Undergraduate recognition of curriculum-related skill development and the skills employers are seeking

Abstract

Employers of chemistry graduates are seeking a range of transferable skills from prospective employees, and academics are increasingly seeking to build employability skill development opportunities into the undergraduate curriculum. However, research suggests that undergraduates do not recognise or value such skill development without prompting. This recognition is essential if graduates are to be able to articulate their skills in the employment process. This study involves research amongst almost 1000 undergraduates studying chemistry at two institutions, using open-ended questions to collect qualitative data. The extent to which students recognised course-related skills development and understood the skills that employers are looking for was investigated, as was their desire to develop additional skills. Similarities and differences in student views between institutions are discussed, as well as trends across year levels and by gender. Results indicate that undergraduates studying chemistry are most likely to value and recognise development of some key skills sought by employers (teamwork, communication, thinking/problem solving, organisation/time management and laboratory/practical skills), but are very unlikely to value or recognise others (numeracy, independent learning, commercial awareness, interpersonal, research, computer/IT, creativity/innovation, flexibility/adaptability and initiative). Opportunities to develop the latter skills and recognition of the value of doing so will require improved communication with students and/or provision of new experiences within the curriculum.

---

Introduction

It is well established that employers are seeking a range of transferable skills from chemistry and other STEM graduates, in addition to discipline specific knowledge and skills (Purcell et al., 2008; Saunders and Zuzel, 2010; Lowden et al., 2011; Deloitte Access Economics, 2014; Sarkar et al., 2016; Yasin and Yueying, 2017). These skills are also referred to as generic, key or employability skills and can include communication and interpersonal skills, teamwork, leadership, critical thinking, problem solving, organisation and time management, independent learning, initiative, flexibility/adaptability, creativity and innovation, commercial or business awareness, numeracy and IT skills.

Such skills are widely relevant, being valuable in an academic or research career (Taber, 2016) and likewise sought by employers in a wide variety of sectors outside of STEM (DEST; ACCI; BCA, 2002; Mohamed, 2008; Eisner, 2010; Wendler et al., 2012; The Australian Industry Group, 2016).

Whilst the need for these skills is clear, employers have reported that some chemistry and science graduates lack the depth or breadth of the skills they require (Purcell et al., 2008; Lowden et al., 2011; Wendler et al., 2012). Chemistry and science graduates themselves have also reported a deficit in some key skill areas (Hanson and Overton, 2010; Sarkar et al., 2016).

Universities have responded to this situation by increasingly seeking to build opportunities for students to develop such skills into the curriculum (Runquist and Kerr, 2005; Yorke and Knight, 2006; Baker and Henson, 2010; Ashraf et al., 2011; Bennett et al., 2015). However, it is not clear whether students recognise the development of these skills or understand their importance. Without such recognition of skill development, it could be argued that academics’ efforts to incorporate them into their courses are, at least to some extent, wasted. Recognition of skill development is essential for students to be able to articulate them, with examples, in the job application and interview process (Jackson, 2013). Recognition and valuing of specific skill competences is also likely to impact on graduates’ ability to transfer these skills to new (workplace) contexts, thereby impacting their capability to contribute and succeed at work (Jackson, 2013).

Recognition of their wider skill set also enables graduates to apply for and obtain a broader range of jobs (Mellors-Bourne et al., 2011). Some government and academic commentators reflect the expectation that graduates majoring in a STEM discipline will be employed in a “STEM job” (Mellors-Bourne et al., 2011). Others consider that STEM graduate employment in roles and professions outside their discipline is highly desirable, with Rodrigues et al. (2007) stating “a case can be made for attempting to increase the size of this group to ensure that scientifically literate people are at the decision-making levels of industry and government”. Research also indicates that businesses employing STEM-skilled staff are significantly more productive and innovative than those who don’t (Office of the Chief Scientist, 2016), and that employers value the skills STEM-trained staff bring to the workplace, even when their STEM qualification isn’t necessary for the job they’re fulfilling (Deloitte Access Economics, 2014).

Not only can employment of chemistry and science graduates outside the STEM sector have the potential to benefit the economy and society, it may be increasingly essential for many of these graduates, due to the highly competitive nature of some discipline-based job markets, with supply currently exceeding demand in chemistry and other scientific fields (Xue and Larson, 2015; Norton, 2016). However, in order to secure employment outside their discipline major, chemistry and science graduates are reliant on being able to recognise and articulate their transferable skills. Indeed, a significant proportion of science graduates are already employed in such jobs (Rodrigues et al., 2007; Mellors-Bourne et al., 2011; Norton, 2016), primarily using these generic skills rather than the content knowledge developed during their degree.

Not only must they recognise skill development, it is also vital that undergraduates realise the value of transferable skills, as they will then be more motivated to maximise the opportunities provided at university to develop them, since recognition of value, motivation and learning are strongly linked (Pintrich, 2003; Tymon, 2013).

A number of studies have shown undergraduate science students do value the development of a range of transferable skills. When asked explicitly and quantitatively about named transferable skills, environmental/biological, biomedical and general science degree students rated them as important and/or developed, but to varying extents, depending on the specific skill (Leggett et al., 2004; Matthews and Hodgson, 2012; Varsavsky et al., 2014; Matthews and Mercer-Mapstone, 2016).

Recent studies have also investigated the views of chemistry undergraduates on the perceived value and/or development of listed skills. In a UK study by Galloway (2017), teamwork, problem solving, organisational/time management, independent learning ability, practical skills and interpretation of experiment data attracted the highest number of useful/very useful ratings from a list of ten chemistry-related skills and ten generic skills. This study also found that a student's intended career path impacted the perceived usefulness of specific skills, especially discipline-related ones.

In a Singaporean study (Yasin and Yueying, 2017), students were asked to tick five skills or attributes they thought to be important in securing a job, and that they had acquired during their chemistry degree, from a list of fourteen. The top five attributes selected as most important for gaining a job were work experience, communication, practical, teamwork skills and theoretical knowledge; whilst practical skills, theoretical knowledge, analytical and quantitative, independent learning and problem solving skills were those most commonly chosen as developed through their coursework. Whilst the results of this Singaporean study may not be directly comparable to the current Australian/UK study due to potential course and cultural differences, it is illustrative that this issue is also of interest in other regions.

Each of these studies has been undertaken by asking students to respond to skills in a list provided to them, most often on a rating scale for each skill. Responding to such a skills inventory in a survey prompts students to think about each skill and to consider that each may be important or developed to some level during their degree. However, additional research suggests that students may not recognise employability skills developed within a degree without such prompting (Whittle and Eaton, 2001; Tomlinson, 2008).

Tomlinson's qualitative multi-faculty study asked final year undergraduates what is required to get a good job (Tomlinson, 2008). This study concluded that students feel employers are looking for personal skills and attributes in addition to a ‘good quality’ degree, although the students cited extra-curricular activities as the vehicle for development of these, and recognition of transferable skill development within the degree was not mentioned.

Likewise, Whittle and Eaton (2001), quoting a study on biochemistry undergraduates, observed “It has been shown in science graduates that when skills are taught through an integrated, student-centred system, students may remain unaware of the opportunities offered by their course to improve their skills”. That is, when development of a skill is curriculum-embedded, students may not recognise its improvement without being directed to look for it.

In light of the above research, it cannot be assumed that the employability skills that academic staff consider have been built into a chemistry or science curriculum are recognised by students and hence able to be drawn upon when seeking employment (or further study) and transferred to their future workplace(s).

The purpose of this study was to understand which skills undergraduates studying chemistry recognise that they are developing during their degree and which skills they value, without any prompting from a list identified by their academic teachers or other research. The underlying research questions the authors sought to address through this study were:

• Which transferable skills do science undergraduates studying chemistry:

– recognise they are developing during their degree?

