Higher Education Studies; Vol. 5, No.

2; 2015
ISSN 1925-4741 E-ISSN 1925-475X
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

The Practices of Students Generic Skills Among Economics Students

at National University of Indonesia
Hadiyanto1 & Suratno2
1
English Education Department, University of Jambi (UNJA), Jambi, Indonesia
2
Economics Education Department, University of Jambi (UNJA), Jambi, Indonesia
Correspondence: Hadiyanto, English Education Department, University of Jambi (UNJA), Jambi, Indonesia.
E-mail: hadi_tesl05@yahoo.com

Received: February 13, 2015 Accepted: Match 16, 2015 Online Published: March xx, 2015
doi:10.5539/hes.v5n2p52 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/hes.v5n2p52

Abstract
This study aimed to examine students generic skills practices (communication, IT, numeracy, learning how to
learn, problem solving, working with others, and subject-specific competencies) at National University of
Indonesia (UI). Survey design with quantitative method was applied in this study. Questionnaires were
distributed to 355 students at economics faculty of UI. The findings show that the students rated their overall
generic skills practices at the bottom of high mean score. Among seven skills, four skills were applied by the
students at high level; they were communication, IT, Numeracy and team work skills, but still its mean score
were at bottom level of high level. Moreover, three of seven generics skills were performed at medium level;
they are numeracy, learning how to learn and problem solving and subject-specific competencies. Finally, this
study suggests that the faculty of economics and the university should formulate and implement generic skills
development into action in order to attain intended outcomes of higher education namely employability, lifelong
learning and good citizenship.
Keywords: generic skills, development, practice, university, higher education
1. Introduction
A number of studies such as Pumphrey and Slater (2002), Curry et al. (2003), Borthwick and Wissler (2003),
Crebert et al. (2004), Bath et al. (2004), the Business Council of Australia (BCA, 2006), and Jones (2009) have
revealed that employers are not satisfied with the employability (or generic) skills possessed by undergraduate
students, reporting that students are not sufficiently provided with generic skills during university education.
Most studies suggest that the development of generic skills is best facilitated by giving students opportunities for
practical application, rather than simply talking about or demonstrating what to do. Hadiyanto and Sani (2013)
argue that teaching approach is no longer the lecture or the slide presentation, where the lecturer simply stands in
front of the class, showing slide after slide and explaining theories. The teaching and learning process must be
centred at the students them self.
Similar issues regarding higher education have arisen and been discussed widely in Malaysia and Indonesia. The
study conducted by Jelas et al. (2006) showed that students overall generic skills were at average level (2-11).
Students also perceived that their communication, IT, numeracy, learning how to learn, problem solving,
working with others, and discipline-based skills, as developed at university, were at an average level. The results
of employers interviews conducted in Malaysia further show that there is a consistent and shared belief that the
graduates should have these seven core skills. Similarly, Ambigapathy and Aniswal (2005) report that comments
from graduates and employers emphasized the importance of generic skills, particularly teamwork, in the
curriculum. In Indonesia, Irma (2007) shows that employers ranked communication skills as the most important
for the graduate employee, followed by integrity and honesty, working in a group, interpersonal skills, ethical
values, good motivation, organizational skills, IT skills, and a high Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA).
These issues have inspired the higher education authorities of Malaysia and Indonesia to help undergraduate
students to develop generic skills during their study at university. The education process should emphasize the
importance of enhancing students generic skills, that is, communication, IT, numeracy, problem solving,
learning how to learn, working with others, and subject-specific competencies. These skills should be integrated

52
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 5, No. 2; 2015

into the methodology of teaching and learning, in order to produce graduates with a high self-learning capacity,
as the Basic Framework for Higher Education Development, the Malaysian Qualification Framework (2005),
and UNESCO (2007) indicate.
Although extensive research has been carried out in many countries, few studies examine the situation across
national borders, and therefore the present study has been conducted at both the National University of Malaysia
(UKM) and the National University of Indonesia (UI). It is expected that this study will identify positive actions
that can be used to improve the quality of graduates at both universities.
2. Objective and Conceptual Framework
The aim of this study was to investigate the practice of generic skills among undergraduate students in the
Economics Faculty at the Economics Faculty of the National University of Indonesia. Obtaining the aim of the
study, I formulated the conceptual framework as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study

