model is a useful, practical

way of explaining the concept of employability and indicates that it is the ‘key’ to

choosing and securing occupations in which the graduate has the opportunity to

achieve satisfaction and success.

Employability
Career Experience
Development (Work & Life)
Learning
Reflection and Evaluation
Degree
Emotional Subject
Intelligence Knowledge,
Understanding
Self-Efficacy

Self-Confidence

Self-Esteem

& Skills
Generic
Skills

Career Development Learning

Experience (Work & Life)
Degree Subject Knowledge, Understanding & Skills
Generic Skills
Emotional Intelligence

CareerEDGE - The Key to Employability

Figure 2. A metaphorical model of employability

The Model Components

Degree subject knowledge, understanding and skills.

This has to be a central concept in the model. The motivator to enter Higher

Education is generally perceived to be to study a specific discipline in depth, to gain a

degree, get a higher qualification and thus get a good or better job and it still remains

the case that the better qualified have far greater employment opportunities (Johnes,

2006). Graduate Prospects (2005/6, p 17) identified two-thirds of graduate vacancies

as open to graduates of any discipline, which implies that for the remaining third,

subject specific knowledge, understanding and skills are still of vital importance. It

is essential to recognise that employers will judge graduates on the basis of how

successfully they have completed their degree course, i.e. their degree classification,

perhaps because this is often the sole measure available to them. This tends to be

the case whether they are entering an occupation with direct relevance to their

degree or not and as such there is a need to recognise the central importance of this

particular element of graduate employability. However, even though the subject

specific knowledge, understanding and skills are still extremely important in many

cases, these alone are unlikely to secure a graduate occupations in which they can

be satisfied and successful.

Generic skills

There has been considerable debate in the literature about the terminology for

generic skills, which may also be referred to as ‘core skills’, ‘key skills’ or

‘transferable skills’. The term ‘generic skills’ has been used for the purpose of this

model and is used:

“to represent the skills which can support study in any discipline, and which

can potentially be transferred to a range of contexts, in higher education or

the workplace.” (Bennett, Dunne & Carré, 1999 p 76).

In Yorke & Knight’s (2002, p. 2) paper, they discuss some of the research into the

value placed by employers on generic skills in graduates and interpret the message

from employers as:

“Give us a bright and engaged graduate, and we will build specific expertise

for this organisation on top of that.”

Employers want graduates with relevant subject specific skills, knowledge and

understanding, but in addition to this are looking for well developed generic skills in a

number of areas (Harvey, Moon, Geall & Bower, 1997). A considerable amount of

work has been published which lists the many generic or transferable skills that

employers are looking for. The Pedagogy for Employability Group (2004, p 5)

provides a list derived from research carried out over the last twenty-five years and

suggests that employers expect to find that the following generic skills have been

developed in graduates:

• imagination/creativity

• adaptability/flexibility

• willingness to learn

• independent working/autonomy

• working in a team

• ability to manage others

• ability to work under pressure

• good oral communication

• communication in writing for varied purposes/audiences

• numeracy
 • attention to detail

• time management

• assumption of responsibility and for making decisions

• planning, coordinating and organising ability

• ability to use new technologies (not included in the list above but mentioned in

many others and an important element).

There is also the need to mention enterprise and entrepreneurship skills, which are

often discussed in the employability literature. It is likely to be the case that an

enterprising graduate would be valued in any organisation, either profit-making, non-

profit making, large or small. For the purpose of this model, it is suggested that a

graduate who could be described as enterprising would be imaginative, creative,

adaptable, a willing learner; in fact they would have most of the skills already listed

under the ‘generic’ category. Entrepreneurial skills, on the other hand, may be a

valuable addition that some graduates will want to acquire, but not all. Not

everybody wants to set up their own profitable business. As entrepreneurial skills are

not considered an essential element in the model, they have not been included.

Emotional Intelligence

Goleman (1998, p. 4) provides strong support for the inclusion of emotional

intelligence in any model of employability when he says:

“In a time with no guarantees of job security, when the very concept of a “job”

is rapidly being replaced by “portable skills”, these are prime qualities that

make and keep us employable. Talked about loosely for decades under a
 variety of names, from “character” and “personality” to “soft skills” and

“competence”, there is at last a more precise understanding of these human

talents, and a new name for them: emotional intelligence.”