– wish to further develop during their degree?

– believe employers are looking for, from graduates?

• Do the skills identified vary significantly by university (Australian vs. UK), year level or gender?

It is intended that the outcomes will inform whether action needs to be taken to better highlight specific skill development opportunities and their importance to chemistry undergraduates and/or provide more or improved skill related tasks within the curriculum.

As a further comment, whilst the employability driver behind equipping undergraduates with transferable skills and their recognition is clear, development and on-going improvement of these skills is also part of a “transformative lifelong learning” process that encompasses both transferable and disciplinary knowledge and skills (Baker and Henson, 2010). As such, development (and recognition) of skills including learning, organisation, information literacy, oral and written communication, teamwork, critical thinking and leadership, also helps prepare students for further (e.g. postgraduate) study and/or research and other lifelong learning opportunities and challenges (Candy et al., 1994).

Lastly, it is also recognised that within the wide scope of skill development, individual universities may prioritise the specific skills they seek to help their students develop through their courses. This may influence the skill development opportunities provided to students and hence the skills they recognise that they have developed or that they place value on. Of the two universities involved in this study, Monash University publicly communicates that its courses are underpinned by specific “Graduate Attributes”, i.e. it aims to prepare its graduates to be globally engaged, responsible and effective, competent in cross-cultural interactions, ethical, critical, creative, innovative problem-solvers, able to apply research skills “to a range of challenges” and good communicators (Monash University, 2017). The University of Warwick, over the relevant research period, did not have an institutional policy on target graduate skills or attributes, which were left up to the individual departments. The Warwick chemistry department stipulates target skills via module principal aims and learning outcomes (University of Warwick, 2017). At first year, these include practical/laboratory skills, data processing/analysis, software/IT, problem-solving and numeracy. In second and third year, to these are added report writing, experiment design, information retrieval, teamwork, communication (including oral presentation), commercial awareness and job/career skills. These target skills and attributes provide a potential focus for evaluation and comparison of skills identified by students during the research.

Method

An exploratory research approach was applied, using an open-ended optional survey to collect qualitative data from undergraduates who were studying at least one chemistry subject at undergraduate level. The research was carried out as approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC) as per project 2017-0936-8426.

The paper-based survey collected written responses to three open-ended questions, as follows:

(1) In addition to developing detailed subject knowledge, what skills do you think you’ve developed so far in your degree?

(2) What skills would you like to develop during the remainder of your degree? [students prior to final year]

OR

What skills would you like to have developed to a greater extent during your degree? [Monash final year students]

(3) What do you think are the key skills employers are looking for, from graduates?

Students were invited to list up to five skills at each question, with five dot points provided in the space under each question. Demographic data was also collected from each participant:

• Gender

• Year of study (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th)

• Student type (Local/domestic or international)

• Degree type (Monash University students only; science single degree or double degree type)

A cross-sectional design was used, with year level data being collected at one point in time across different year cohorts.

Participants

In total, 990 undergraduates completed the survey, 774 of whom were from Monash University, Australia, and 216 of whom were from the University of Warwick, UK. A summary of participants by degree type, gender, student type (domestic/international) and year level is presented in Table 1. These demographics are representative of the relevant chemistry undergraduate cohorts.

Table 1 Research participants – demographics

University	Demographic	Number of responses	% sample
a Monash year three includes science double degree students in third year or higher.
Monash	Total	774
	Gender
	Male	347	45
	Female	412	53
	Other/rather not say	15	2
	Student type
	Local/domestic	712	92
	International	60	8
	Unspecified	2
	Degree
	Science	422	55
	Biomedical Science	101	13
	Science double degree	234	30
	Other	14	2
	Degree year level
	One	475	61
	Two	217	28
	Three^a	82	11
Warwick	Total	216
	Gender
	Male	118	55
	Female	97	45
	Unspecified	1
	Student type
	Local/domestic	194	90
	International	21	10
	Unspecified	1
	Degree year level
	One	64	30
	Two	71	33
	Three	81	37

---

Monash University students were enrolled in either a generalist Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree or a double degree incorporating BSc and another degree e.g. Arts, Engineering, Education etc. A BSc bachelor degree takes three years full time study to complete, whereas a double degree typically takes four to five years full time. Monash University first year BSc students study four subjects in each semester, of which chemistry can be just one. They choose a discipline major at second or subsequent year, but still study at least two disciplines in second year and potentially even third year. The number of students studying chemistry at Monash University is large in first year (over 1000), but decreases in subsequent years (to approximately 150 at third year), as students choose to specialise in one or two of a number of science majors.

By contrast, participants from the University of Warwick were all enrolled in a dedicated chemistry degree throughout their undergraduate study; either BSc Chemistry (three years) or MChem (Master in Chemistry, four years), with approximately 50% of the cohort in each stream and student enrolments fairly stable across first to third years (130–180).

All Monash University students were surveyed at the end of their academic year (October 2016). Surveys were distributed as hard copies either in a tutorial, laboratory class, presentation preparation or poster presentation session, as the course timetable allowed, and students were given time to complete it. The survey was introduced by a hard copy one page explanatory statement. Attendance was noted at all sessions in which the survey was offered, with some sessions compulsory (laboratory, poster presentation) and some not (first year tutorial, presentation preparation). 50%, 64% and 56% of the relevant cohort completed the survey at each year level (first, second and third year, respectively).

First and second year students at the University of Warwick were surveyed almost half way through the teaching period (end November 2016), with third year students at the start of the final month of the academic year (end April 2017). Unlike Monash students, all Warwick chemistry students in the same year of their degree study the same chemistry modules at the same time. All University of Warwick data was collected in a lunch break (with lunch provided) during full day compulsory laboratory classes with monitored attendance. 40%, 39% and 74% of each cohort completed the survey (first, second and third year, respectively).

The original research design incorporated surveying Warwick fourth year students as well. However, this group were very hard to reach and the resultant sample size was less than 30, so this group was excluded from further analysis.

Data analysis

All survey open-ended question responses were transcribed verbatim into Excel. This data was imported into NVivo 11 qualitative and mixed methods data analysis software, as three distinct data sets: one for each of the three open-ended questions asked in the survey.

Student responses tended to be concise, as they were asked to name skills and not define or describe a phenomenon or experience. Hence, after reviewing a subset of the data from each university, year level and question, an initial list of skill themes or ‘codes’ was created from the data. The qualitative coding process followed was as outlined by Creswell and Poth (2017), i.e. grouping the responses into categories, seeking evidence from the data for each code category, allocating a name and description for each code and then allocating pieces of text to each code category. Creswell & Poth outline that codes can be named using an “in vivo” approach (i.e. using the exact words of participants), using names created by the researcher that appropriately describe the information, using metaphors, and/or obtaining the names from relevant social science or other literature. In this study, the code names were created from the dominant words used by the respondents wherever possible or using words that appropriately summarised the respondents’ words. One code list was created for all three questions, as there was significant overlap between responses to the three questions. This also allowed for later comparison between questions.

The initial code list was provided to two other chemistry education researchers along with a sample of survey responses to all three questions. The researchers allocated each survey response to a code or created new codes if they felt the initial codes were inadequate. Their assignment of skills to codes was then compared with the primary researcher's allocation, and, although 86% agreement was achieved, some slight modifications were made to the code labels and mode of allocation to maximise agreement. After further coding by the primary researcher and the two other chemistry education researchers, inter-rater reliability of 91% was achieved.

After all responses were coded within NVivo, the data for each of the three questions was downloaded into Excel using the NVivo ‘matrix coding’ function.