The conceptual framework shown in Figure 1 illustrates how students engagement and activities were generated
in the classroom in relation to the development of generic skills. The model of generic skills discussed in this
paper refers closely to that developed by Jelas and Azman (2005). Generic skills are defined the set of skills or
abilities essential to fulfilling the three potential outcomes of higher education, namely, the needs and
requirements of employers in the marketplace, lifelong learning, and good citizenship. In this study, the generic
skill set was considered to consist of seven skills: communication, numeracy, IT, learning how to learn, problem
solving, working with others, and subject-specific competencies (Jelas & Azman, 2005; Bennett et al., 2000;
Cornford, 1999). The seven generic skills as displayed in the conceptual framework are briefly elaborated in the
sections below.
2.1 Communication Skills
Communication skills are necessary to enable graduates to deliver their ideas as individuals and group members.
As Morreale et al. (2000) indicate, these skills combine a diversity of elements in order to produce good
decisions, solutions, and negotiations (1-3). Communication skills refer to ones ability to use active listening,
writing skills, oral communication, presentation skills, and questioning and feedback skills to establish
successful communication (Mayer Committee, 1992, as cited by the Scottish Qualification Authority, 2003;
Bennett, 2000; Washer, 2007; Jones, 2009).
2.2 Numeracy
Numeracy is defined as the aggregate of skills, knowledge, beliefs, patterns of thinking, and related
communicative and problem solving processes that individuals need to effectively interpret and handle
real-world quantitative situations and problems (Gal, 1997; Jelas et al., 2006; Washer, 2007).

53
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 5, No. 2; 2015

2.3 Information Technology

IT skills refers to the ability of individuals to apply technology such as computers, software applications,
databases, and other technologies to achieve a wide variety of academic, work-related, and personal goals
(Mayer Committee, 1992, as cited by the Scottish Qualification Authority, 2003; ACRL, 2004; Washer, 2007).
Harrington and Elander (2003) refer to the use of technology in teaching and learning to provide manifold
opportunities for teachers and learners to develop their lifelong learning.
2.4 Learning How to Learn
Learning how to learn is defined as acquiring the set of skills and knowledge required to learn efficiently and
effectively in any learning situation (QCA, 2000). Learning demands processes, understandings, and skills that
can be learned and taught. When one has gained mastery in learning how to learn, one can learn effectively and
efficiently at any age. Thus, this competence is considered of potential importance to the concept of lifelong
learning and the self-managed learner (Smith, 1982; Jelas et al., 2006; Washer, 2007).
2.5 Problem Solving Skills
Problem solving skills constitute the ability to tackle problems systematically, for the purpose of working
towards solutions and learning from this process (Jelas et al., 2006; Washer, 2007). The ability to solve problems
will have a great impact on the success of the students real life endeavours (Cook & Slife, 1985). QCA (2000)
explains the purpose of these skills as to enable students to tackle problems systematically in the workplace,
working towards appropriate solutions and learning from this process.
2.6 Working with Others
Working with others is defined as the ability to meet ones own responsibilities and work cooperatively in a pair
or a group for the purpose of achieving shared objectives (QCA, 2000; Jelas et al., 2006; Washer, 2007).
Learning to become valuable members of a team is one of the most vital skills for employability (Mayer
Committee, 1992; QCA, 2000). The ability to work as a team member will have a great impact on the students
ability to produce new ideas and deal with any situation in real-life work.
2.7 Subject-Specific Competencies
Subject-specific competencies are defined as the knowledge, capabilities, and dispositions required to organize
and provide information at the appropriate level of the study relating to the subject content taught (Hadiyanto,
2013). This means that every graduate must have specific subject knowledge related to his/her selected discipline,
and must understand both how to link this information to other disciplines and how it can be applied in a
real-world setting.
2.8 Evaluation of Generic Skills
The practice and development of generic skills were evaluated using the self-reports provided by the students.
These reports described the ways that students engaged and carried out activities in the process of learning in
order to acquire generic skills. The level of generic skills identified were compared and analysed. As the final
part of the conceptual framework shows, the outcomes of the study include the development of students generic
skills at both universities.
3. Research Method
The target population of this study was all students in Faculty of Economics, national University of Indonesia
(UI). Simple random sampling was used to define the study sample. The sample size was determined by using
the Krejcie and Morgans (1970) size sampling. Three hundred and fifty-five (355) respondents were randomly
selected out of the total 2091 students. The data for this study were generated using a quantitative method. A
questionnaire was conducted to elicit students self-reports regarding their level of frequency in practicing
generic skills. The students were asked to respond to each statement about their practice of generic skills using a
5-point Likert scale (never, rarely, sometimes, often, and very often). For example, to obtain the students level
of practicing communication skills for statement A1 (made a class presentation), they were asked to rate their
level of practice as never, rarely, sometimes, often, or very often.
Software SPSS was run in data analysis and descriptive statistics was used to report the profile of respondents
and students generic skills practices. The students responds from 1-5 likert-scale were computed into mean
scores. The mean score of the students generic skills was interpreted in three levels, as shown in Table 1.