Moynagh & Worsley (2005) suggest that in the future knowledge based economy,

emotional intelligence will become even more important with the predicted expansion

of customer-facing jobs in which human interaction plays a central part.

Emotional intelligence has been defined as:

“the capacity to reason about emotions, and of emotions to enhance thinking.

It includes the abilities to accurately perceive emotions, to access and

generate emotions so as to assist thought, to understand emotions and

emotional knowledge, and to reflectively regulate emotions so as to promote

emotional and intellectual growth.” (Mayer, Salovey & Caruso, 2004, p 197).

In more simple terms, Goleman (1998, p. 317) who has done much to make

emotional intelligence accessible to a wide audience, defines it as:

“the capacity for recognising our own feelings and those of others, for

motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our

relationships.”

As with all the components in the model, in order to achieve their true employability

potential, a graduate will need to have well developed emotional intelligence

competencies. Yorke & Knight (2002) list emotional intelligence as one aspect of

employability under their personal qualities section but it could be suggested that it in

fact subsumes many of the other personal qualities listed and some of the process
skills listed too. As such it deserves a much higher profile. Research has shown that

people with high levels of emotional intelligence motivate themselves and others to

achieve more. They also enjoy more career success, build stronger personal

relationships and enjoy better health than those with low levels of emotional

intelligence (Cooper, 1997). Jaeger (2003, p. 634) demonstrated that emotional

intelligence can be improved through teaching and learning in a higher educational

setting and is positively correlated with academic achievement. She suggests that:

“Enhancing emotional intelligence is a desirable outcome for students,

employees and employers.”

Tucker, Sojka, Barone and McCarthy (2000, p. 336) state that:

“As educators, we want our students to graduate with a solid foundation in the

knowledge and skills they will need to be productive managers and effective

leaders. By implementing emotional intelligence theory and exercises, faculty

will help students become well-rounded graduates.”

They also give suggestions as to how emotional intelligence can be incorporated into

the curriculum.

As emotional intelligence is not fixed genetically, nor does it only develop during early

childhood (Goleman, 1998, p. 7), then it seems to be something people can learn,

which would suggest that this is something that Higher Education Institutions (HEI)

can successfully teach. The issue of emotional intelligence, or emotional literacy as

it is often described, has been taken on board by many primary and secondary

schools keen to improve these skills for their pupils. If the large amount of research

looking at the academic and life success of people with high levels of emotional
intelligence is taken into account (see Qualter, Whiteley & Gardner, 2007 for review),

it is difficult to see how any model of graduate employability would be complete

without its inclusion.

Career Development Learning

For a graduate to stand the best chance of securing occupations in which they can

be satisfied and successful, it is essential that they receive some education in career

development learning.

According to Watts (2006) career development learning has not always been as

strongly represented in HEI employability strategies as it should have been. However

he does suggest that there is evidence that this is changing. Career development

learning, as based on the DOTS model (Law & Watts, 1977) should include activities

that help students to become more self-aware, to enable them to give real

consideration to the things that they enjoy doing, are interested in, motivate them and

suit their personalities. They also need to learn how best to research the job markets

to see what opportunities are available to them, how to present themselves

effectively to prospective employers and how to make considered decisions about

their careers. As stated by Foster (2006, p. 5):

“There is little to be gained in developing employability if, at the end of the

day, a student cannot identify a market in which to advertise their newly

developed employability.”

Importantly, after acquiring so much knowledge, understanding and skill at university,

they will need help and guidance in how best to explain to potential employers about
their achievements and how they will be of benefit to them, in application forms, CVs

and interview activities.

Experience – Work and Life

So much research points to work experience as being something that prospective

employers value greatly in graduates. Some of the key findings of the Work

Experience Group (2002), appointed by the government to look at work experience

opportunities in Higher Education, were as follows:

• “With guidance, students of all ages can learn from their experiences in the

world of work to develop their key competences and skills and enhance their

employability.