The theme codes created within NVivo included a number of sub-codes, such as types of laboratory, thinking/problem solving and communication skills. Once the data was exported into Excel, these were combined to give a set of main themes for final analysis and discussion. For the themes “communication skills” (which combined generic communication skills, writing skills and presentation or public speaking skills) and “thinking/problem solving skills” (which included miscellaneous thinking skills, problem solving, critical thinking and analytical skills), a notable number of respondents gave more than one response within each theme. It was decided to combine these sub-themes in order to simplify the analysis, however the ability to more deeply examine these was retained if needed.

A small number of responses were ‘double-barrelled’ and so were coded to more than one theme. E.g. “ability to take initiative and work independently” was coded as “initiative” and “independent working/thinking”; “communication/people skills” was coded as “communication” and “interpersonal/social” skills.

Some literature references combine organisational and time management together as a single skill (DEST; ACCI; BCA, 2002; Sarkar et al., 2016). These were coded separately in this study due to the common occurrence of individual students writing both of these skills but on separate lines in their survey response, indicating many students considered these to be different skills. A list of the main themes that emerged are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Themes that emerged from undergraduate responses to the open-ended questions (includes only themes identified by greater than 5% of respondents in any cohort)

Theme (skill name or attribute)	Further details and/or examples
Application of knowledge	“How Chemistry can be applied to real life”, “application to unfamiliar situation”, “understanding of connection between studies and industry”, “use knowledge learnt in units to solve real world problems”, “application of chemical knowledge in the lab”
Attention to detail/accuracy/precision	“Performs tasks accurately”, “ability to follow instructions carefully”, “greater attention to detail”
Communication	Generic “communication skills”, writing skills (reports, papers, essays etc.) and presentation or public speaking skills
Computer/IT/technology/software	Generic IT or technology skills, coding and/or specific program skills (e.g. Excel, Matlab, Java, python, modelling, media, mapping)
Creativity/innovation	“Thinking outside the box”, “being innovative”, “creative thinking”, “free thinking/new ideas”, “ability to formulate their own ideas”
Efficiency/productivity	“Efficient with time/work”, “how to work more productively”, “working at a fast pace”, “usage/equipment efficiency”
Experiment development/design	“Developing own ideas rather than just following experiment”, “being able to design your own pracs”, “method development (less cookbook pracs)”, “developing lab protocols”
Flexibility/adaptability	“Adaptability to new situations”, “ability to adapt to change”
Independent working/thinking	“Ability to act independently”, “able to work independently”, “independence of thought”; “independence”
Independent learning/study	“Personal learning skills”, “finding easier methods of learning”, “independent study skills”, “self-guided learning”
Initiative	“Using your initiative”, “initiative and being proactive”
Interpersonal	“People skills”, “interpersonal skills”, “Social skills”, “Interacting with new people effectively”
Job/career	Includes work experience; career/job knowledge; skills for finding a job (e.g. CV and interview preparation); generic “employability skills”, “transferable skills”, “industry skills” or “workplace related skills”; business knowledge/acumen
Discipline knowledge	Includes generic subject knowledge as well as knowledge of specific topics
Laboratory/practical/technical	Includes skills in using equipment/instruments, specific or generic lab or technical techniques/methods/procedures, confidence and independence in the laboratory, safe lab practices
Leadership	Predominantly ‘leadership’ but also includes people management
Literature searching/referencing	How to research literature, journal articles, databases or other information sources and/or how to appropriately reference/cite
Maths/quantitative	Mathematical, numeracy, computational and calculation skills
Data analysis/interpretation	“Ability to analyse and interpret data”, “interpretation of data and results”, “statistical analysis”, “data analysis skills”
Organisational	Predominantly generic “organisational skills”, but also includes planning, prioritisation, project management, multi-tasking
Research	“Independent research skills”, “research techniques”
	“Research skills e.g. planning, doing, reporting, improving”, “how to conduct a highly valid research project”, “research both lab & literature based”, “the ability to carry out research projects more independently”
Stress/pressure management	“Work under pressure”, “ability to cope with pressure”, “handling things well under stress”
Teamwork	Team work, group work, collaboration
Thinking/problem solving	Critical thinking; problem solving; analytical, quick, logical, abstract, spatial, deductive or lateral thinking or reasoning; reflection; memory
Time management	Includes punctuality
Personal attributes:
– Confidence	“More confidence”, “confidence in ability”, “self-confidence”
– Enthusiasm/interest/positive attitude	“Passion for subject”, “subject interest”, “interest in field”, “enthusiasm”, “positivity”
– Responsible/reliable	Responsibility, accountability, reliability, ability/desire to finish work
– Other	Includes resilience, tolerance, loyalty, individuality, pragmatic, discernment, intuition, emotional intelligence, common sense, compassionate/empathy, sense of humour, courage, helpful, “nice person”, risk-taker, personality traits

---

The final data set (Fig. 1–5b and Table 4) is presented as a percentage of respondents in each group identifying a particular skill in response to each question. Only themes mentioned by more than seven percent of respondents in any of the groups are presented in these figures and data tables.

Fig. 1 Skills students believe they have developed so far in their degree, in addition to detailed subject knowledge, by university. * Denotes differences between universities that are statistically significant, chi-square test, p < 0.010.

Fig. 2 Skills students would like to develop during the remainder of their degree, by university (or for Monash students enrolled in a third year Chemistry unit, skills they would like to have further developed during their degree). * Denotes differences between universities that are statistically significant, chi-square test, p < 0.010.

Fig. 3 Skills students believe employers are looking for, from graduates, by university. * Denotes differences between universities that are statistically significant, chi-square test, p < 0.010.

Fig. 4 (a and b) Skills developed so far in degree by males and females. * Denotes a significant difference between % males and % females identifying skills (chi-square test, p < 0.010).

Fig. 5 (a and b) Skills employers are seeking from graduates by males and females. * Denotes a significant difference between % males and % females identifying skills (chi-square test, p < 0.010).

Statistical analysis

Several statistical analysis techniques were used to determine whether there was a significant difference in skills named at each question by different demographic groups. All statistical tests were carried out using SPSS software. Non-parametric statistical techniques were used, as the data collected was categorical, rather than continuous i.e. for each skill theme identified, each student either fell into the category of naming that skill, or not naming that skill.

The non-parametric chi-square test for independence was used when testing for statistically significant differences between the percentage of students identifying a particular skill in one demographic group compared with another. One of the assumptions of the chi-square test is that at least 80% of cells have expected frequencies of five or more (Pallant, 2016). If this assumption was violated, Fisher's exact test was used, which is the standard alternative non-parametric test for independence when analysing small samples (although it is valid for all sample sizes) (Kim, 2017).

Analysis of the number of skills students identified at each question was also carried out (Table 3). The non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test was used to test for statistically significant differences in the total number of skills identified by students in one demographic group compared with another (e.g. Monash vs. Warwick university). This test is the non-parametric version of the t-test and compares the medians of two independent groups. When comparing the total number of skills identified at different year levels, the Kruskal–Wallis test was used. This is the non-parametric alternative to a one-way ANOVA, allowing comparison between more than two groups.

