The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

Business graduate performance in oral communication skills

and strategies for improvement
Denise Jackson*
Faculty of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University, Room 2.455, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Global competitiveness and increased knowledge sharing have accelerated the importance
Received 8 January 2013 of oral communication skills in today’s graduates. Accordingly, oral communication
Accepted 12 August 2013 dominates assurance of learning standards and is frequently cited as one of the most
desired graduate employability skills. Previous research, typically focused on employer
Keywords: perceptions, largely indicates graduate oral communication skills do not meet industry
Oral communication
expectations. This study investigates how 674 recent business graduates perceived their
Graduate
own capabilities in oral communication skills, noting variations by background/de-
Skill development
Curriculum design
mographic characteristics. Overall, business graduates rated their capabilities in oral
Employability communication highly although mean ratings for the 14 sub-behaviours varied. Certain
sub-behaviours varied with graduate age and time spent working since graduation.
Findings suggest a disparity between graduate and employer perceptions on the standard
of oral communication skills upon graduation. Participants also considered the effective-
ness of different learning activities for developing oral communication skills during their
undergraduate studies. Popular learning activities were individual/group presentations
and small group projects. The number of activity types engaged in during degree studies
did not significantly impact perceived capabilities and only peer feedback, individual and
group presentations caused significant variations in certain sub-behaviours. Despite
graduates reporting opportunities for a wide range of learning activities, these are not
always effective. Strategies for education and professional practitioners for enhancing
graduate oral communication skill outcomes are discussed.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Employability skills, often referred to as generic, core, professional or non-technical skills, continue to attract considerable
attention and resourcing in the tertiary education sector. These skills are a consistent and increasing concern in student
learning in higher education (HE) generally, as well as in business fields specifically. Now an essential component of the
graduate toolkit, they are considered more important than technical expertise in the recruitment and selection of new
graduates (Australian Association of Graduate Employers [AAGE], 2011; Confederation of Business Industry [CBI], 2011). They
comprise a broad range of skills which enable graduates to effectively and innovatively apply their technical expertise in the
workplace. Although there is some discussion of whether the required skill sets vary by discipline and cultural context (see
Jones, 2012; Tempone et al., 2012); team work, communication, self-management, data analysis, critical thinking and problem
solving skills are typically deemed important in graduates in developed economies (AAGE, 2011; CBI, 2011; Hart, 2010).

* Tel.: þ61 0 8 6304 2794; fax: þ61 0 8 6304 5235.

E-mail address: [email protected].

1472-8117/$ – see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2013.08.001
 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34 23

Communication typically dominates skill frameworks and is believed by employers in developed economies to be one of
the most important skill sets in new graduates (Council for Industry and Higher Education [CIHE], 2011; Graduate Careers
Australia [GCA], 2012; Rosenberg, Heimler, & Morote, 2012). The skill set – encompassing both oral and written communi-
cation – is comprehensive as business today requires graduates to communicate virtually, face-to-face, informally and
formally on a national and international basis with a multi-cultural and multi-generational audience. Despite being cited as
the most sought after skill set, it is considered by some to be most lacking in recent graduates (National Association of
Colleges and Employers [NACE], 2010).
Previous studies have typically focused on employer perceptions of graduate workplace performance and the growing
importance of oral communication, with relatively little attention to graduate perspectives. Given ambiguity among stake-
holders on the precise meaning of employability skills (Barrie, 2006), and their manifestation in the workplace, it is important
to also explore graduate perceptions of their performance in these skill areas. This study aims to investigate how recent
business graduates perceive their own capabilities in oral communication and which learning activities developed their skills
to assist in devising and implementing effective curricular interventions. Research objectives are to (i) measure oral
communication skill capabilities in recent business graduates; (ii) identify any variations in oral communication skills by
background/demographic characteristics and learning activities completed at university; and (iii) identify learning activities
most used to develop oral communication skills. The paper is structured to first review relevant literature, followed by an
outline of methodology, presentation and discussion of results and, finally, consideration of implications for stakeholders in
undergraduate education.
The study is set in Australia with responses gathered from 674 business graduates across all 39 Australian universities. As
Australia shares similarities in culture and historical skill development initiatives, problems and cited gaps with many
developed economies, findings may be generalised. Distinct cultural differences between Western and Eastern teaching in
undergraduate business programs (Zhu, Iles, & Shutt, 2011) and an overall lack of understanding of the impact of geographical
and cultural differences on skill requirements and development (Velde, 2009) means findings may not necessarily be applied
to less developed regions worldwide. Emerging research on industry dissatisfaction with graduate oral communication skill
sets in these regions, however, may render findings of interest.

2. Background

2.1. Employability skills

The emergence of employability skill development in HE has followed a similar pattern across several developed econ-
omies, particularly those considered culturally-similar such as North America, UK, Australia and certain parts of Europe. The
conception of employability skills has been central to education strategies and practice for several years (Bowman, 2010) yet
the focus on HE’s role in producing work-ready graduates has grown in recent times, highlighting the need for explicit
employability skill development in undergraduate programs. Rapid changes in technology, increased knowledge sharing and
strong global competitiveness, particularly from developing economies such as India and China (Department of Innovation,
University and Skills [DIUS], 2008), have prompted industry calls for graduates who are enterprising, adaptive and can work in
teams, manage cultural diversity, problem solve and think critically.
Government acknowledgement of the need to up-skill graduates has prompted education reviews, such as Australia’s
West Review (Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, 1998) and the UK’s Dearing report (Dearing, 1997), on the
need to develop undergraduate employability. These reviews have accentuated the need to guide HE providers on implanting
skill outcomes into undergraduate programs. With varying lead times, the initial focus was on constructing national skill
frameworks which articulate those skills required by industry. Australia’s national framework (Department of Science and
Training [DEST], 2002) defines eight skill groupings which are considered generic across different sectors. Concerns for
differing stakeholder perceptions of the precise meaning of the framework’s skill groupings due to ambiguous terminology
(Taylor, 2005), in addition to its currency given the rapid changes in technology and working practices, impede effective
utilisation of the framework.
A more recently commissioned framework provides more detailed skill descriptors on the core skills for employment but
is not yet mandated in Australian education sectors (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
[DEEWR], 2012). Other prominent skill frameworks articulating what constitutes a work-ready graduate include the New
Zealand Qualifications Framework (New Zealand Qualifications Authority [NZQA], 2011); the Framework of Qualifications for
the European Higher Education Area (European Higher Education Area [EHEA], 2010), and the UK’s Quality Code for Higher
Education (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education [QAA], 2012a).
In Australia, HE institutions are required to develop their own set of ‘graduate attributes’ which encompass the skills
defined in the national framework and any capabilities, skills and traits considered relevant to their own institutional context.
Although the Business, Industry and Higher Education Collaboration Council [BIHECC]’s (2007) review of Australian HE in-
stitutions indicated this was largely the case, others maintain implementation is not consistent with some providers pro-
gressing little beyond surface mapping strategies and recommended policy statements (Barrie, 2006). Beyond Australia,
employability skill outcomes are integral to the international undergraduate program accrediting body of Association to
Advance Collegiate Schools of Business [AACSB] and the QAA (Gersten, 2012). At each degree qualification level, there are also
specific guidelines on the employability skill outcomes which Australian, US and UK students should be able to demonstrate
24 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34

in the Australian Qualifications Framework (Australian Qualifications Framework Council [AQFC], 2011); Degree Qualifica-
tions Profile (Lumina, 2011) and the Framework for HE Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland [FHEQ] (QAA,
2008) respectively.