• Employers value people who have undertaken work experience, been able to

reflect upon that experience and then go on to articulate and apply what they

have learnt.

• Partnerships between employers and Education are valuable in promoting

work-related learning and in improving the quality and quantity of such

experiences.” (p 4)

According to the Pedagogy for Employability Group (2004), it is widely agreed that

graduates with work experience are more likely to secure employment than

graduates without. It is also important to consider the wider life experiences that

many students, particularly mature students, bring with them into Higher Education.

There is a need therefore for students to be given this information and provided with

guidance as to how their life experience and work-related experience, either

arranged as part of a course, carried out on a voluntary basis or gained through part-

time work, can be used to enhance their levels of employability.

Reflection and Evaluation

Providing students with the opportunities to gain the necessary skills, knowledge,

understanding and attributes is obviously important, but so too is providing

opportunities for reflection on and evaluation of the learning experiences that have

already taken place. Without these opportunities, a student is unlikely to give full

consideration to how far they have come in developing their employability and what

they may need to do in order to develop it further. Moon (2004) provides a full

discussion of the crucial role of reflection in the context of employability. This

element of reflection and evaluation is also the key to development of the ‘three Ss’

discussed further in the next section.

Personal Development Planning (PDP) is a highly appropriate vehicle for reflection

and evaluation in this context and as all students are now entitled to PDP as part of

their university experience it should be relatively straightforward to ensure that it is

used to full effect in developing employability. The Higher Education Academy

suggests that there is a strong link between PDP and employability and that:

“PDP can help students to

• plan, record and reflect upon their experiences in a way that develops

their employment related skills and self-awareness;

• understand how their transferable skills might be applied in new settings;

 • make realistic and suitable career plans based upon their heightened self-

knowledge;

• demonstrate both their employment potential and their ability to manage

their future professional development to employers.”

Self-efficacy/Self-confidence/Self-esteem

These three closely-linked ‘Ss’ of self-efficacy, self-confidence and self-esteem

provide a crucial link between knowledge, understanding, skills, experience and

personal attributes and employability.

According to Albert Bandura (1995, p. 2):

“Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and

execute the course of action required to manage prospective situations.

Efficacy beliefs influence how people think, feel, motivate themselves and

act.”

Bandura (1995) suggests a number of sources of efficacy beliefs. The ones

particularly relevant to employability are: mastery experiences, vicarious experiences

provided by social models and social persuasion.

Mastery experiences occur when people are given the opportunity to try a particular

task themselves. Examples of mastery experiences within the employability agenda

are work experience, realistic work environments (as provided by the Centre for

Employability Through the Humanities at UCLan, where students get the chance to
be involved with activities such as publishing, theatre performances etc.), live student

projects (where students work in a consultancy role to outside agencies) and some

career development learning activities such as making job applications. According to

Bandura (1995) mastery experiences are the most effective way of creating a strong

sense of self-efficacy and so play a vital role within employability.

Vicarious experiences provided by social models occur when students are able to

see others who have achieved success. The closer the others are in similarity to

themselves, the more effective the experiences are. Examples of this are when

successful recent graduates return to the university to give talks to current students

about how they achieved their goals.

Social persuasion occurs when people are persuaded that they possess the

capabilities needed to master a particular activity. This encourages them to put in

more effort and stay motivated in order to achieve success in their goals. There is an

important role for tutors to play here, particular in the way in which they provide

feedback to their students. Bandura states that:

“A major goal of formal education should be to equip students with the

intellectual tools, efficacy beliefs, and intrinsic interests to educate themselves

throughout their lifetime.” (1995, p. 17).

Therefore by providing the opportunities for mastery experiences, vicarious

experiences and social persuasion, then encouraging reflection on and evaluation of

these experiences, self-efficacy can be increased. A graduate who believes they can

do whatever is necessary is far more likely to gain a position and be successful in

whatever occupations they choose than a graduate who does not have that self-

belief.
If self-efficacy is seen as a belief that one has the capability in a particular situation,

then self-confidence could be seen as the way this is projected to the outside world.