Table 3 The number of skills named by students at each question

Question	University	Mean	Median	25th percentile	75th percentile	Range
a Denotes differences between universities in number of skills named are statistically significant, Mann–Whitney U test, p < 0.001.
Skills developed so far in degree	Monash	3.1	3	2	4	6 (0 to 6)
	Warwick^a	3.6	4	3	5	5 (1 to 6)
Skills would like to develop in remainder of degree	Monash^a	2.2	2	1	3	8 (0 to 8)
	Warwick^a	2.5	2	2	3	6 (0 to 6)
Skills employers are looking for, from graduates	Monash	3.1	3	2	4	7 (0 to 7)
	Warwick	3.3	3	3	4	5 (0 to 5)

---

Statistical tests were completed on university pair-wise comparisons of the percentage of students naming each skill theme within each question, as well as on gender pair-wise comparisons and year level comparisons within each university cohort. For all statistical tests completed comparing the percentage of skills identified by different groups, the level of significance used to identify a statistically significant difference was 0.01011, (which has been simplified to 0.010 in practice, in accordance with the number of decimal places reported by SPSS). Whenever a significant difference is noted in the results figures, tables or discussion comparing universities, year levels or gender, it is under the 0.010 threshold. The level of 0.01011 applied in this study is based on a 0.05 significance level per individual comparison, with a correction for 72 multiple comparisons (24 skills × 3 questions) per comparison type, based on a modified False Discovery Rate (modified FDR) method (Benjamini and Yekutieli, 2001; Narum, 2006). The latter method is an alternative to the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. The conservative Bonferroni correction addresses the issue of significantly increased likelihood of ‘false positive’ tests (Type 1 error) when many comparisons are made on the same data set, but also results in a significant loss of power in detecting true differences. The modified FDR method applied offers a more powerful and “moderate approach to determining significance level” when multiple tests are required (Narum, 2006).

Exact statistical significance and effect size data is included in Table 4 for analysis of year level trends for each skill theme. For the chi-square test, Cramer's V is a measure of effect size. It is noted that where two degrees of freedom are involved, (as applies to the analysis of the year level data), a Cramer's V of 0.07 is considered small, 0.21 is considered medium and 0.35 is considered large (Kim, 2017).

Table 4 Skills identified by students by year level at each question. (Significance level and effect size as per chi-square or Fisher's exact test, 2 df). Grey highlighting indicates a statistical significance <0.010 for the relationship between skill and year level

---

Results and discussion

Students identified a variety of skills or attributes developed during their degree, desired from their degree or sought by employers (see Table 2). Although students were asked specifically to name “skills”, some students expanded the questions to include any attribute or element they believed relevant. All of these points of view are included in the coded themes, which were not limited to a formal definition of ‘skill’, but rather represented all themes which were mentioned by more than five percent of the student cohort.

Number of skills identified by students

Table 3 summarises the mean and median number of skills named by students at each of the three open-ended questions, by university.

For both universities, students identified fewer skills they would like to develop in the remainder of their degree (median 2 skills named) compared with skills they have developed so far or skills employers are looking for (median typically 3). The reason for the lower number of responses on the skills students would like to develop going forwards is unknown. However, during data collection, there was a sense that students had never before thought about the skills they would like to gain from their degree and consequently, they found this question challenging.

Warwick students overall identified a larger number of skills as developed so far in their degree (median 4) than Monash students (median 3) and a slightly higher number of skills they would like to develop in the remainder of their degree (interquartile range 2–3, compared with Monash 1–3). It is possible that Warwick students’ slightly higher median number of responses to these two questions could be due to feeling as if they had a little more flexibility with time when completing the survey (since they were responding during a laboratory lunch break whereas Monash students responded during class time), however we cannot be certain this is the reason for this difference.

Skills identified at each university

As shown in Fig. 1–3, the consistent skill themes identified by students from both Monash and Warwick universities in the survey were teamwork, laboratory/practical, communication, time management and thinking/problem solving skills. These were the top skills that 30–50% of undergraduates expressed they had developed so far in their degrees, followed by organisational skills (20–26% students).

The next highest skill attribution was independent learning/study skills, named by 13% of Monash students. All other skills were identified by fewer than 10% of students.

The skills identified as being developed by the two cohorts of university students are remarkably consistent given the difference in types of degrees in which they are enrolled. The only statistically significant differences are a higher proportion of Warwick students listing time management and thinking/problem solving skills, and a higher proportion of Monash students naming discipline knowledge.

The skills desired for further development (Fig. 2) included four of the top skills named as developed (communication, time management, thinking/problem solving, and laboratory/practical). Undergraduates obviously desired to further strengthen these key skills. However teamwork or organisational skills were not greatly prioritised for further gains, perhaps suggesting students felt they had had ‘sufficient’ development of the latter two skills. Although important to both cohorts, development of communication skills (especially writing and presentation) was sought even more strongly at Warwick than at Monash.

Job/career skills is significant in that it was identified as developed in their degree by only a few percent of each university cohort, whilst 11–14% desired further development. The specific types of job/career skills of interest to students were work experience, industry relevant practical and other skills, understanding of how problems/tasks from university transfer/relate to work, general employability/transferable skills, greater knowledge of job and career options, more industry information/focus, commercial/business awareness, professionalism, networking skills, ‘job-finding’ skills, and interview, CV and application preparation skills.

Whilst predominantly similar, a few differences were noted between the cohorts in the types of skills valued: more Warwick than Monash students were seeking the development of laboratory/practical skills, leadership and confidence, whilst more Monash undergraduates desired to develop independent learning/study and time management skills.

In terms of the skills employers are seeking from graduates (Fig. 3), students introduced a variety of personal attributes such as a strong work ethic, confidence, reliability and enthusiasm or interest. However, the strongest attributions to employers from both universities were three of the top five skills identified as developed (teamwork, thinking/problem solving and communication skills). It is noted, however, that a significantly higher proportion of Warwick students nominated the former two compared with the Monash cohort.

Other skills students believed employers desired were time management and organisational (again, in common with the skills identified as developed), as well as leadership skills. However, significantly more Monash students believed employers were seeking discipline knowledge and laboratory skills, whilst more Warwick students, in parallel with the skills they desired to develop further, nominated leadership.

Warwick students’ lower employer attribution of discipline knowledge and laboratory skills is certainly not reflective of Warwick chemistry departmental priorities, as both of these skills are very frequently mentioned in module aims and learning outcomes. Although students weren’t asked their career aspirations as part of this research, it is possible that the minor role of these two skills in Warwick undergraduates’ responses may be related to the types of jobs desired by many of them, as non-chemistry employers will not require such skills. This was reflected in the recent research by Galloway (2017) amongst UK chemistry undergraduates wherein student ratings of useful/very useful for ‘chemistry knowledge and instrumentation’ were significantly higher when students indicated they were planning a ‘chemistry occupation’ compared with ‘other occupation’. A Monash student explicitly reflected this view in her response:

“If [employer is] science based, then [they] will want scientific skills (like good laboratory etiquette, good grasp of science knowledge)”.

It is important to note that in response to the skills employers are looking for, a few students wrote responses such as ‘stand out candidates (attract attention)’. For example, one first year male student from Monash wrote:

“It's not about key skills because everyone has the same skills. It's about doing volunteer stuff and other things and have experienced stuff that no one else has in order to separate yourself from the pack.”

There is a sense in such comments that some students believe the successful job candidate will require that ‘extra something’ other than the transferable skills employers state they are seeking. Such students may be harder to engage in skills development initiatives.

The dominant skills identified by both Monash and Warwick undergraduates in part reflect their institutional/departmental priorities, with Monash University “Graduate Attributes” and the Warwick chemistry department modules both stipulating thinking/problem solving and communication skills, and with teamwork explicitly mentioned at Warwick and perhaps implied at Monash (being ‘globally engaged, responsible and effective’). However, neither the Monash Graduate attributes nor the Warwick chemistry modules mention time management or organisational skills, whilst students clearly see development of and value in these skills. Likewise, Monash students expressed a strong desire for learning/study skills whilst this is not a stated institutional priority. The reason for Warwick students’ greater emphasis on leadership and confidence is unknown, as it cannot be attributed to their module aims.