54
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 5, No. 2; 2015

Table 1. Interpretations of mean scores

Mean Score Interpretation
1.00 to 2.33 Low
2.34 to 3.66 Medium
3.67 to 5.00 High

As Table 1 shows, a mean score between 1.00 and 2.33 indicates a low level of generic skills, a mean score
between 2.34 and 3.66 a medium level, and a mean score between 3.67 and 5.00 a high level of generic skills.
3.1 Reliability and Validity of Instruments
A reliability analysis demonstrated that all constructs of generic skills included in the study had a high Cronbach
alpha coefficient (> 0.7) and corrected-item correlation (> .300). This analysis shows that there is a consistency
of instruments between the study conducted by Jelas et al. (2006) and this study.
Factor analysis was also conducted to confirm that the items in each construct yielded strong factor loading upon
the construct itself. The results show that communication competencies yielded factor loading in the range .628
to .716, IT skills in the range .624 to .731, numeracy in the range .612 to .724, learning how to learn in the
range .522 to .719, problem solving in the range .482 to .707, working with others in the range .596 to .657, and
subject-specific competencies in the range .658 to .773. These findings confirm that the items in each construct
explain and measure according to their intended purpose.
4. Research Findings
4.1 Overall Levels of Students Generic Skills
According to the findings, the English students showed mean score of generic skills practices in overall (3.67 of
5.00) is at high level. A closer examination of the mean score given by the students rated team works as the
highest, followed by IT skills, communication, problem solving and learning how to learn, subject specific
competencies and numeracy skills. These findings imply that the generic skills in overall were well blended and
practiced in learning and teaching process. However, two generic skills were medium at medium level, they are
numeracy and subject specific competencies (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Overall mean and level of generic skills practices

As displayed in Table 2 the practices of communication skill in overall was at high level (mean score 3.36).
Though the overall mean score was at high level, three of five indicators of communication skills were practiced
at medium level (mean between 2.61-3.40), they were using different format (statement A2), using varied
vocabulary and expressions (statement A3), and monitoring and reflecting (statement A5). Only two indicators
were rated at high level, they were class presentation (statement A1) and Integrating ideas or information
(statement A4). This finding signifies that the communication skills in some cases were not really applied in the
process of teaching and learning.

55
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 5, No. 2; 2015

Table 2. Level of communication skills practices

Communication Skills Mean S.D Level
A1 Made a class presentation 4.02 .741 High
A2 Used different formats for presenting information including business
letters, memos, forms and short reports in homework and assignments set by 3.51 .888 Medium
my lecturers.
A3 Used varied vocabulary and expressions whilst participating in a
3.58 .811 Medium
discussion for instance in asking questions and giving suggestions.
A4 Worked on a paper or project that required integrating ideas or
4.01 .781 High
information from various sources (i.e. books and journals).
A5 Monitored and critically reflected on my use of communication
competencies by obtaining feedback from my lecturers and peers and also
3.58 .858 Medium
noting choices that I have to improve the effectiveness of my
communication competencies.
Overall 3.73 .557 High

The mean score of IT skills practices as displayed in Table 3 was at the high of 3.77. Furthermore, five of four
indicators yielded means score at high level (mean between 2.61-3.40), they are looking for information from IT
sources (statement B1), presenting information using it skills (statement B3), creating new information and using
software (statement B4), using software and its features (statement B5) and developing the structure of a
presentation at high level (statement B6). The finding implies that under-graduate students were performing IT
skills well in term of the indicators in their learning activities. Hence, the students revealed that they were not
frequently practicing IT skills in term of entering and developing information (statement B2).