Self-confidence appears to be something that can be seen from a person’s manner

and behaviour. According to Goleman (1998, p. 68) people with self-confidence are

able to present themselves with self-assurance and have ‘presence’. It has been

suggested that self-confidence can be either a trait or something that is specific to

certain situations. Norman & Hyland (2003) point out that if self-confidence is seen

as a trait, which personality theorists suggest are relatively stable over time, then

those who lack self-confidence would be unlikely to develop it through educational

activity. If, however, it is viewed as a situationally specific concept, as is assumed by

this new model, then it is possible for students to increase their levels of self-

confidence for any given situation. An increase in self-efficacy should be reflected in

an increase in demonstrated self-confidence.

According to Owens (1993) people with global self-esteem have self-respect and a

feeling of worthiness but are realistic in their evaluations of themselves. Without this

realism a person is unlikely to reflect on areas for improvement, which is crucial to

the process of lifelong learning. The USEM model (Knight & Yorke, 2004) has ‘E’

(personal qualities including self-theories and efficacy beliefs) as something that

colours everything the student and subsequent graduate does. It could also be

suggested that everything the student does during their time at university, will impact

on self-esteem and it is through the development of high global self-esteem that

employability is achieved.

Lawrence (1996, p. xi) provides support for the inclusion of self-esteem in the model

when he states that:

 “One of the most exciting discoveries in educational psychology in recent

times has been the finding that people’s levels of achievement are influenced

by how they feel about themselves. A vast body of research evidence has

accumulated showing a positive correlation between self-esteem and

achievement…”

It is suggested that increased self-esteem is a major part of the key to employability.

It is important to have a belief in one’s ability to succeed and be able to project this

belief to the outside world, but by achieving a high level of self-esteem a graduate will

also be realistic about their achievements and be committed to lifelong learning. In

the words of Gloria Steinem (1992, p. 26):

“…self-esteem isn’t everything; it’s just that there’s nothing without it.”

Value of the Model

Having discussed the components of the model and the justification for their

inclusion, there is also a need to demonstrate how it will be a useful and practical

addition to the literature already available on the subject of employability.

Firstly, any model of employability should inform the planning of programmes and

structured interventions intending to focus on the area. This model provides clarity of

information about what needs to be considered and included. Secondly, a model

concerning graduate employability should be something that can be explained with

ease to students and possibly their parents, as well as academics. This model

allows lecturers, personal tutors, careers advisors or anybody else involved with the

promotion of employability within Higher Education to do so without clouding the

issue in complexity. Thirdly, the model will be a valuable tool for knowledge transfer

activities. It can be used to demonstrate to employers how the roles of HEIs and

business can both contribute to graduate employability with the resultant benefits for

both parties. Finally, it would be useful to have a model of employability that could

be adapted for use with groups other than students and new graduates. It would be

possible to adapt this model for use at any life stage, for example with mid-life career

changers or people dealing with a redundancy situation.

Future Developments

Based on the ‘Key to Employability’ model, work has begun to develop a

measurement tool with which students can evaluate their employability and identify

any areas in which they need to access further opportunities for development. The

intention is for this tool to be made available to practitioners also, to enable them to

assess if their employability interventions are achieving their aims.

Conclusion

This article has introduced the ‘Key to Employability’ model, explained its

components, justified their inclusion and discussed the value of the model.

Employability is a lifelong issue and nobody is ever perfectly employable. There will

always be aspects of a person’s employability that would benefit from improvement.

The model does not depict a process that a student embarks upon during their time

in Higher Education and then graduates with employability for life. The issues within

the model are likely to be revisited many times to ensure adaptability to the demands

of a changing world and a better chance of occupational satisfaction and success.

References

Bandura, A (1995), “Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing

societies”, in Bandura, A. (Ed.), Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, pp 1 – 45.

Bennett, N; Dunne, E & Carré, C (1999), “Patterns of core and generic skill provision

in higher education”, Higher Education, Vol 37, pp 71 – 93.

Cooper, R K (1997), “Applying emotional intelligence in the workplace”, Training &

Development, Vol 51, No 12, pp 31 – 38.

Foster, D (2006), “Reflection of a Careers Adviser”, Phoenix. The Journal of the

Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services, No 117 (Summer), pp 5-6.