Whilst it is clear and pleasing that students are identifying and valuing some of the skills identified in institutional and departmental goals, there are some notable absences. Of the Monash Graduates attributes, Monash students did not identify cross-cultural competence, ethics, creativity or innovation as either valued or developed and research skills were only identified by a small percentage of students. Of the Warwick module aims and learning outcomes, data analysis, numeracy, software/IT, experiment design, information retrieval and commercial awareness were absent to any significant extent from student responses. Whether there was insufficient opportunity to develop some of these skills, or whether students simply did not notice them or appreciate their value, is not able to be determined from this study.

It is worth commenting that there is often a congruence in this study between the skills students’ believe employers are seeking and those skills they state they have developed, with skills desired for further development at times acting like a moderator (i.e. if the percentage of students identifying employers are seeking the skill is significant, but the proportion of students identifying the skill as developed is low, the proportion of students desiring to develop the skill tends to be notable). For example, a moderate to high percentage of students recognise employers are seeking communication, teamwork, thinking/problem solving, time management and organisational skills and many students identify they have developed each of these skills. Likewise, at the other end of the scale, skills such as maths/quantitative, computer/IT and creativity/innovation are identified by very few students (6% or less) as both desired by employers and developed during the degree. Leadership skills at both Monash and Warwick illustrate the moderating factor of desiring the skill e.g. 19% of Warwick students identified employers are seeking this skill, 6% identified they have developed the skill and 13% desired to further develop this skill during their degree. Confidence amongst Warwick students follows the same pattern of desiring the skill acting as a moderator, as do interpersonal skills and independent thinking/working at both universities and job/career skills and discipline knowledge at Monash.

Laboratory/practical skills do not follow this trend. It is named as both developed and desired to further develop by a notable portion of students but not highly rated in the responses to skills employers are seeking, especially at Warwick. Research skills/techniques parallel laboratory/practical skills in this way, with 6–8% students both noting them as developed and desiring their further development but almost no students identifying them as an employer priority. As discussed above, this may reflect career choice for some students (and the recognition/perception that non-science employers will not require laboratory or research skills) whilst simultaneously acknowledging the need to succeed at such skills now in order to perform well in the degree.

Some other skill development desires also seem to reflect this “need now” bias, such as independent learning and study skills, desired by Monash students (for the successful completion of their degree), but not identified as a skill employers are seeking. Job/career skills also seem to fall into this category for Warwick students, who will need job identification, application and interview skills to gain employment when they complete their degree.

Three skills identified by a small number of students at both universities as desired by employers (initiative, flexibility/adaptability and work ethic/hardworking), do not fit the above trends of either parallel recognition of employer priority and degree development (with desire for development a potential moderator) or a ‘need now’ bias: 6–9% students at both institutions state employers are seeking these skills, whilst only 1–2% students identify them as developed and desire their further development during the degree. Why this is so is not clear, but it is possible that some students simply don’t see development of these attributes as part of a degree, but rather feel they are more likely to be gained elsewhere, such as through extra-curricular activities (Tomlinson, 2008).

An implication of the link between student identification of a skill as an employer priority and their recognition of development of the skill (observed above for ten skills at both institutions and two additional skills at individual institutions) and the ‘need now’ bias (observed in four instances), is that if students don’t recognise employers are strongly seeking a specific skill and/or the immediate benefit of developing the skill, they may be less likely to desire its development and be conscious of the development when it occurs. This reflects the relationship discussed in the literature between recognition of value, motivation and learning, with Pintrich (2003) stating “higher levels of value motivate students” and “it matters whether students care about or think the task is important in some way”.

Tymon (2013) in his research into the attitudes of business undergraduates to employability skills development concludes that some first and second year students in particular may lack engagement with skills development activities incorporated within the degree, which will limit their learning. He suggests universities could more clearly communicate the benefits of employability skills to students and make curriculum-embedded skills development tasks much more obvious. Certainly, this research adds some support to the view that there may be a relationship between recognition of value, awareness of and motivation towards skill development. It is also possible that for some students, the link may occur in the other direction; noticing skill development, with reflection, may lead to the recognition that the skill has value in terms of future employment, with Pintrich (2003) also observing that cognition can lead to motivation.

Year level comparison

Student responses to each of the survey questions were further analysed by year group in order to try to understand whether skill recognition and value was consistent throughout the degree or whether there were certain year levels where perceived skill value and/or development were more dominant. Such year level analysis could provide an opportunity to relate student skill recognition to curriculum design, to help identify potential opportunities for further skill communication or enhancement at specific year levels. It was also desired to know the views of third year students, many of whom will shortly graduate and seek employment, to understand to what extent these students are aware of employer priorities and their own skill development at this critical transition point.

The most notable finding when reviewing student responses across year levels (Table 4) is that, despite some differences in specific percentages, the core skills identified by both Monash and Warwick students as developed during their degree remain the same for each year i.e. teamwork, laboratory/practical, communication, thinking/problem solving, organisation and time management; with the addition of independent learning/study skills at some year levels. Other skills were rarely identified by students at any year level and whether this is because they haven’t been developed significantly or whether students just haven’t noticed their development, cannot be unequivocally determined by the current research.

Whilst acknowledging the limitations of the cross-sectional design (see Limitations section), there are some interesting trends across year levels for some skills. At Monash, the percentage of students naming independent learning/study skills as both developed and desired decreased from first to third year, as did the percentage of students desiring further time management and organisational skills. At the same time, higher order skills were named as developed and desired more frequently. These results may indicate that some first year Monash students appear initially focused on their ability to learn and study independently, and manage themselves and their time, perhaps reflecting the shift from small well-supported classes at school to large cohorts and self-direction at university. However, it's pleasing to see this absorbs less of students’ attention at higher years. Instead they increasingly recognise progression in, and/or desire for, their scientific and related skills (research, method design, data analysis and laboratory skills) as well as development of their thinking and communication skills. This recognition of higher order skill development in later years also parallels undergraduates’ increasing discipline specialisation in the Monash science degree structure, with first year incorporating a basic introduction to the subject, and later years involving more in depth study and technical skills. More second and third year students also felt employers were seeking laboratory/practical skills from graduates than first year students. This may well reflect the increasing specialisation of Monash higher year students in chemistry as a chosen discipline major and associated interest in chemistry-related jobs.

Amongst Warwick students, communication was the only skill identified as developed to a different extent by year level; showing a marked increase (large effect size). When broken down into its constituent sub-themes, (generic “communication”, writing and presentation/public speaking), each of these also showed a statistically significant increase with year level. The percentage of Warwick students noting oral presentation and generic communication skills jumped notably between second and third year, whilst the proportion of students identifying writing skill development increased between first and second year.

The difference in skill progression by year level at Warwick compared with Monash is likely reflective of the different course structure. Before commencing their degree, Warwick students have to meet chemistry and maths pre-requisites and specialise in chemistry from first year. Hence chemistry-related cognitive and scientific skills such as laboratory skills and data analysis remain a focus from the very beginning of the course and continue to be addressed throughout. In terms of other employability skills, the first year of the course is primarily focused on discipline knowledge acquisition and laboratory skills. The concept of transferable skills is not introduced into the curriculum until second year with a “Key Skills” module, which includes assessments focused on searching the literature, writing a journal article, preparing a poster and presenting orally.

However, the second year data was collected prior to students completing the presentation skills component of this module, which is consistent with the low attribution to this skill by second year students and the improvement in third year. In addition, a few third year Warwick modules incorporate an oral or poster presentation as part of the assessment process. By contrast, writing is required of students in the form of laboratory reports at all year levels, although at the time of surveying, Warwick first year students had only completed half of the academic year and hence had had limited opportunity to do so. However, a year later, second year students felt they had had significantly more opportunity to develop writing skills.