Table 3. Level of IT practices

IT Skills Mean S.D Level
B1 Looked for and selected relevant information from IT sources such as
files, CD ROMs, the Internet and non IT sources such as written notes and 3.99 .891 High
diagrams to discuss and complete an assignment
B2 Entered and developed information in the form of text, image and
numbers such as carrying out calculations using suitable software, moving and 3.51 .901 Medium
resizing images.
B3 Presented information using IT competencies to suit different purposes 3.90 .825 High
B4 Created new information by comparing it from various sources to reach a
3.68 .878 High
conclusion
B5 Used software features such as database queries, searching machine and
3.72 .953 High
spreadsheets to improve work efficiency
B6 Developed the structure of presentation (using, paragraph styles, page
number) and redefined presentation by combining text, images, video and 3.82 .893 High
numbers.
Overall 3.77 .628 High

Table 4 shows that overall mean score of numeracy was at medium level (mean score 3.51). All indicators of
numeracy skills yielded mean score at medium level (mean between 2.61-3.40) except indicator reading and
understanding tables, charts, graphs and numbers (statement C1). This finding signifies that the students did not
frequently practice the numeracy skills during their study at University. While current job market, employer are
seeking for employee who are attributed with a numeracy skills, this skill is important to work for instance for
managing time, making job priorities, reporting working progress, etc.

56
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 5, No. 2; 2015

Table 4. Level of numeracy skills practices

Numeracy Skills Mean S.D Level
C1 Read and understand tables, charts, graphs and numbers used in different
ways like fractions, decimals, percentages, and large numbers in figures or 3.76 .855 High
words.
C2 Read scales on measuring equipment like the watch, tape and
3.01 1.12 Medium
thermometer using everyday units like minutes, grams and degrees
C3 Used effective ways to present findings by explaining my main points. 3.88 .811 High
C4 Constructed and labeled tables, charts and graphs to illustrate findings. 3.51 .939 Medium
C5 Assessed the effectiveness of my work and identifying factors that had an
3.52 .910 Medium
impact on the outcomes
C6 Monitored and critically reflected on my use of numeracy including
getting feedback, noting choices made and adapting strategies to overcome 3.30 .912 Medium
difficulties I face.
C7 Identified the relevant information sources and outcomes I hope to
3.64 .780 Medium
achieve.
Overall 3.51 .597 Medium

Table 4 displays the practices of learning how to learn skill in overall was at medium level (mean score 3.64).
Looking at indicators of LHTL shows that four of nine were practiced at medium level (mean between
2.61-3.40). The fourth indicators are putting together knowledge (statement D6), reviewing what had learned and
what had not (statement D7), consulting to improve performance of learning (statement D8) and adapting
learning strategy (statement D9). Six others indicator were practiced by the students at high level they are
making changes based on lecturer suggestions (statement D1), setting and planning (statement D2), managing
time and prioritizing (statement D3), working and learning independently (statement D4) and identifying better
ways of learning (statement D5). Although the students rated their practices at high level yet its mean score did
not close to maximum value of 5.00. In overall conclusion of the findings indicates that the English students
were not strongly prepared to be a lifelong learner.

Table 5. Level of learning how to learn practices

Learning how to learn Mean S.D Level
D1 Made changes suggested by your lecturer to improve your performance in
3.84 .781 High
the quality and way you work.
D2 Set realistic targets with tutor and plan how these would be met. 3.81 .870 High
D3 Managed your time effectively by prioritizing your action, dealing with any
3.82 .823 High
difficulties to meet your deadlines.
D4 Worked independently at times and be responsible for organizing own
3.88 .821 High
learning.
D5 Identified ways you learn best in order to meet a tutors standards or
3.85 .816 High
expectations
D6 Put together ideas or concepts from different courses when completing
3.38 1.03 Medium
assignments or during class discussions
D7 Reviewed what you have learned and how you learned, including what has
3.53 .847 Medium
gone well and less well.
D8 Consulted lecturers to improve your learning performance. 3.00 1.03 Medium
D9 Adapted your learning strategy (i.e. independent, collaborative and
3.66 .865 Medium
cooperative) as necessary to improve your performance.
Overall 3.64 .574 Medium

57
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 5, No. 2; 2015

The findings in Table 6 show that problem solving skills in overall was practiced at the medium (3.66). Further
analysis in each indicators of problem solving skills revealed four out of seven indicator were practiced by
students at medium level, they are identifying problems (statement E1), including diverse perspectives in class
discussion (statement E4) and exploring and making comparison to solve an assignment problem (Statement E5).
There are only three indicators of problem solving reach high level of practices by the students, they were
coming up with several ways to tackle a problem (statement E2), using different methods to analyze the problem
by looking at the problem from different sources (statement E3) and solving problems by getting and making
efficient use of resources (statement E6). In other ways to say, problem solving skills were not highly practiced
by the students in their learning process.