2.2. Oral communication

Among desired skills and attributes, communication is often the dominant issue, both generally and in business specif-
ically. Communication determines academic (Lees, 2002) and career and organisational success (Du-Babcock, 2006); its
importance acknowledged by academics (Holtzman & Kraft, 2011) and students (Andrews & Russell, 2012) although the latter
to a lesser degree than employers (DuPre & Williams, 2011). Emerging research on graduate employability indicates
communication skills are equally important in less developed regions such as India (Blom & Saeki, 2011) and China (Zhu et al.,
2011) and within business, communication is critical for successful job performance (Conrad & Newberry, 2011) and
organisational achievement (Duke, 2011).
The importance of graduate ability to communicate effectively is prominent in professional accreditation criteria, such as
the Institute of Chartered Accountants Australia and CPA Australia (ICAA/CPA Australia, 2009), and is strongly advocated by
AACSB members (English, Manton, & Walker, 2007). In fact, expertise in communication skills dominates their assurance of
learning standards in curriculum management (AACSB, 2012). The new Australian Qualifications Framework (AQFC, 2011)
stipulates that “graduates of a Bachelor Degree will have . communication skills to present a clear, coherent and inde-
pendent exposition of knowledge and ideas” (p. 37). Australian academic teaching and learning standards for certain business
degrees (Australian Learning and Teaching Council [ALTC], 2010), developed through collaboration among academics and
industry partners, include communication skill outcomes. Further, in the UK, the recent drive for developing entrepreneurial
effectiveness in new graduates acknowledges the important role of communication in ensuring graduates are able to
network, negotiate, build trust and articulate ideas and information within industry (QAA, 2012b).
Precisely which elements of the oral communication skill set are most required by industry has been subject to consid-
erable review (Conrad & Newberry, 2012; Gray & Murray, 2011); impeded by ambiguities in the exact meaning of the skill
components, a problem common to many targeted employability skills (Barrie, 2006). Conrad and Newberry suggest some
disconnect between academic and industry interpretations of what constitutes communication and the priority of its
different elements. They note the importance of identifying broad constructs to frame the skill set, in addition to detailed skill
descriptors to articulate precisely what oral communication entails (Jackson & Chapman, 2012). This will better enable the
successful teaching, learning and assessment of the skill set in HE and will impart to stakeholders expected skill outcomes
upon graduation. Key foci of oral communication are graduate ability to give and receive feedback, speak publicly, participate
in meetings and verbally communicate with others in an effective manner (Jackson & Chapman, 2012).

2.2.1. Skill development

Considerable literature on how to best develop undergraduate employability skills has emerged in recent years, some
focussing specifically on oral communication skills (Chan, 2011; Kerby & Romine, 2010). Morreale and Pearson (2008) argue
that although individuals are born with the ability to vocalise, they must learn – and be taught – the skills to communicate
effectively and appropriately with others. Although embedding skill outcomes into core, disciplinary content is the favoured
approach (Bowman, 2010); stand-alone programs which explicitly develop employability skills continue to emerge.
Business simulation and role plays (Avramenko, 2012; Newberry & Collins, 2012); study/discussion groups (Sinka & Kane,
2011); cooperative learning in small groups with individual accountability (Ballantine & McCourt Larres, 2007), in-class
presentations (Stowe, Parent, Schwartz & Kendall, 2010; Van Auken, Wells, & Borgia, 2009), and student-led case studies
(Chan, 2011) are each considered effective ways of developing effective oral communication skills. Chan recommends
introducing communication skill development early into undergraduate programs; building on De La Harpe et al.’s (2009)
argument that inclusion in a capstone experience – typically towards the end of degree programs – is inadequate. Further,
providing adequate access to a quality virtual learning environment is important for nurturing communication skills
(Andrews & Russell, 2012).

2.2.2. Skill assessment

In addition, the assessment of employability skills poses challenges for educators due to ambiguities in skill definitions
and addressing the required shift from assessing outcomes to formatively assessing the process of learning skills.
Communication is particularly difficult to measure as it spans many academic and workplace tasks (Allen & van der Velden,
2005) and is interrelated with other skills, particularly team work (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Lowden, Hall, Elliot, &
Lewin, 2011). Components of the oral communication skill set are considered less tangible than others and it is therefore
considered one of the more difficult employability skills to assess (Stone & Lightbody, 2012). Although undergraduate self-
assessments – such as skill audits – are extremely valuable (Hughes & Jones, 2011), undergraduates must rate accurately
for these activities to hold value. An online dialogue between facilitators and students on defined benchmark performance,
in combination with feedback and moderation, should improve the accuracy of self-assessment (Boud, 1989; Hawkins,
Osborne, Schofield, Pournaras, & Chester, 2012). This may also assist with peer assessment activities, particularly the
use of online self/peer assessment tools, for evaluating team working processes in small group environments (see
Tucker, 2011).
 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34 25

Another method of assessment is the skills portfolio – electronic or otherwise – which documents undergraduate per-
formance in sub-behaviours and provides a valuable tool for imparting ability to employers (Oliver & Whelan, 2011). Un-
dergraduate understanding of the importance of, and ability in, showcasing their achievements to stakeholders in a concise
and effective way is essential; the responsibility for fostering this ability to synthesise falls squarely on the academics
introducing portfolio initiatives. Emerging methods of assessment include the development of holistic rubrics and skills
portfolios (Oliver, 2011); skills auditing (Baker & Henson, 2010; Horn, Murray, Armstrong, & Rodriguez-Falcon, 2012); self and
peer assessment activities (De Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2012) and written tests (Hughes & Jones, 2011). The US’ National
Communication Association [NCA] provides resources on the assessment of oral communication skills in all education sectors
(Morreale, 1996). Attention should also be paid to constructively aligning the assessment of oral communication skills with
learning activities (Biggs, 2006).

2.2.3. Skill outcomes

Despite the considerable resourcing of and research on skill development, there is evidence of significant gaps be-
tween industry expectations and HE provision in oral communication skills in developed economies (Gray & Murray,
2011; Hancock et al., 2009; Hart, 2010). Deficiencies in graduate oral communication skills also extend to developing
economies (Middlehurst & Woodfield, 2004; Stivers, Adams, & Lui, 2007; Velde, 2009). The oral communication skill gap
negatively impacts on job satisfaction (Jusoh, Simun, & Chong, 2011) and can significantly impede job performance,
combining to substantially reduce organisational productivity and adaptability (Duke, 2011). Hart’s study of US em-
ployers indicated that today’s graduates have weaker communication skills than previous generations and although
employers felt universities were developing certain employability skills better, communication was not one of them.
Although Goldfinch and Hughes’ (2007) review of literature surmised a lack of confidence in oral communication skills
does not impact on academic performance, it did adversely affect attrition rates. It is important to note that despite
significant evidence of dissatisfaction with graduate oral communication skills, GCA (2012) found the vast majority of
employers felt graduate verbal communication skills met their average expectations with a growing proportion of em-
ployers stating they exceeded them.
Some believe communication skill gaps exist due to disparity in academic and industry perceptions of how commu-
nication skills are important in graduates; academics emphasising theories and models and employers focussing instead on
practical outcomes (Conrad & Newberry, 2011). To better service the needs of industry, many argue that business education
should focus on expected standards and operational use of skills, rather than abstract principles and underpinning theory
(Du-Babcock, 2006; Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). Research on the learning and transfer of knowledge and skills across contexts,
however, emphasises the importance of ensuring undergraduate understanding of underlying theory and principles to
targeted skills (Billing, 2007). Freedman, Adam, and Smart (1994) emphasise the disparity between student performance in
academic and work contexts, despite efforts to emulate the professional environment. Further, De la Harpe and David
(2012) highlight the need for a more student-centred approach to developing employability skills with less emphasis on
outcomes and more on the process of acquiring skills effectively. Employers lament a lack of attention to oral communi-
cation skills in undergraduate curricula (Holtzman & Kraft, 2011); arguing current offerings are inadequate (Courtis & Zaid,
2002; De Lange, Jackling, & Gut, 2006). There is evidence that students believe there is a significant gap between the
importance of oral communication and the time dedicated to its development time in degree studies (Kavanagh &
Drennan, 2008).
Although 70% of employers would like more effective development of employability skills (CBI, 2011), it is important
that stakeholders acknowledge graduate work-readiness is a collective responsibility (Bowman, 2010). The benefits of
professional and authentic learning (Lawson, Fallshaw, Papadopoulos, Taylor, & Zanko, 2011), student-centred or problem-
based learning (see Joham & Clarke, 2012) and work-integrated learning [WIL] practices such as internships and sandwich
degree programs (Billet, 2011) in undergraduate skill development are well documented, particularly for communication
(Walgran, 2010).
Up-skilling graduates, and facilitating the successful transfer of skills from university to the workplace, is a responsibility
shared by educators and industry and each must contribute to the effective development and assessment of skills. Academics
must challenge resistance to collaborating with industry on learning and assessment design, any concerns for the de-valuing
of education far outweighed by insight into how communication is practised and performance managed in the workplace (Yu,
2010). Further, appraising the suitability of academic staff responsible for developing skills (see De la Harpe & David, 2012)
and whether to embed skill outcomes into core curricula or implement a stand-alone program require careful consideration.
The Browne Review criticises the performance of UK universities’ efforts in producing graduates with the required mix of
skills to meet industry needs, suggestions for reform focussing on enabling students to make more informed choices through
the provision of employment data, professional body recognition and average salaries of graduating students from different
programs (Browne, 2010). Annual data ranking universities according to a range of outcomes are commonplace in the UK,
Australia and US; employment prospects forming part of each institution’s reported data. Other objective measures of
employability skill outcomes are course review portfolios and mapping exercises (Oliver, 2011) at an institutional or faculty
level. The Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes [AHELO] project (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development, 2010) is attempting to define and measure common skill outcomes for HE worldwide. The importance of and
current momentum in assessing skill outcomes appears to be growing; the graduate perspective no less important than other
stakeholders such as education and professional practitioners.
26 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34