By comparison, Monash students are also introduced explicitly to transferable skills in the second year during a compulsory “Scientific practice and communication” unit, which incorporates assessments focused on literature searching, writing a press release and literature review and a group oral presentation. In addition, Monash science undergraduates tend to be exposed to a range of other oral and written communication tasks across year levels in various subjects, including chemistry, e.g. first year chemistry students give a group presentation on a demonstrated laboratory experiment and second year analytical chemistry students give a moot court oral presentation etc. This may be a contributor to the greater attribution of “communication skills” by Monash students at first and second year and the reduced variation by year level compared with Warwick students.

Interestingly, a few skills declined in demand for further development at increased year level at Warwick (discipline knowledge and thinking skills), suggesting perhaps that students were satisfied with their development in each of these areas.

It is noted that Warwick undergraduates continue to show a strong thirst for further communication skills (especially presentation skills) throughout their degree, despite increasing development. This fits with their significantly increased belief at higher year levels that employers are seeking this skill. Time and stress management were also more highly prioritised for development by Warwick third year students than prior years. This could be because at the time of surveying, Warwick students had just commenced a month long intensive practical program wherein they spend every day in the laboratory, and students indicated anecdotally that time management was a key factor in this element of the course.

Finally, it might be expected that skills consistent with the Monash graduate attributes are better recognised as students approach graduation. This appeared to be the case for thinking/problem solving, communication and research skills. However, it was not so for cross-cultural competence, ethics, creativity or innovation, which remained absent at third year in terms of both development and value.

At Warwick, the increased recognition and value of communication skills at second and third year reflected the addition of these skills in module aims at these year levels. However, other skills (e.g. experiment design, commercial awareness and information retrieval) were not noted significantly at higher levels, despite their explicit expression in the modules. Numeracy and data analysis were also poorly recognised and valued at each year level despite their prevalence in Warwick module learning outcomes across the course. This emphasises the need for further communication of some skills beyond their inclusion in graduate attributes or learning aims in order for students to appreciate their value.

Gender differences

The impact of gender on student responses was investigated, as significant differences by gender could help inform any future interventions aimed at increasing student recognition of skill development and value. However, as for year level, the most notable result from the gender comparison (Fig. 4a, b and 5a, b), was that the core skills identified as developed and valued remained the same across both genders.

In terms of specific gender differences, at Monash, a higher proportion of female students than males both recognised development of teamwork and believed it to be more valuable to employers; and at both institutions, more females than males recognised they had developed organisational skills. The latter effect may be because females more readily notice opportunities to develop their organisational skills and/or because they feel they have made greater progress in the development of this skill during their degree.

In terms of skills desired for development in the remainder of their degree, the only gender difference achieving statistical significance was a greater proportion of Monash female students than males wanted to develop their time management skills (24% vs. 15%).

Comparison with employer views

Table 5 summarises the views of both employers and graduates as to the skills required from graduates employed in chemistry, science/STEM and general occupations, as reported in the literature. These employer and graduate views were obtained via a variety of methods including quantitative surveys (Hanson and Overton, 2010; Sarkar et al., 2016), interviews and/or focus groups (DEST; ACCI; BCA, 2002; Lowden et al, 2011) or a combination of interviews and quantitative surveys (Purcell et al., 2008; Deloitte Access Economics, 2014).

Table 5 Summary of skills identified as important or valuable in the workplace by employers and chemistry/science graduates

	Employers’ views					Graduates’ views
Type of graduates/employment	Chemistry [by industry employers]	Chemistry [by general employers]	STEM	All	All	Chemistry	Science
References	(Purcell et al., 2008)	(Purcell et al., 2008)	(Deloitte Access Economics, 2014)	(Lowden et al., 2011)	(DEST; ACCI; BCA, 2002)	(Hanson and Overton, 2010)^b	(Sarkar et al., 2016)^b
a Analytical skills, critical thinking skills, problem solving. X = broad conclusion across all employers; Y = mentioned by multiple employers but not broad conclusion. b Conclusions from quantitative survey involving a specific list of skills; Y = 50–74% of graduates, X ≥ 75% graduates stated skill is useful/very useful in their job; na = not asked.
Skill or attribute
Teamwork	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Thinking/problem solving^a	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Independent learning		X	X		X	X	X
Communication – verbal	X	X	X	X	X	na	X
Communication – written	X	X	X	X	X	X	Y
Communication – presentation skills		X				X	na
Organisation/time management	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Commercial/business awareness	X	X	X	X		na	Y
Initiative				X	X	na	X
Flexibility/adaptability	X	X		Y	X	na	X
Leadership/management	X	X		X		na	X
Practical/technical	X		X			Y	Y
Discipline knowledge	X		X			Y	Y
Interpersonal/social	X	X	X	X	X	na	na
Creativity/innovation			X	Y	X	na	na
Computer/IT/technology				X	X	na	Y
Research (generic)	X	X					Y
– Information retrieval					X	X	X
– Designing experiments						Y
Numeracy	X	X		X	X	X	Y
Relevant work experience		X	X	X		na	na
Work ethic/hardworking		X			X	na	na
Motivation	X			X	X	na	na
Enthusiasm/interest				Y	X	na	na
Tenacity/commitment				X	X	na	na

---

Although the methodologies used to obtain the data varied, the views shared in these studies provide an important qualitative indication of what is likely to be required of chemistry graduates if they wish to obtain employment and succeed in the workplace. In the following section, the employer/graduate views will be compared with the skills Warwick and Monash chemistry/science students say they’ve gained during their degree and their perceptions of what employers are looking for. It is not intended to make a detailed quantitative analysis of the employer and graduate research summarised in Table 5, but simply to ascertain whether students are likely to recognise the skills expected to be demonstrated during the job application process and in the workplace. Whilst further discussion and probing via focus groups or interviews may have led to students identifying more skills in this study, the brief survey used was deliberately designed to ascertain whether students readily, and without intervention or prompting, recognise the requisite skills. This mimics the situation at Monash and Warwick universities at the time of the research; other than an introduction to the concept of transferable skills in one second year unit, there was typically no intervention, prompting or additional discussion of these skills or individuals’ development of them, before students leave university and apply for employment or postgraduate study.

As expected, laboratory/technical skills and discipline knowledge were valued by industry employers of chemistry and STEM graduates and the graduates themselves that were employed in relevant scientific employment, but they were not required by general employers. However, somewhat surprisingly, laboratory/technical skills were valued by chemistry graduates to a lesser extent than a range of other transferable skills. This underscores the importance of the latter skills, regardless of the type of work involved.

In terms of specific transferable skills, each employer and graduate research source summarised in Table 5 stipulate teamwork, communication, thinking/problem solving and organisational/time management skills are sought by employers and needed by chemistry/science graduates in the workforce, regardless of the type of occupation (scientific or general). It is really pleasing to see that these five skills are in the list of top six skills recognised by students as both developed in their degree and desired by employers, at both institutions.

However, once we move beyond these five skills, student recognition of the value employers place on other skills is poor. For example, all employer references except one, and both graduate references, list numeracy skills as valuable, but only 1% of Monash and 5% Warwick students stated employers are looking for numeracy or data analysis skills, and very few students noted the development of either of these skills (4% Monash and 9% Warwick students, when the skill themes maths/quantitative and data analysis are combined).

Other skills valued by the majority of employer and graduate research sources in Table 5 were independent learning, commercial/business awareness, flexibility/adaptability, leadership, interpersonal/social and research skills. Being able to work and think independently was recognised by some students in this study as both developed and valued by employers (8–12%), but independent learning and research skills were identified by very few students as sought by employers, and as developed by just 7–12% students.

Commercial/business awareness was not identified by students as either developed or as an employer priority.

More Warwick students perceived the value of leadership (19%) than Monash students (10%) but only a few students identified leadership as developed. Likewise, flexibility/adaptability and interpersonal skills were rarely recognised as developed and only occasionally as valued (6–9%).