Table 6. Level of Problem Solving Practices

Problem Solving Mean S.D Level
E1 Identified a problem by describing its main features while doing
3.65 .865 Medium
assignments.
E2 Came up with several ways to tackle a problem 3.68 .821 High
E3 Used different methods to analyze the problem by looking at the problem
from different sources (materials, equipments, information, and support from 3.70 .835 High
others).
E4 Included diverse perspectives (different races, religions, genders, political
3.52 1.024 Medium
beliefs etc.) in class discussions or writing assignments
E5 Explore how to solve an assignment by making comparisons with similar
3.66 .811 Medium
problems and finding analogies from readings or own experience.
E6 Solved problems by getting and making efficient use of resources
3.82 .904 High
provided by the university.
E7 Presented your approach to problem solving, including evidence to
3.56 .862 Medium
support your conclusions to lecturers and peers
Overall 3.66 .573 Medium

Teamwork skills are one of necessary skills in order that the prospective teachers be able anticipate work
challenges and multi-task constraints, more over obtaining an optimal team work will come out with a high
quality of working output. As displayed in Table 7 shows that the students rated their teamwork skills at high
level (mean score 3.82). Five indicators of teamwork skills yielded mean score at high level, they are working
with others on activities other than coursework (statement F1), working with other students on projects
(statement F3), resolving conflicts occurred in group work (statement F5) and offering ideas to ensure best use is
made of resources in order for the task to be completed on time and up to the standard required (statement F7).
The point is teamwork skills

Table 7. Level of working with others practices

Working with Others Mean S.D Level
F1 Worked with others on activities other than coursework (committees,
4.15 .857 High
student life activities, etc.)
F2 Had serious conversations with students of a different race or ethnicity than
3.49 1.003 Medium
your own.
F3 Worked with other students on projects or class assignments. 3.99 .775 High
F4 Resolved conflicts occurred in group work. 3.77 .824 High
F5 Gave and shared constructive feedback in improving group work. 3.91 .774 High
F6 Sought effective ways to keep yourself and others motivated. 3.65 .925 Medium
F7 Offered ideas to ensure best use is made of resources in order for the task
3.80 .774 High
to be completed on time and up to the standard required.
Overall 3.82 .565 High

58
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 5, No. 2; 2015

Irony findings occurred at the mean scores of subject competencies; it yielded mean score at medium level 3.58.
It was supposed to give high to very high mean score, due to these competencies relate to their own subject
discipline. Furthermore, looking at each indicator, the students perceived the practices of subject competencies
for all statements at medium level. The findings implied that the students were more provided theoretical basis
rather than competencies its self. They were not prepared enough to acquire how to apply knowledge into real
practice or real world. The findings are displayed in Table 8.

Table 8. Level of subject specific competencies practices

Subject specific competencies Mean S.D Level
G1 Applied your subject-content knowledge in completing tasks given by 3.87 .768 High
lecturers.
G2 Discussed ideas from your readings or classes with others outside of 3.50 .828 Medium
class.
G3 Explained contents learned in lectures to other students and tutors. 3.33 .911 Medium
G4 Answered questions proposed by lecturer using knowledge based on 3.66 .804 Medium
subject content
G5 Utilized your subject-content knowledge in practicum, industrial
3.52 .871 Medium
training and others practice.
Overall 3.58 .594 Medium