3. Method

3.1. Participants

The demographic and background characteristics of the 674 business graduates participating in the study are summarised
in Table 1. All participants were based in Australia and working in a full-time role. Of the sample, 88% completed business/
commerce first degrees and the remainder a mix of disciplines – such as Finance, Accounting, Marketing and Management –
within the field of business. In regard to university type, the Group of Eight (Go8) universities are a coalition of leading HE
institutions in Australia, synonymous with the US’ Ivy League.

3.2. Procedures

Data was gathered on business graduate perceptions of their oral skill capabilities using an online survey. Graduates from a
range of different industries were invited to participate in the study between April and June 2012 in three ways. First, through
direct contact with those managing graduate programs in organisations identified on AAGE and GCA websites. Second,
through participating university alumni offices with details disseminated via direct mail and/or social networking and career
web pages. Third, through professional associations who publicised the survey to members via direct mail and/or adver-
tisements in electronic newsletters.

3.3. Instrument

3.3.1. Capabilities in oral communication

The survey initially gathered data on relevant background and demographic characteristics (see Table 1). The next section
gathered data on capabilities in the oral communication skill set. Measures in the survey instrument derive from Jackson and
Chapman (2012) competency framework of twenty skills and 45 constituent behaviours identified as essential in business
graduates. Their framework was based on an extensive review of literature on industry-required competencies in new
business graduates (Jackson, 2010). Jackson and Chapman’s framework has been contextualised for an undergraduate
learning program which explicitly develops employability skills in an Australian university and defines a communication skill

Table 1
Demographic and background characteristics of business graduate sample.

Variable Subgroup Respondents

n %
Age group 19–21 years 70 10.4
22–24 years 370 54.9
25–27 years 137 20.3
28–30 years 31 4.6
31–40 years 66 9.8
Sex Female 370 54.9
Male 304 45.1
Time in current job 0–12 months 413 61.3
13–24 months 170 25.2
25–36 months 91 13.5
Total time working 0–12 months 382 56.7
since graduation 13–24 months 199 29.5
25–36 months 93 13.8
Time since graduation 0–12 months 161 23.9
13–24 months 274 40.7
More than 25 months 239 35.4
Organisation type Private 306 45.4
Public 349 51.8
Not-for-profit 19 2.8
Industry sector Primary (i.e. Mining/Agriculture) 65 9.7
Secondary (i.e. Manufacturing) 34 5.0
Tertiary (i.e. Business Services/Retail) 575 85.3
Work area Finance 278 41.2
HR 46 6.8
Policy/research/regulation 61 9.1
Marketing/sales/advertising 54 8.0
Management 119 17.7
Administrative/legal 87 12.9
Other 29 4.3
Graduating university Group of eight 250 37.1
Other not answered 408 60.5
16 2.4
 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34 27

set comprising five different behaviours (one of which applies to written communication). Of the four remaining behaviours,
sub-behaviours have been developed for each through literature review and reference to standard rubrics for graduate
communication skills from the American Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) project (Rhodes,
2010) and Assuring Graduate Capabilities (AGC) project (Oliver, 2011). These 14 sub-behaviours comprise the measures for
oral communication in the survey (see Table 2).
Each candidate was asked to rate, on a scale of 1–7, the level which best describes their ability to perform each sub-
behaviour upon graduation. A rating of one indicates an inability to perform and seven an expert who is able to teach the
sub-behaviour to others. Alpha coefficients for the items were .844 for verbal communication; .652 for feedback; .938 for
public speaking and .788 for meeting participation. Although the threshold value of .70 is widely considered an indicator of
reliability, alpha values exceeding .60 are acceptable in exploratory studies (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The
framework of four behaviours and 14 sub-behaviours is considered a valid and reliable measure of oral communication,
attributed to its development from established sources on industry requirements of new business graduates.

3.3.2. Popularity and effectiveness of learning activities

Finally, graduates were asked to select which learning activities they engaged in at university to develop their oral
communication skills. They were given a range of options from which they could make multiple selections, in addition to an
‘Other’ option with an area for further explanation. Listed learning activities were identified through literature review and
practical experience in facilitating on units specifically dedicated to the development of communication skills. Further,
graduates were asked to state whether they had completed WIL as part of their degree studies.

3.3.3. Limitations
The study is based on graduate self-assessments of their own capabilities in the defined oral communication sub-
behaviours. Although there are relevant and valid concerns for bias with self-assessed data (De Grez et al., 2012), hearing
the graduate voice will identify any gaps with employer perceptions and/or provide evidence demonstrating that students’
self-reported skill level corresponds to an external measure. Further, the study is also using a self-selected population which
may skew findings as those who value oral communication or who have higher confidence levels in their capabilities may
respond. Further, graduates are being asked to rate their ability at the point of graduation which may cause inaccuracy due to

Table 2
Oral communication skill set.