Of the remaining attributes summarised in Table 5, initiative, computer/IT skills, creativity/innovation and relevant work experience were identified by approximately half of the employer/graduate sources. Initiative was named as sought by employers by about 10% students but as developed in their degree by almost no students. Creativity/innovation likewise was not identified as developed during their degree, and just a few students realised employers value it (4–6%). Computer/IT/software skills were also rarely named as developed at each university and as employer priorities.

In summary, a reasonable number of undergraduate students studying chemistry recognise employers value teamwork, communication, laboratory/technical, thinking/problem solving and time management/organisational skills and that they are developing these skills during their degree.

However, most students studying chemistry at Warwick or Monash do not readily identify that employers are seeking other transferable skills including numeracy/data analysis, independent learning, commercial/business awareness, flexibility/adaptability, initiative, creativity/innovation and computer/IT skills. Likewise, they are unlikely to identify they have developed these skills during their degree, without prompting. Whether this is due to a lack of opportunity to develop these skills or whether it's because of a lack of recognition they have developed these skills during their degree, cannot be concluded from this research. But the fact that when prompted with a list, a majority of recent chemistry or science graduates respond that they developed a much wider range of transferable skills during their degree including numeracy, data interpretation, independent learning, information retrieval, research, initiative, flexibility/adaptability and computer/IT skills (Hanson and Overton, 2010; Sarkar et al., 2016) and final year undergraduate science students stated they had developed quantitative skills (Varsavsky et al., 2014), suggests that lack of recognition of development may be a significant contributing factor.

Limitations

A limitation of the study was that student survey response rates varied across year levels and universities, from 39% to 74% of each cohort. Although significant numbers of completed surveys were still achieved for each year level at each university, we cannot be certain that the views related to lower response rates (e.g. Warwick first years and second years) were entirely representative of their year level cohort.

Another limitation was that the cross-sectional design methodology used means that it is impossible to be certain that differences observed between year levels are due to the year level of study, as they may have been caused by differences between the respective cohorts.

An additional limitation was that students were asked to name up to five skills at each question (rather than an unlimited number of skills). The purpose of providing a target number of responses was to encourage students to write more than just one or two skills at each question. Five was chosen so that this target was not too daunting for students. Whilst some students chose to write more than five skills for each question (Table 3), it is possible that limiting the guidance number to five may have prevented some students from listing additional skills they had thought of. However, as a significant majority of students at both universities only identified up to four skills at each question (71–78% for skills developed, 90% for skills desired to further develop and 80–85% for skills sought by employers), the majority of students did not appear to be limited by the suggestion of listing five skills. In addition, if all skills were equally recognisable to students, they would be expected to appear to a consistent extent in responses, irrespective of the suggested per question skill limit. As this was not the case, the data would suggest that those skills much less frequently identified by students were less easily recognised and/or valued by them.

A further limitation was a difference between year levels at Monash in the context in which students were surveyed. All first year students were surveyed during a chemistry tutorial, whereas second and third years were in a mixture of contexts (tutorial, poster session or laboratory), although at least two thirds of the higher years were seated in a laboratory when responding. It is possible that the context biased some responses to the skills questions, with a laboratory context perhaps prompting the idea of development of laboratory skills despite the question wording asking for students to respond on “what skills you’ve developed so far during your degree”. Although some influence of context cannot be ruled out, given teamwork skills was the most common response theme at a consistent rate across year levels (48% at both first and third years) and recent research amongst Monash science undergraduates indicates that “working in groups during a laboratory” was the most common university curriculum context in which students indicate they develop teamwork (Wilson et al., 2017), it is felt that first year responses were probably reflective of skill development inclusive of laboratories. In addition, laboratory/practical skills were still mentioned more often by first year students than thinking/problem solving skills, again despite the survey context of a tutorial, which also supports this view.

Summary and conclusions

When undergraduates studying chemistry at an Australian and UK university were asked which skills they have developed so far in their degree, without prompting with a pre-prepared skill list, students were able on average to name three (Monash) or four skills (Warwick). Responses reveal a strong consistency in skills recognised across both universities, with 30–50% students identifying they had developed five key skills: teamwork, thinking/problem solving, time management, laboratory/practical and communication skills, with a further 20–27% identifying organisational skills and around 10% identifying independent learning/study skills.

At Monash, students were more likely to name independent learning/study skills at first year, and higher level skills with increasing year level (communication, thinking/problem solving, laboratory skills, research skills/techniques and data analysis/interpretation). The proportion of Warwick students identifying they had developed communication skills markedly increased with year level.

Students were most likely to desire further development of four of the key skills recognised as developed (i.e. communication, laboratory/practical, thinking/problem solving, and time management), as well as job/career skills to help them prepare for the job identification and application process and a successful transition to the workforce. A high proportion of third year Warwick students (52%) were seeking further communication skill development (especially presentation skills), suggesting they may welcome more opportunities in the curriculum to develop such skills. In contrast, teamwork skills were highlighted as a development need by few students at Monash, perhaps indicating they may feel they already have sufficient exposure to this skill area. Likewise, the proportion of students desiring further discipline knowledge was low at third year at both universities, suggesting many students were satisfied with this element near the end of their degree and prioritised other areas for further enhancement.

The skills recognised and valued were very consistent across genders at both universities, with the only statistically significant differences detected being a higher proportion of females than males identifying they had developed organisational skills at both universities, more Monash females recognising teamwork as both developed and desired by employers and a greater proportion of Monash females than males wanting to develop their time management skills.

In terms of which skills employers are seeking from graduates, students were able on average to name three skills. The strongest responses were teamwork, communication and cognitive skills (25–58% students) followed by time management (18%) and organisational skills (14% students). As these reflect some of the key transferable skills sought by employers (as reported in the literature), it is really pleasing to see many students not only have an accurate view of the need for these skills, but also are recognising their development during their studies.

However, research amongst chemistry, science and general employers suggests the majority of employers are seeking additional skills from graduates, particularly numeracy (including data analysis), independent learning, commercial/business awareness, flexibility/adaptability, leadership, interpersonal and research skills. In this study, unprompted student recognition of both the value placed on these specific skills by employers, and their development within the curriculum, was poor. Likewise, initiative, computer/IT skills and creativity/innovation were identified by many employers, but not recognised or identified as developed by most students.

Student-recognised development of and value placed on thinking/problem solving, communication and teamwork skills overlapped with explicit institutional or departmental skill priorities in the form of graduate attributes (Monash) or module aims and learning outcomes (Warwick), with the addition of laboratory skills for Warwick. However, Monash students did not identify other graduate attributes as developed or of value (cultural competence, ethics, creativity and innovation) and likewise Warwick students did not value some of the prevalent module learning outcomes (numeracy, data analysis, experiment design and software/IT skills). Hence, expressing the latter skills as institutional or module aims may be insufficient to raise student awareness of and/or convince them of their value.

Our conclusion is that undergraduates studying chemistry are most likely to value and recognise development of teamwork, communication, thinking/problem solving, organisational, time management and laboratory/practical skills. However students need assistance with both recognising they are developing other skills sought by employers at university and understanding their importance. In particular, universities can significantly benefit undergraduates studying chemistry and science by highlighting the value of and instances when these students have the opportunity to strengthen numeracy (including data analysis), independent learning, commercial/business awareness, interpersonal, research, computer/IT and creativity/innovation skills, as well as flexibility/adaptability and initiative. Where lacking, it would be highly desirable to offer opportunities within the curriculum to build and use these skills and attributes and highlight when this is occurring.

By increasing students’ understanding of the value of these transferable skills, and the opportunities available to improve them during their degree, students will be more likely to be motivated to develop them, recognise the need to highlight them in the job application process and transfer them to the workplace, postgraduate study or further research roles. Increasing opportunities to develop, recognise and value these skills should strengthen students’ ability to meet employer needs and widen the pool of jobs they can apply for, which may be critical for their success in a highly competitive job market and enable more scientifically literate graduates to benefit the wider community.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts to declare.