Goleman, D (1998), Working with emotional intelligence, Bloomsbury, London

Graduate Prospects (2005/6), Prospects Directory Salary and Vacancy Survey,

Graduate Market Trends, (Winter), pp 11 – 17.

Harvey, L; Moon, S; Geall, V & Bower, R (1997). Graduates’ Work: Organisational

change and students’ attributes. Centre for Research into Quality, University of

Central England, Birmingham. http://www.uce.ac.uk/crq/publications/gw/ [accessed

2 February 2007)

Hillage, J & Pollard, E (1998), Employability: Developing a Frame work for Policy

Analysis. Research Brief No 85. London, Department for Education and

Employment. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RB85.doc [accessed

2 February 2007]

Hinchcliffe, R, (2001), Nice Work (If You Can Get It): Graduate Employability in the

Arts and Humanities. The Developing Learning Organisations Project Consultation

Document.

Higher Education Academy. Personal Development Planning. Available at

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/867.htm [accessed 13 February 2007]

Jaeger, A J (2003), “Job Competences and the Curriculum: An Inquiry into Emotional

Intelligence in Graduate Professional Education”, Research in Higher Education, Vol

44, No 6, pp 615-639.

Johnes, G (2006). Career interruptions and labour market outcomes. EOC Working

Paper Series No 45. Equal Opportunities Commission, Manchester.

Knight, P & Yorke, M (2004), Learning, Curriculum and Employability in Higher

Education, RoutledgeFalmer, London.

Law, W & Watts, A G (1977), Schools, Careers and Community, Church Information

Office, London.

Lawrence, D (1996), Enhancing Self-Esteem in the Classroom, 2nd Edition, Paul

Chapman Publishing Ltd, London.

Mayer, J D; Salovey, P & Caruso, D R (2004), “Emotional Intelligence: Theory,

Findings, and Implications”. Psychological Inquiry, Vol 15, No 3, pp 197 – 215.

McCash, P (2006), “We’re all career researchers now: breaking open career

education and DOTS.” British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, Vol 34, No 4,

November, pp 430-449

Moon, J (2004), Reflection and employability. The Higher Education Academy, York.

Moynagh, M & Worsley, R (2006). Glimpses of tomorrow. The Tomorrow Project.

http://www.tomorrowproject.net/pub/1__GLIMPSES/Employment/-237.html

[Accessed 2 February 2007]

Norman, M & Hyland, T (2003), “The Role of Confidence in Lifelong Learning”,

Educational Studies, Vol 29 , No 2/3, pp 261 – 272.

Owens, T J (1993), “Accentuate the Positive – and the Negative: Rethinking the use

of Self-Esteem, Self-Deprecation, and Self-Confidence”, Social Psychology

Quarterly, Vol 56, No 4, pp 288 – 299.

Qualter, P; Whiteley, H E & Gardner, K (2007), “Emotional Intelligence: Review of

Research and Educational Implications”, Pastoral Care in Education, March 2007, pp

11 – 20.

Steinem, G (1992), Revolution from Within. A Book of Self-Esteem, Little Brown &

Company, Boston.

The Pedagogy for Employability Group (2004), “Pedagogy for Employability”,

Available

http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources.asp?process=full_record&section=generic&i

d=510 [accessed 2 February 2006].

Tucker, M L; Sojka, J Z; Barone, F J & McCarthy, A M (2000), “Training Tomorrow’s

Leaders: Enhancing the Emotional Intelligence of Business Graduates”, Journal of

Education for Business, Vol 75, No 6, pp 331 – 338.

Watts, A G (2006). Career development learning and employability. The Higher

Education Academy, York.

Work Experience Group (2002). Work Related Learning Report. DFES Publications,

Nottingham.

Yorke, M & Knight, P (2002), Employability through the curriculum. Skills Plus:

Tuning the Undergraduate Curriculum. June 2002 edition.

Yorke, M & Knight, P T (2004). Embedding Employability into the Curriculum.

Higher Education Academy, York.

Acknowledgments

Our thanks to Lionel Bunting for his helpful suggestions with the visual presentation

of the model.