Behaviour Sub-behaviour
Verbal communication: Communicate orally in a clear Language and expression: Able to express complex ideas
and sensitive manner which is appropriately varied fluently and coherently using extensive vocabulary – both
according to different audiences and seniority levels general and in areas of special interest – and complex sentence structure.
Purpose and audience: Can vary language and expression to
suit a broad range of audiences and situations.
Giving and receiving feedback: Give and receive feedback Quality: Habitually provides clear, appropriate and constructive feedback
appropriately and constructively to others.
Respect: Is consistently respectful to others and mindful of their
feelings when providing feedback.
Public speaking: Speak publicly and adjust their style Language and expression: Able to express complex ideas fluently
according to the nature of the audience and coherently using extensive vocabulary – both general and
in areas of special interest – and complex sentence structure.
Purpose and audience: Can vary language and expression to suit
a broad range of audiences.
Central message: Central message is compelling, precisely stated,
reinforced, memorable and consistent with the supporting materials.
Structure: Can produce a clear, systematically developed presentation,
on a broad range of subjects, which highlights significant points in
a well structured manner.
Delivery techniques: Delivery techniques make the presentation
professional, fluent, engaging and appropriately paced and demonstrate
mastery of the material.
Supporting materials: Uses a broad range of relevant supporting
materials that establish credibility/authority on the topic.
Meeting participation: Participate constructively Listening: Demonstrates strong listening skills. Does not
in meetings interrupt others and ensures that all participants get the
chance to contribute to discussions.
Contribution: Contributes many ideas, suggestions, needs and
personal feelings. Inspires others to contribute in a similar fashion.
Value: Advocates the importance and value of discussions and
conversations in small group scenarios to others.
Attendance: Does not require reminders to attend meetings.
Arrives punctually, sometimes ahead of time, to all meetings
(except for exceptional circumstances). Takes a leading role in the
planning and execution of meetings.
28 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34

‘recall error’. Given the procedures for recruiting graduates, it is not possible to report a specific response rate which may
better contextualise the findings against the population surveyed.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Oral communication capabilities

The minimum, maximum, mean and standard deviation (SD) scores for the sub-behaviours, as well as an average com-
posite score for the behaviours, are presented in Table 3. Overall, the business graduates rated their capabilities in oral
communication highly, aligning with DuPre and William’s (2011) study which found undergraduates were confident in their
abilities to communicate effectively. The lowest mean was 4.48 for the provision of quality feedback. Given the growing use of
formative assessment relying on peer feedback in the university classroom (Gielen, Dochy, Onghena, Struyven, & Smeets,
2011), this result is disappointing yet aligns with documented difficulties in undergraduates providing quality feedback
(Gray & Murray, 2011). This problem is further impacted by evidence of undergraduates being unable to accurately assess – in
relation to facilitators – their own performance (Patri, 2002) and their peers (Dochy, Segers, & Sluijsmans, 1999). Conversely,
the sub-behaviour of giving and receiving respectful feedback while being mindful of other’s feelings achieved the second
highest mean score of 5.50, perhaps attributed to the increasing multi-generational and multi-cultural mix at university
(Caulfield & Aycock, 2011) and the growing use of group projects where team members are expected to demonstrate respect
for others, among other behaviours.
Listening skills also feature as a highly rated sub-behaviour with a mean score of 5.21. These are extremely valued by
employers (Gray & Murray, 2011); a vital aspect of the business communication skill set (Wolvin, 2012). There is evidence,
however, indicating deficiencies in graduate performance in effective listening skills in the workplace (Stone & Lightbody,
2012) and a lack of attention in undergraduate curricula (Wolvin, 2012). Public speaking is comparatively weak with all
sub-behaviours featuring in the lower half of ranked mean scores and achieving the lowest composite mean score (4.75)
across all four behaviours. Areas of greatest concern are delivery techniques and articulating a compelling and central
message in public speaking. Stowe et al. (2010) note that despite their critical role in competing for clients and gaining
credibility in the marketplace, deficiencies are commonly cited among employers. Wolvin’s review of oral communication
skill provision in HE identifies it as central to most US communication courses, yet Stowe et al. argue it is still an area requiring
greater focus in undergraduate curricula.
Meeting participation achieved the highest composite mean score (5.06) across the four behaviours although there were
distinct differences in mean ratings among the sub-behaviours. Contribution and value had significantly lower mean scores
than attendance and listening with both pairs appearing at either end of the ranked mean table. Graduate ability in
participating effectively and constructively in meetings is important (Field, 2001; Scott & Yates, 2002). For most un-
dergraduates, this will involve small group project meetings, attendance of which is actually cited as problematic due to
increasing work commitments in today’s undergraduates (O’Farrell & Bates, 2009). Finally, mean scores for the language and
expression sub-behaviours for both public speaking and verbal communication are relatively low at 4.68 and 4.76 respec-
tively. Correct vocabulary, grammar and the ability to communicate ideas coherently and with appropriate tone and
expression are vital in graduates (Christensen, Barnes, Rees, & Calvasina, 2005). This aligns with documented concerns for the
modern graduates’ proper use of vocabulary (Gray & Murray, 2011) and undergraduate proficiency in spelling and grammar
(Andrews & Russell, 2012).

Table 3
Behaviour and sub-behaviour mean scores.

Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Verbal: Language and expression 1 7 4.76 1.17
Verbal: Purpose and audience 1 7 4.85 1.23
Verbal communication average 4.81 1.12
Feedback: Quality 1 7 4.48 1.22
Feedback: Respect 1 7 5.50 1.20
Feedback average 5.00 1.04
Public speaking: Language and expression 1 7 4.68 1.28
Public speaking: Purpose and audience 1 7 4.76 1.23
Public speaking: Central message 1 7 4.71 1.23
Public speaking: Structure 1 7 4.82 1.25
Public speaking: Delivery techniques 1 7 4.62 1.30
Public speaking: Supporting materials 1 7 4.87 1.28
Public speaking average 4.75 1.10
Meeting participation: Listening 1 7 5.21 1.22
Meeting participation: Contribution 1 7 4.66 1.38
Meeting participation: Value 1 7 4.70 1.34
Meeting participation: Attendance 1 7 5.66 1.34
Meeting participation average 5.06 1.03
 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34 29

4.2. Variations in oral communication skills by background characteristics

Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) detected significant variation in perceived capability in sub-behaviours for
only two of the demographic/background characteristics summarised in Table 1. First, a significant interaction was recorded
for age, l ¼ .885, F(56, 2553.873) ¼ 1.460, p ¼ .015, partial h2 ¼ .030. Significant results for univariate ANOVAs, at a Bonferroni
adjusted level of a ¼ .004, are summarised in Table 4. Tukey post-hoc tests (a ¼ .05) showed the oldest age group (31þ years)
assigned significantly higher scores to the verbal language and expression sub-behaviour than those age groups below 28
years. This theme continues with the oldest age group assigning significantly higher scores than most, or all, younger ones for
all the sub-behaviours with the exception of public speaking central message. Here, the oldest age group was significantly
higher than only one other younger age group. Overall, these findings suggest that a graduate’s age positively varies with their
perceived ability in certain aspects of oral communication. This is interesting as younger graduates are often considered to
have self-inflated perceptions of their own abilities and are critiqued by employers as lacking in humility (Shaw &
Fairhurst, 2008).
Second, there was a significant variation in reported capabilities for the total time spent working since graduation,
l ¼ .913, F(28, 1316) ¼ 2.187, p ¼ .000, partial h2 ¼ .044. Interestingly, the trend across all sub-behaviours was that those with
less time served in the workplace considered themselves more capable than their more experienced counterparts. For all sub-
behaviours except verbal communication purpose and audience and feedback quality, the reported significant difference in
ratings applied only to the least and the most experienced groups. For the excepted sub-behaviours, those with one year or
less experience in the workplace were significantly higher than both the groups with more experience.
Overall, this indicates that graduates with less work experience since graduation believe they are more capable in oral
communication than those with more. Importantly, there was not an equivalent effect for time elapsed since graduation,
suggesting a direct interaction with work experience not time. Again, high self-importance upon graduation may provide
some explanation; downscaling perceived capability to a more accurate and realistic estimation as they undertake tasks and
interact with experienced colleagues in the workplace. Interestingly, a significant variation was not detected for sex, con-
flicting with Wilton’s (2011) study of almost 10,000 UK graduates which found female graduates reporting better develop-
ment of spoken communication skills than their male counterparts.

4.3. Learning activities for developing oral communication skills

Table 5 summarises the learning activities and numbers of graduates which engaged in each during their degree studies.
Aligning with literature, popular learning activities for developing oral communication skills are individual and group pre-
sentations and small group projects. Almost half of the business graduates participated in peer feedback activities; aligning
with the growing focus on peer interaction and evaluation in the university classroom. Less than a third of business un-
dergraduate programs used simulations and role plays; virtual online meeting tools and case studies proved reasonably
popular, as did study and/or discussion groups. Participants were also asked to identify any other learning activities used to
develop communication skills in their degree program. Class debates and discussions and business competitions were cited
by a very small number of graduates, the latter proven to enhance communication skills (Jones & Jones, 2011). An average of
4.86 activities were completed by participants, including those volunteered by participants, with a standard deviation of 1.92.