5. Discussion
In general, the findings indicated that the respondents were able to distinguish clearly between the seven
components of the soft skill-set (communication, IT, numeracy, problem solving, learning how to learn, team
work, and subject-specific competencies). They were able to reflect on their own level of generic skills, and to
identify which of the seven skills they practised.
The students demonstrated a medium rating of generic skills in term of numeracy, learning how to learn,
problem solving and subject-specific competencies. Lecturers or tutors suggested encouraging the students to the
practice the generic skills. The graduates must be able to comprehend and analyse current and future work
challenges with a critical mind and use their generic skills to develop their self quality, succeed in their career,
satisfy stake-holder, and none less contribute to their country. It is particularly important, due to the lack of
generic skills practice among the students, that Faculty should encourage lecturers to implement learning
activities that aim to improve students generic skills to ensure a minimum mean score of 3.41 to 4.20, that is,
the high level banding of generic skills.
There are some explanations behind these findings: first, there is no guidance curriculum implementation or blue
print at university, faculty and department for embedding soft-skills into teaching and learning process. The
second, no serious plan and action in lecturer syllabus and lesson plan to encourage graduate with generic skills,
as faculty and university do not suggest doing so. The third, there is no the standard input, process and output of
University. There is no strong commitment of universities to plan, monitor and, evaluate the quality input,
process and output of university.
The challenge face of generic skills no because of Looking form the lecturer as the due to lack facilities, bad
administration system, bad of service, The limited generic skills revealed by this study are therefore of concern.
Specifically, our study questions the assumption that generic skills are an inevitable outcome of time spent
studying at university, and as discussed, this raises an issue that has received considerable attention both within
and beyond HE institutions. Lecturers should make the connections between the various parts of the teaching
syllabus more explicit, in order to forge stronger links between knowledge content and generic skills. At the
same time, the promotion of generic skills should be highlighted as one of the strengths of graduate training at
university.
Graduates should leave higher education better and stronger than as they entered it, and this improvement should
be attributable to the undergraduate curriculum, rather than simply to the fact that three to five years have passed.
Graduates need to be equipped with generic skills that they can use to sell themselves to employers. By
practising these generic skills in and outside of the classroom will enable students to become more effective,

59
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 5, No. 2; 2015

independent learners during their studies, and will enhance their employment prospects following graduation. As
a result, the university graduate should leave with three main attributes, namely employability, life-long learning,
and good citizenship (Hadiyanto, 2012). In short, this study contributes to the issues surrounding the
development of generic skills at university, and its results may be used to inform, support, and plan innovations
within the university curriculum, teaching and learning.
6. Conclusion
This study was conducted at Faculty of Economics University Indonesia, in order to identify the level of generic
skills being applied through the learning activities, particularly those should be provided starting at the first to
third year of the BEd (Hons) undergraduate programme through learning process, as well as to monitor students
general awareness of and engagement in these skills. In conclusion, the students were not strongly engaged to
practice the generic skills at either university. The universities should design, embed and implement generic
skills into curriculum, syllabus and system assessment. By programming this, it is expected the University
graduates in Indonesia will have high competitive value in Job Market moreover to welcome free trade market
era in ASIA.
References
ACRL. (2004). Information literacy competency standards for higher education. American Library Association.
Retrieved March 23, 2009, from http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html
Ambigapathy, P., & Aniswal, A. G. (Eds). (2005). University curriculum: An evaluation on preparing graduates
for employment. Higher Education Research Monograph 6. Pulau Pinang: National Higher Education
Research Institute. Retrieved July 18, 2008, from http://www.usm.my/ipptn/fileup/
University20Curriculum1.pdf
Bath, D., Smith, C., Stein, S., & Swann, R. (2004). Beyond mapping and embedding graduate attributes:
Bringing together quality assurance and action learning to create a validated and living curriculum. HERD,
23(3), 313-328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0729436042000235427
Bennett, N., Dunne, E., & Carre, C. (2000). Skills development in higher education and employment.
Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.
Borthwick, J., & Wissler, R. (2003). Postgraduate research students and generic capabilities: Online directions.
Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training Research Evaluation Programme.
Business Council of Australia (BCA). (2006). New concepts in innovation: The keys to a growing Australia.
Melbourne: BCA.
Cook, R., & Slife, B. (1985). Developing problem solving skills. Academic Therapy, 21, 5-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/105345128502100101
Cornford, I. R. (1999). Imperatives in teaching for lifelong learning: Moving beyond rhetoric to effective
educational practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 27(2), 23-35.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866990270203
Crebert, G., Bates, M., Patrict, C., & Cragnolini, V. (2004). Developing generic skills at university, during work
placement and in employment: Graduates perceptions. HERD, 23(2), 148-164.
Curry, P., Sherry, R., & Tunney, O. (2003). What transferable skills should students develop during their time in
college: Results of Modern Languages Students Survey. Trinity College, Dublin.
Directorate General of Higher Education Indonesia. (2003). Basic framework for higher education development
KPPTJP IV. Indonesia.
Ellis, P. J. A., Bell, S. B., Ployhart, E. P., Hollenbeck, R. J., & Ilgen, R. D. (2005). An Evaluation of generic
teamwork skills training with action teams: Effects on cognitive and skill-based outcomes. Cornell
University. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2005.00617.x
Gal, I. (1997). Big picture: What does numeracy mean? GED Items, 12(4-5). Retrieved January 21, 2007, from
http://mathforum.org/teachers/adult.ed/articles/gal.html
Hadiyanto, & Mohammed, S. (2013). Students generic skills at the National University of Malaysia and the
National University of Indonesia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 71-82.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.015