Acknowledgements

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the participation of undergraduate students studying chemistry at Monash and Warwick universities, whose voluntary contribution made this research possible. Thanks also to Dr Stephen George-Williams for his assistance with administering surveys at Warwick. We also gratefully acknowledge that this research was supported through an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship and Monash Warwick Alliance Seed funding.

References

1. Ashraf S. S., Marzouk S. A. M., Shehadi I. A. and Murphy B. M., (2011), An Integrated Professional and Transferable Skills Course for Undergraduate Chemistry Students, J. Chem. Educ., 88(1), 44–48,  DOI:10.1021/ed100275y.
2. Baker G. and Henson D., (2010), Promoting employability skills development in a research-intensive university, Education + Training, 52(1), 62–75.
3. Benjamini Y. and Yekutieli D., (2001), The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency, Ann. Stat., 29, 1165–1188.
4. Bennett D., Richardson S. and MacKinnon P., (2015), Enacting strategies for graduate employability: How universities can best support students to develop generic skills, Sydney: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.
5. Candy P. C., Crebert G. and O'Leary J., (1994), Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education, Canberra: AGPS, vol. 28.
6. Creswell J. W. and Poth C. N., (2017), Qualitative inquiry & research design: choosing among five approaches, 4th edn, Los Angeles: Sage.
7. Deloitte Access Economics, (2014), Australia's STEM workforce: a survey of employers.
8. DEST; ACCI; BCA, (2002), Employability skills for the future, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory: Department of Education Science and Training, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Business Council of Australia, p. 65.
9. Eisner S., (2010), Grave New World? Workplace Skills for Today's College Graduates, Am. J. Bus. Educ., 3(9), 27–50.
10. Galloway K. W., (2017), Undergraduate perceptions of value: degree skills and career skills, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 18(3), 435–440,  10.1039/C7RP00011A.
11. Hanson S. and Overton T., (2010), Skills required by new chemistry graduates and their development in degree programmes, http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/resources/business-skills-and-commercial-awareness-for-chemists/docs/skillsdoc1.pdf.
12. Jackson D., (2013), Student perceptions of the importance of employability skill provision in business undergraduate programs, J. Educ. Bus., 88(5), 271–279.
13. Kim H.-Y., (2017), Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test, Restor. Dent. Endod., 42(2), 152–155,  DOI:10.5395/rde.2017.42.2.152.
14. Leggett M., Kinnear A., Boyce M. and Bennett I., (2004), Student and staff perceptions of the importance of generic skills in science, High. Educ. Res. Dev., 23(3), 295–312.
15. Lowden K., Hall S., Elliot D. and Lewin J., (2011), Employers’ perceptions of the employability skills of new graduates, London: Edge Foundation.
16. Matthews K. E. and Hodgson Y., (2012), The science students skills inventory: Capturing graduate perceptions of their learning outcomes, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ., 20(1), 24–43.
17. Matthews K. E. and Mercer-Mapstone L. D., (2016), Toward curriculum convergence for graduate learning outcomes: academic intentions and student experiences, Stud. High. Educ., 1–16,  DOI:10.1080/03075079.2016.1190704.
18. Mellors-Bourne R., Connor H. and Jackson C., (2011), STEM graduates in non-STEM jobs, Cambridge, UK: The Careers Research & Advisory Centre (CRAC), p. 299.
19. Monash University, (2017), 2017 Handbook. Aligning course outcomes educational standards frameworks, retrieved from http://www.monash.edu/pubs/handbooks/alignmentofoutcomes.html.
20. Mohamed B., (2008), Graduate recruitment and selection in the UK: A study of the recent changes in methods and expectations, Career Dev. Int., 13(6), 497–513,  DOI:10.1108/13620430810901660.
21. Narum S., (2006), Beyond Bonferroni: less conservative analyses for conservation genetics, Conserv. Genet., 7(5), 783–787.
22. Norton A., (2016), Mapping Australian higher education 2016, GRATTAN Institute, p. 120.
23. Office of the Chief Scientist, (2016), Australia's STEM workforce: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
24. Pallant J., (2016), SPSS Survival Manual, 6th edn, Alex & Unwin, pp. 218–222.
25. Pintrich P. R., (2003), A Motivational Science Perspective on the Role of Student Motivation in Learning and Teaching Contexts, J. Educ. Psychol., 95(4), 667–686.
26. Purcell K., Atfield G., Ball C. and Elias P., (2008), An investigation of the factors affecting the post-university employment of chemical science graduates in the UK, Coventry: Warwick Institute for Employment Research, http://docplayer.net/9766430-An-investigation-of-the-factors-affecting-the-post-university-employment-of-chemical-science-graduates-in-the-uk.html.
27. Rodrigues S., Tytler R., Darby L., Hubber P., Symington D. and Edwards J., (2007), The Usefulness of a Science Degree: The “lost voices” of science trained professionals, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 29(11), 1411–1433,  DOI:10.1080/09500690601071909.
28. Runquist O. and Kerr S., (2005), Are We Serious about Preparing Chemists for the 21st Century Workplace or Are We Just Teaching Chemistry? J. Chem. Educ., 82(2), 231,  DOI:10.1021/ed082p231.
29. Sarkar M., Overton T., Thompson C. and Rayner G., (2016), Graduate Employability: Views of Recent Science Graduates and Employers, Int. J. Innov. Sci. Math. Educ., 24(3), 31–48.
30. Saunders V. and Zuzel K., (2010), Evaluating employability skills: Employer and student perceptions, Biosci. Educ., 15(1), 1–15.
31. Taber K. S., (2016), Learning generic skills through chemistry education, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 17(2), 225–228,  10.1039/C6RP90003H.
32. The Australian Industry Group, (2016), Workforce Development Needs Survey Report.
33. Tomlinson M., (2008), ‘The degree is not enough’: students’ perceptions of the role of higher education credentials for graduate work and employability, Br. J. Sociol. Educ., 29(1), 49–61.
34. Tymon A., (2013), The student perspective on employability, Stud. High. Educ., 38(6), 841–856,  DOI:10.1080/03075079.2011.604408.
35. University of Warwick, (2017), Undergraduate Chemistry Module Catalogue, retrieved from https://warwick.ac.uk/services/aro/dar/quality/modules/undergraduate/ch/.
36. Varsavsky C., Matthews K. E. and Hodgson Y., (2014), Perceptions of Science Graduating Students on their Learning Gains, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 36(6), 929–951,  DOI:10.1080/09500693.2013.830795.
37. Wendler C., Bridgeman B., Markle R., Cline F., Bell N., McAllister P. and Kent J., (2012), Pathways through Graduate School and into Careers, Educational testing service.
38. Whittle S. R. and Eaton D. G. M., (2001), Attitudes towards transferable skills in medical undergraduates, Med. Educ., 35(2), 148–153.
39. Wilson L., Ho S. and Brookes R. H., (2017), Student perceptions of teamwork within assessment tasks in undergraduate science degrees, Assess. Eval. High. Educ., 1–14,  DOI:10.1080/02602938.2017.1409334.
40. Xue Y. and Larson R. C., (2015), STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes, Mon. Labor Rev., 138, 1–14.
41. Yasin N. Y. B. M. and Yueying O., (2017), Evaluating the Relevance of the Chemistry Curriculum to the Workplace: Keeping Tertiary Education Relevant, J. Chem. Educ., 94(10), 1443–1449.
42. Yorke M. and Knight P., (2006), Embedding employability into the curriculum, York: Higher Education Academy, vol. 3.

---