4.3.1. Variations in ratings by learning activities

MANOVA (a ¼ .05) indicated no significant difference in perceived capabilities in the sub-behaviours by the number of
learning activity types they engaged in (p ¼ .763), indicating that a small number of activities may be equally as effective for
student learning as a wide range. A series of Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney two sample rank-sum tests, at a Bonferroni-adjusted

Table 4
Significant variations in sub-behaviours across demographic/background characteristics.

Characteristic Sub-behaviour df MS F p-value

Age Verbal: Language and expression 4 7.594 5.681 .000
Verbal: Purpose and audience 4 6.519 4.422 .002
Feedback: Quality 4 8.429 5.858 .000
Public speaking: Central message 4 6.318 4.276 .002
Public speaking: Structure 4 7.137 4.650 .001
Meeting participation: Contribution 4 10.696 5.809 .000
Total time working Verbal: Language and expression 2 9.651 7.153 .001
since graduation Verbal: Purpose and audience 2 21.707 15.030 .000
Feedback: Quality 2 23.558 16.654 .000
Public speaking: Structure 2 11.692 7.603 .001
Public speaking: Delivery techniques 2 9.317 5.609 .004
Public speaking: Supporting materials 2 10.531 6.555 .002
Meeting participation: Listening 2 11.502 7.880 .000
Meeting participation: Contribution 2 17.594 9.526 .000
Meeting participation: Value 2 20.014 11.579 .000
30 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34

Table 5
Learning activities for developing oral communication skills.

Activity n %
Peer feedback 283 42.4
Small group projects 585 87.6
Virtual online meeting tools 261 39.1
Study and/or discussion groups 445 66.6
Role plays, simulations and/or experiments 201 30.1
Group presentations 587 87.9
Individual presentations 549 82.2
Case studies 362 54.2

a ¼ .004, was conducted to detect any variation in sub-behaviour ratings by learning activities undertaken at university.
Significant results are presented in Table 6 and indicate that peer feedback had the most impact on ratings with some evi-
dence of variation for group and individual presentations. All significant results shared a positive effect on the ranked mean
score in the specified sub-behaviours for graduates completing the learning activity as part of their studies.

4.3.2. The role of work-integrated learning

Of the sample, 257 (38.1%) undertook WIL as part of their undergraduate program. Interestingly, MANOVA detected no
significant variation (a ¼ .05) in perceived capability in the oral communication sub-behaviours for those completing WIL.
The benefits of WIL in regard to employability skill development are well-documented (Wilton, 2011) and this finding
contradicts those identifying significant gains in the oral communication skills of students completing work placements
(Freudenberg, Brimble, & Cameron, 2011; Gamble, Patrick, & Peach, 2010). Wilton (2012) also found a significant difference in
spoken communication skills but only in generalist business/management undergraduates and not those with specialist
studies, such as Accounting, nor those combining with another discipline. Others, however, emphasise different areas when
examining the benefits of WIL; most particularly enhancing organisational awareness and understanding of workplace values
and culture and developing professionalism (see Coll et al., 2009).
Wilton concluded that the value of the placement is more associated with personal development and a better understanding
of the demands of employment and the working environment than tangible gains in skill outcomes. To investigate this further, a
measure of overall ability was taken to represent an overarching level of graduate confidence in their personal capabilities. On a
scale of 1–7, a rating of 1 indicated ‘of very limited ability’ and 7 indicated ‘extremely able’. One way ANOVA indicated those who
undertook WIL rated their overall ability significantly higher than those who did not, F(1,672) ¼ 9.004, p ¼ .003, partial h2 ¼ .013.
This suggests that WIL enhances confidence levels (Brooks, 2012) although perhaps not all targeted employability skills.

5. Implications for stakeholders

Overall, graduates rate their oral communication skills highly, conflicting with industry dissatisfaction with performance
in this area. This disparity is noted by others (DuPre & Williams, 2011; Gersten, 2012) and may be exacerbated by graduates’
inflated perceptions of personal capabilities in employability skills. Although graduates rate certain aspects of the oral
communication skill set, particularly the provision of quality feedback, public speaking and use of language and expression,
less highly than others, they still perceive themselves as being able to perform competently in the workplace. Disparity in
perceptions suggest that education practitioners should be better preparing undergraduates in oral communication as well as
articulating more clearly industry expectations of graduate performance in the skill set. Given the shared responsibility for
skill development in undergraduates, the role of industry is important in achieving both goals.

5.1. Curriculum renewal

5.1.1. Learning activities

Findings suggest that despite graduates reporting opportunities for a wide range of learning activities for developing oral
communication skills, these do not always appear to be effective. Despite 87.9% of the sample participating in small group

Table 6
Variations in sub-behaviour ratings by learning activity (n ¼ 674).

Learning Activity Sub-behaviour Mann–Whitney U Mean rank p

Completed Not completed

Peer feedback Feedback – quality 48193.50 362.70 319.26 .003
Public – delivery 47385.00 365.56 317.19 .001
Public – materials 47897.00 363.75 318.50 .002
Meeting – value 47897.50 363.43 318.73 .003
Group presentations Public – structure 19527.50 347.73 268.45 .000
Public – delivery 20815.00 345.54 283.25 .004
Individual presentations Public – structure 28778.50 347.58 293.23 .004
 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34 31

projects during their degree studies, this learning activity had no significant impact on any of the sub-behaviour ratings. As
expected, the popular small and group presentations caused significant variations in certain aspects of public speaking
although influencing a broader range of sub-behaviours might be expected. Virtual online meeting tools, study/discussion
groups, role plays/simulations/experiments and case studies’ lack of significant effect on oral communication sub-behaviour
ratings is of concern. This applies equally to the design and implementation of WIL in undergraduate degrees; an initiative
providing potentially invaluable opportunities for students to practise and fine-tune their oral communication skills in a
professional context.
Regarding pedagogical approaches to the development of oral communication skills, this study suggests the number of
learning activities does not impact on graduates’ perceived capabilities. Indeed, a small number of key and effective activities
may equal a broad range in terms of skill outcomes. Findings suggest that expanding activities dedicated to developing oral
communication in business graduates may not be needed; instead education practitioners should review the pedagogical
soundness of current learning activities and consider different approaches to enhance effectiveness. For example, for pre-
sentations to form an effective learning activity, they must extend beyond a means of assessment and outcomes-focused
activity with detailed instructions, competency descriptors and targeted outcomes (Kerby & Romine, 2010). Stowe et al.
(2010) noted a strong preference among business practitioners for individual, rather than group, presentations at univer-
sity and a believed that industry feedback would enhance undergraduate performance in public speaking. Their study
indicated that Faculty and students agreed that class tuition on public speaking enhanced skill outcomes.
Newberry and Collins (2012) describe a successful simulation for engaging business students and enabling them to apply
their team working and communication skills in an effective way. Ebner and Druckman (2012) emphasise the important
student learning from their involvement in actually designing simulations and role-plays, as well as enhanced skill outcomes
from students participating in these activities. The development of instructions was particularly relevant for fostering certain
communication behaviours. Class debates and discussions, also considered important for fostering informal, verbal
communication skills (Dallimore, Hertenstein, & Platt, 2008; Kennedy, 2007), can be designed to formally grade students and
use pre-assigned roles to ensure equal participation among students. Findings highlight areas for future research on the
specific benefits of certain learning activities and indeed how they should be designed to enhance oral communication skill
outcomes.
On a more positive note, the value of peer feedback is attested with significant influences on certain public speaking,
feedback and meeting participation sub-behaviours. Findings provide a strong argument to introduce, or extend, peer
feedback exercises within degree curricula, encouraging lifelong learning (Vickerman, 2009). Their activity’s value relies
significantly, however, on ability to provide high quality and accurate feedback and undergraduate learning in this area is
essential. The importance of being able to give and receive quality feedback is widely acknowledged (Field, 2001; Halfhill &
Nielsen, 2007; Scott & Yates, 2002) and undergraduates should therefore be explicitly taught the process of how to evaluate
their own work, and that of others, and how to provide appropriate, constructive and useful feedback (Boud, Cohen, &
Sampson, 2001) particularly during the early stages of degree programs (see Nulty, 2011).
With age, which positively influences certain oral communication sub-behaviours, comes greater experience in both work
and life. Wheeler (2008) considers a broad exposure to life spheres – those activities which extend beyond the hours of work
and education – to significantly enhance targeted competencies and learning goals. More specific to strong communication
skills, employers favour graduates with experience in team sports and community activities (Merino, 2007; Tchibozo, 2008).
Encouraging undergraduates to undertake extra-curricular activities, or indeed incorporating service learning, volunteering
and other citizenship-targeted behaviours into curricula, may be beneficial.