60
www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol. 5, No. 2; 2015

Hadiyanto. (2010). The Development of Core Competencies at Higher Education: A Suggestion Model for
Universities in Indonesia. Educare, 3(1).
Hadiyanto. (2011). The Development of Core Competencies Among Economics Students in National University
of Malaysia (UKM) and Indonesia (UI) (Doctoral dissertation). Faculty of Education, National University
of Malaysia.
Hadiyanto. (2013). Course reconstruction: From Vision, Mission into Class Room Action. Paper presented at
Applied Approach (AA) Training. LP3M. Jambi; Univeristy of Jambi.
Harrington, K., & Elander, J. (2003). Using assessment criteria to support student learning. Investigations in
University Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 63-66.
Irma, D. (2007, June 17 ). Soft skill? Pikiran Rakyat. Newspaper.
Jelas, Z. M., & Azman, N. (2005). Generic skills provision in higher education: A Malaysian perspective. The
International Journal of Learning, 12(5), 200-210.
Jelas, Z. M., Azman, N., Ali, M. M., Nordin, N. M., & Tamuri, A. H. (2006). Developing generic skills at
graduates: A study of effective higher education practices in Malaysian universities; Summary report.
Kuala Lumpur: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty of Education.
Jones, A. (2009). Redisciplining generic attributes: The disciplinary context in focus. J Stud High Educ, 34(1),
85-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070802602018
LTSN. (2002). Resource guide: The development of key skills in higher education. London: LTSN Hospitality,
Leisure, Sport and Tourism.
Malaysian Qualification Framework (MQF). (2005). Guidelines on standards of the bachelor degree level (Vol.
1). Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia. Retrieved February 21, 2007, from http://www.mqa.gov.my/
portal2012/dokumen/MALAYSIAN%20QUALIFICATIONS%20FRAMEWOR_2011.pdf
Mayer Committee. (1992). Key competencies: Report of the committee to advise the Australian Education
Council and Ministers of Vocational Education, Employment and Training on employment-related key
competencies for post compulsory education and training. Melbourne. Retrieved November 9, 2007, from
https://isbndb.com/d/book/key_competencies_a01.html
Morreale, S. P., Osborn, M. M., & Pearson, J. C. (2000). Why communication is important: A rationale for the
centrality of a discipline. Retrieved September 8, 2007, from http://www.natcom.org/
nca/files/ccLibraryFiles/FILENAME/000000000158/WhyCommisImportant.pdf.
Pumphrey, J., & Slater, J. (2002). An assessment of generic skills needs. Skills Dialogues Report No. 13.
Nottingham: Dfes.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. (2000). Key skills units (Levels 1-5). London: QCA.
Scottish Qualifications Authority. (2003). Key competencies: Some international comparisons: Policy and
Research. Research Bulletin, 2. Retrieved August 29, 2009, from http://www.sqa.org.uk/
files_ccc/Key_Competencies.pdf
Smith, R. M. (1982). Learning how to learn: Applied theory for adults. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Star, C., & Hammer, S. (2007). Teaching generic skills: Eroding the higher purpose of universities, or an
opportunity for renewal? Oxford Review of Education, 34(2), 237-251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
03054980701672232
UNESCO. (2007). Higher education in south-east ASIA. Thailand. Retrieved November 14, 2007, from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001465/146541e.pdf
Washer, P. (2007). Revisiting key skills: A practical framework for higher education. Journal of Quality in
Higher Education, 13(1), 57-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320701272755

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

61