5.1.2. Curriculum design

Universities can review current approaches to skill development using course portfolios and mapping strategies (Oliver,
2011) and attention should be paid to the suitability of staff responsible for fostering targeted skills. De la Harpe and
David (2012) argue those currently responsible are often not appropriately equipped or sufficiently confident to deliver
effective skills development. This, in combination with a reluctance to rigorously and comprehensively embed skill outcomes
into core curricula, may form sufficient argument to develop standalone skill programs within Faculties. Although the need to
situate communication skill development within a disciplinary context is widely acknowledged (De Lange et al., 2006; Jones,
2012), asserting the advantages of embedding skill outcomes into core disciplinary content over implementing a stand-alone
program should not be assumed.

5.1.3. Articulation of skill requirements

Elevated perceptions of capabilities urge stakeholders to articulate more clearly to undergraduates the expected standards
in required skills and behaviours as they proceed through their degree program and upon graduation (Hampson & Junor,
2009). Rubrics are critical in defining the required standards for targeted skills and their availability (see Oliver, 2011;
Rhodes, 2010) enables HE providers to develop their own set, contextualised to their institution, Faculty and/or learning
program’s targeted skills. They are a viable means of articulating academic standards at different undergraduate year levels
and identifying target performance criteria and areas requiring individual improvement (Anderson & Mothrweis, 2008).
Rubrics are also valuable grading tools with evidence of enhanced oral communication skills when used with undergraduates
(Pettinger, Miller, & Mott, 2004). Further, they assist with mapping exercises and enable Faculty to identify areas of program
deficiency (Kerby & Romine, 2010).
32 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34

5.2. Role of industry

Developed rubrics should reflect a collaborative effort in order to capture industry requirements and expectations of skill
outcomes at graduation level. In addition to clarifying the precise demand for oral communication skills, industry has much to
contribute in developing these skills effectively and providing avenues for authentic assessment (see Lawson et al., 2011).
Although communication skills should be developed in the school sector, HE providers have a responsibility to remediate any
deficiencies (Andrews & Russell, 2012) and must embrace this challenge with the assistance of key stakeholders. Increased
industry input into learning activities should clarify the different ways sub-behaviours are operationalised in a range of
industry contexts. Familiarity and engagement with current industry practices is essential and something for which Faculty
attracts heavy criticism (Bennis & O’Toole, 2005). Faculty ability to explicitly impart how sub-behaviours are implemented in
different industry sectors, organisations and work areas – through analogies and the use of examples – will enhance the
acquisition (Hynes, 2012) and transfer of communication skills (Kirwan, 2009). Lin, Grace, Krishnan, and Gilsdorf (2010)
believe Accounting undergraduates are more likely to apply themselves to communication skill development if they fully
appreciate their perceived importance by Accounting firms. Educators resisting employer involvement in learning design
must acknowledge the value of their input for better understanding the demands on graduates as they enter the workforce
and expectations of their performance in difference aspects of the communication skill set.
Further, findings indicated that more time spent in the workplace tended to downwardly revise perceptions of capabilities
in oral communication skills upon graduation. The benefits of part-time working during university studies in better un-
derstanding and meeting industry expectations in employability skills are well documented (Shaw, 2012). Encouraging
undergraduates to gain both life and work experience during their degree studies will most likely assist in a gaining a more
tacit understanding of what is required in the workplace in relation to communication and other targeted employability skills.
It will also assist graduates in better constructing skill portfolios and/or resumes which efficiently articulate their capabilities
in alignment with industry needs. Ultimately, this will achieve more favourable employment outcomes through better job
matches, smoother recruitment and selection processes, and enhanced organisational productivity and performance.

Acknowledgement

This research was internally funded by Edith Cowan University and conducted under the Centre for Innovative Practice,
Faculty of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University.

References

Allen, J., & Van der Velden, R. (2005). The role of self-assessment in measuring skills. Maastricht, Netherlands: Research Centre for Education and the Labour
Market.
Anderson, J., & Mothrweis, L. (2008). Using rubrics to assess accounting students’ writing, oral presentations, and ethics skills. American Journal of Business
Education, 1(2), 85–94.
Andrews, G., & Russell, M. (2012). Employability skills development: strategy, evaluation and impact. Education þ Training, 2(1), 33–44.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International. (2012). Eligibility procedures and accreditation standards for business accred-
itation. Retrieved 15.09.12, from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/business/standards.
Australian Association of Graduate Employers (AAGE). (2011). 2011 AAGE employer survey. Sydney, Australia: AAGE.
Australian Learning and Teaching Council [ALTC]. (2010). Learning and teaching academic standards project – Final report. Strawberry Hills, NSW: ALTC.
Australian Qualifications Framework Council. (2011). Australian qualifications framework. South Australia: Australian Qualifications Framework Council.
Avramenko, A. (2012). Enhancing students’ employability through business simulation. Education þ Training, 54(5), 355–367.
Baker, G., & Henson, D. (2010). Promoting employability skills development in a research-intensive university. Education þ Training, 52(1), 62–75.
Ballantine, J., & McCourt Larres, P. (2007). Cooperative learning: a pedagogy to improve students’ generic skills. Education þ Training, 49(2), 126–137.
Barrie, S. (2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51(2), 215–241.
Bennis, W., & O’Toole, J. (2005). How business schools lost their way. Harvard Business Review, 83(5), 96–104.
Biggs, J. (2006). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Maidenhead, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open
University Press.
Billet, S. (2011). Curriculum and pedagogical bases for effectively integrating practice-based experiences – Final report. Strawberry Hills, NSW: Australian
Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC).
Billing, B. (2007). Teaching for transfer of core/key skills in higher education. Higher Education, 53(4), 483–516.
Blom, A., & Saeki, H. (2011). Employability and skill set of newly graduated engineers in India. Policy research working paper 5640. Washington, DC, USA:
World Bank South East Asia Education Team.
Boud, D. (1989). The role of self-assessment in student grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 14(1), 20–30.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.
Bowman, K. (2010). Background paper for the AQF Council on generic skills. Retrieved 10.07.11, from http://www.aqf.edu.au/Portals/0/Documents/Generic%
20skills%20background%20paper%20FINAL.pdf.
Brooks, R. (2012). Evaluating the impact of placements on employability. In Employability, enterprise and citizenship in higher education conference 2012, 27
March 2012. Manchester Metropolitan University.
Browne, J. (2010). Securing a sustainable future for higher education: An independent review of higher education funding and student finance. Retrieved 06.08.12,
from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/11444/1/10-1208-securing-sustainable-higher-education-browne-report.pdf.
Business, Industry and Higher Education Collaboration Council [BIHECC]. (2007). Graduate employability skills. Canberra: BIHECC.
Casner-Lotto, J., & Barrington, L. (2006). Are they really ready to work? Employers’ perspectives on the basic knowledge and applied skills of new entrants to the
21st century U.S. workforce. USA: The Conference Board, Inc.
Caulfield, J. (2011). How to design and teach a hybrid course. Achieving student-centred learning through blended classroom, online and experimental activities.
Virginia, US: Stylus Publishing.
Chan, V. (2011). Teaching oral communication in undergraduate science: are we doing enough and doing it right? Journal of Learning Design, 4(3), 71–79.
Christensen, D., Barnes, J., Rees, D., & Calvasina, G. (2005). Improving the oral presentation skills of accounting students: an experiment. Journal of College
Teaching and Learning, 2(1), 17–26.
 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34 33

Coll, R., Eames, R., Paku, L., Lay, M., Hodges, D., Bhat, R., et al. (2009). An exploration of the pedagogies employed to integrate knowledge in work-integrated
learning. Journal of Co-operative Education & Internship, 43(1), 14–35.
Confederation of British Industry (CBI). (2011). Building for growth: business priorities for education and skills – Education and skills survey 2011. London: CBI.
Conrad, D., & Newberry, R. (2011). 24 business communication skills: attitudes of human resource managers versus business educators. American
Communication Journal, 13(1), 4–23.
Conrad, D., & Newberry, R. (2012). Identification and instruction of important business communication skills for graduate business education. Journal of
Education for Business, 87(2), 112–120.
Council for Industry and Higher Education [CIHE]. (2011). Global graduates: Global graduates into global leaders. London, UK: CIHE.
Courtis, J., & Zaid, O. (2002). Early employment problems of Australian accounting graduates: an exploratory study. Accounting Forum, 26(3), 320–339.
Dallimore, E., Hertenstein, J., & Platt, M. (2008). Using discussion pedagogy to enhance written and oral communication skills. College Teaching, 56(3), 163–172.
Dearing, R. (1997). Higher education in the learning society. Report of the National Committee of Enquiry into Higher Education. Norwich, UK: HMSO.
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2012). How effective are self- and peer-assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments.
Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 129–142.
De La Harpe, B., Radloff, A., Scoufis, M., Dalton, H., Thomas, J., Lawson, A., et al. (2009). The b factor project: Understanding academic staff beliefs about graduate
attributes. Strawberry Hills, NSW: ALTC.
De la Harpe, B., & David, C. (2012). Major influences on the teaching and assessment of graduate attributes. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(4), 493–510.
De Lange, P., Jackling, B., & Gut, A. (2006). Accounting graduates’ perceptions of skills emphasis in undergraduate courses: an investigation from two
Victorian universities. Accounting and Finance, 46(3), 365–386.
Department of EducationEmployment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) (2012). Employability skills framework stage one final report. Canberra: DEEWR.
Department of Education, Science and Training [DEST]. (2002). Employability skills for the future. Canberra: DEST.
Department of EducationEmployment and Youth Affairs (DETYA) (1998). Learning for life: Final report. Review of higher education, financing and policy.
Canberra: DETYA.
Department of Innovation, University and Skills. (2008). Higher education at work. High skills: High value. London: DIUS.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.
Du-Babcock, B. (2006). Teaching business communication: past, present, and future. Journal of Business Communication, 43(3), 253–264.
Duke. (2011). Meeting the upgrading challenge: Dynamic workforces for diversified economies. Durham, NC, USA: Duke Center on Globalisation, Governance
and Competitiveness.
DuPre, C., & Williams, K. (2011). Undergraduates’ perceptions of employer expectations. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 26(1), 8–19.
Ebner, N., & Druckman, D. (2012). Simulation design for learning and assessment.
English, D., Manton, E., & Walker, J. (2007). AACSB college of business deans’ perception of selected communication competencies. College Teaching Methods
& Styles Journal, 3(4), 35–40.
European Higher Education Area [EHEA]. (2010). The framework of qualifications for the European higher education area. Retrieved 10.09.12, from http://www.
ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/qf/overarching.asp.
Field, L. (2001). Industry speaks! Skill requirements of leading Australian workplaces. Canberra, Australia: DEST.
Freedman, A., Adam, C., & Smart, G. (1994). Wearing suits to class simulating genres and simulations as genre. Written Communication, 11(2), 193–226.
Freudenberg, B., Brimble, M., & Cameron, C. (2011). WIL and generic skill development: the development of business students’ generic skills through work-
integrated learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12(2), 79–93.
Gamble, N., Patrick, C., & Peach, D. (2010). Internationalising work-integrated learning: creating global citizens to meet the economic crisis and the skills
shortage. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(5), 535–546.
Gersten, K. (2012). General education: learning from the past, preparing for the future. Higher Learning Research Communications, 2(2), 8–17.
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., & Smeets, S. (2011). Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts. Studies in Higher Edu-
cation, 36(6), 719–735.
Goldfinch, J., & Hughes, M. (2007). Skills, learning styles and success of first-year undergraduates. Active Learning in Higher Education, 8(3), 259–273.
Graduate Careers Australia (GCA). (2012). Graduate outlook 2012: The report of the graduate outlook survey. Parkville, Australia: GCA.
Gray, E., & Murray, N. (2011). A distinguishing factor: oral communication skills in new accountancy graduates. Accounting Education: An International
Journal, 20(3), 275–294.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. New Jersey, US: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Halfhill, T., & Nielsen, T. (2007). Quantifying the “softer side” of management education: an example using teamwork competencies. Journal of Management
Education, 31(1), 64–80.
Hampson, I., & Junor, A. (2009). ‘Employability’ and the substance of soft skills. In Proceedings of the 27th international labour process conference, Edinburgh,
Scotland.
Hancock, P., Howieson, B., Kavanagh, M., Kent, J., Tempone, I., & Segal, N. (2009). Accounting for the future: MORE than numbers. Strawberry Hills, NSW: ALTC.
Hart. (2010). Raising the bar: Employers’ views on college learning in the wake of the economic downturn. Report for the Association of American Colleges and
Universities, USA.
Hawkins, S., Osborne, A., Schofield, S., Pournaras, D., & Chester, J. (2012). Improving the accuracy of self-assessment of practical clinical skills using video
feedback – the importance of including benchmarks. Medical Teacher, 34(4), 279–284.
Holtzman, D., & Kraft, E. (2011). Skills needed in the 21st century workplace: a comparison of feedback from undergraduate business alumni and employers
with a national study. Business Education & Accreditation, 3(1), 61–76.
Horn, R., Murray, P., Armstrong, S., & Rodriguez-Falcon, E. (2012). Inspiring global employability skills in a 1-week project. Retrieved 21.09.12, from http://
www-new2.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/stem-conference/Engineering2/Rachel_Horn.pdf.
Hughes, R., & Jones, S. (2011). Developing and assessing college student teamwork skills. New Directions for Institutional Research, 149, 53–64.
Hynes, G. (September 19, 2012). Improving employees’ interpersonal communication competencies: a qualitative study. Business Communication Quarterly.
doi:1080569912458965.
Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia and CPA Australia [ICCA/CPA]. (2009). International accreditation guidelines for accounting degree programs.
Melbourne: CPA Australia.
Jackson, D. (2010). An international profile of industry relevant competencies and skill gaps in modern graduates. International Journal of Management
Education, 8(3), 29–58.
Jackson, D., & Chapman, E. (2012). Non-technical competencies in undergraduate business degree programs: Australian and UK perspectives. Studies in
Higher Education, 37(5), 541–567.
Joham, C., & Clarke, M. (2012). Teaching critical management skills: the role of problem-based learning. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(1), 75–88.
Jones, A. (2012). There is nothing generic about graduate attributes: unpacking the scope of context. Journal of Further and Higher Education. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/0309877X.2011.645466.
Jones, A., & Jones, P. (2011). Making an impact: a profile of a business planning competition in a university. Education þ Training, 53(8/9), 704–721.
Jusoh, M., Simun, M., & Chong, S. (2011). Expectation gaps, job satisfaction and organizational commitment of fresh graduates: roles of graduates, higher
learning institutions and employers. Education þ Training, 53(6), 515–530.
Kavanagh, M., & Drennan, L. (2008). What skills and attributes does an accounting graduate need? Evidence from student perceptions and employer
expectations. Accounting and Finance, 48(2), 279–300.
Kennedy, R. (2007). In-class debates: fertile ground for active learning and the cultivation of critical thinking and oral communication skills. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 19(2), 183–190.
34 D. Jackson / The International Journal of Management Education 12 (2014) 22–34

Kerby, D., & Romine, J. (2010). Develop oral presentation skills through accounting curriculum design and course-embedded assessment. Journal of Edu-
cation for Business, 85(3), 172–179.
Kirwan, C. (2009). Improving learning transfer: A guide to getting more out of what you put in to your training. Farnham, UK: Gower.
Lawson, R., Fallshaw, E., Papadopoulos, T., Taylor, T., & Zanko, M. (2011). Professional learning in the business curriculum: engaging industry, academics and
students. Asian Social Science, 7(4), 61–68.
Lees, D. (2002). Graduate employability – Literature review. Retrieved 09.07.08. LTSN Generic Centre http://www.palatine.ac.uk/files/emp/1233.pdf.
Lin, P., Grace, D., Krishnan, S., & Gilsdorf, J. (2010). Failure to communicate: why accounting students don’t measure up to professionals’ expectations. The
CPA Journal, 80(1), 63–65.
Lowden, K., Hall, S., Elliot, D., & Lewin, J. (2011). Employers’ perceptions of the employability skills of new graduates. London: University of Glasgow SCRE
Centre and Edge Foundation.
Lumina Foundation for Education, Inc. (2011). The degree qualifications profile. Indianapolis: Lumina Foundation for Education, Inc.
Merino, R. (2007). Pathways from school to work: can the competences acquired in leisure activities improve the construction of pathways? Journal of
Education and Work, 20(2), 139–159.
Middlehurst, R., & Woodfield, S. (2004). The role of transnational, private, and for-profit provision in meeting global demand for tertiary education: Mapping,
regulation and impact. Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO. Retrieved 11.11.10 http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/03Transnational_
Report.pdf.
Morreale, S., & Pearson, J. (2008). Why communication education is important: the centrality of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education,
57(2), 224–240.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2010). Job outlook 2010. Bethlehem, PA: NACE.
Morreale, S. P. (1996). Large scale assessment of oral communication: K-12 and higher education. Annandale, VA: NCA.
Newberry, R., & Collins, M. (2012). A recruiting and hiring role-play: an experimental simulation. Marketing Education Review, 22(1), 67–72.
New Zealand Qualifications Authority [NZQA]. (2011). New Zealand qualifications framework. Wellington: NZQA.
Nulty, D. (2011). Peer and self-assessment in the first year of university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(5), 493–507.
O’Farrell, M., & Bates, J. (2009). Student information behaviours during group projects: a study of LIS students in University College Dublin, Ireland. Aslib
Proceedings, 61(3), 302–315.
Oliver, B. (2011). Assuring graduate capabilities: an approach to determining and evidencing standards. In Proceedings of the Australian quality forum,
Melbourne, Australia, 29 June–01 July 2011 (pp. 120–126).
Oliver, B., & Whelan, B. (2011). Designing an e-portfolio for assurance of learning focusing on adoptability and learning analytics. Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology, 27(6), 1026–1041.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2010). AHELO: Assessment of higher education learning outcomes. Retrieved 05.09.12,
from http://www.oecd.org/edu/highereducationandadultlearning/45755875.pdf.
Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19(2), 109–131.
Pettinger, K., Miller, M., & Mott, J. (2004). Using real-world standards to enhance students’ presentation skills. Business Communication Quarterly, 67(3), 327–336.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. (2002). The end of business schools? Less success than meets the eye. Academy of Management and Learning, 1(1), 78–95.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2008). The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. London: QAA for Higher
Education.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2012a). UK quality code for higher education: A brief guide. London: QAA for Higher Education.
Quality Assurance Agency. (2012b). Enterprise and entrepreneurship education: Guidance for UK higher education. London: QAA for Higher Education.
Rhodes, T. (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities [AAC&U].
Rosenberg, S., Heimler, R., & Morote, E. (2012). Basic employability skills: a triangular design approach. Education þ Training, 54(1), 7–20.
Scott, G., & Yates, K. (2002). Using successful graduates to improve the quality of undergraduate engineering programmes. European Journal of Engineering,
27(4), 363–378.
Stivers, B., Adams, J., & Liu, B. (2007). Managerial success factors: a Chinese profile. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 18(4), 57–80.
Stowe, K., Schwartz, L., Parent, J., & Sendall, P. (2010). Are business school students prepared to present? The pedagogy of presentation skills in business
schools. In Proceedings of the academy of business education conference.
Shaw, A. (2012). The value of work experience in outcomes for students: an investigation into the importance of work experience in the lives of female
undergraduates and postgraduate job seekers. Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 64(2), 155–168.
Shaw, S., & Fairhurst, D. (2008). Engaging a new generation of graduates. Education and Training, 50(5), 366–378.
Sinka, I., & Kane, S. (2011). Good practice in undergraduate peer support. London: The Maths, Stats & OR Network.
Stone, G., & Lightbody, M. (2012). The nature and significance of listening skills in accounting practice. Accounting Education: An International Journal, 21(4),
363–384.
Taylor, A. (2005). What employers look for: the skills debate and the fit with youth perceptions. Journal of Education and Work, 18(2), 201–218.
Tchibozo, G. (2008). Extra-curricular activity and the transition from higher education to work: a survey of graduates in the United Kingdom. Higher
Education Quarterly, 61(1), 37–56.
Tempone, I., Kavanagh, M., Segal, M., Hancock, P., Howieson, B., & Kent, J. (2012). Desirable generic attributes for accounting graduates into the twenty-first
century: the views of employers. Accounting Research Journal, 25(1), 41–55.
Tucker, R. (2011). The architecture of peer assessment: do academically successful students make good teammates in design assignments? Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.604122.
Van Auken, S., Wells, L., & Borgia, D. (2009). A comparison of western business instruction in China with U.S. instruction: A case study of perceived program
emphases and satisfaction levels. Journal of Teaching in International Business, 20(3), 208–229.
Velde, C. (2009). Employers’ perceptions of graduate outcomes: a case study of a private college in Shanghai. International perspectives on competence in the
workplace. Dordrecht: Springer.
Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
34(2), 221–230.
Walgran, K. (2010). Don’t drunk-dial HR: creating soft-skills workshops for college interns. NACE Journal, 70(3), 29–35.
Wheeler, J. (2008). The impact of social environments on emotional, social, and cognitive development. Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 129–145.
Wilton, N. (2011). Do employability skills really matter in the UK graduate labour market? The case of business and management graduates. Work
Employment Society, 25(1), 85–100.
Wilton, N. (2012). The impact of work placements on skill development and career outcomes for business and management graduates. Studies in Higher
Education, 37(5), 603–620.
Wolvin, A. (2012). Listening in the general education curriculum. International Journal of Listening, 26(2), 122–128.
Yu, H. (2010). Bring workplace assessment into business communication classrooms: a proposal to better prepare students for professional workplaces.
Business Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 21–32.
Zhu, X., Iles, P., & Shutt, J. (2011). Employability, skills and talent management in Zhejiang Province. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 3(1), 24–35.