1

An Examination of Perceived Employability Skills between Employers and College Graduates

A dissertation presented

by

Kaye Bernard McGarry

to

The College of Professional Studies

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Northeastern University

Boston, Massachusetts

October 24, 2016

2

Abstract

Connecting college to career has been one of the goals of higher education since the founding in

1636 of Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher education in the United States. A

skilled workforce is still dependent on the preparation that colleges offer their students.

However, in today’s rapidly-changing technological and global world, many businesses are

finding that college graduates they hire are under-prepared to enter the workforce with the

needed skill sets (Abernathy, 2014; McIntire & McLester, 2006; Needleman, 2014; Zeiss, 2005).

They may be prepared academically, but may be lacking in soft skills, such as analytical

reasoning, interpersonal skills, self-discipline, managing time, money, and resources, as well as

communication and technology skills. This research study used survey research and quantitative

methods to determine the differences between employer’s perceptions of needed skill sets and

college students’ perceptions of acquired skill sets obtained during their studies. This

correlational quantitative research study design identified nine skill sets obtained within the

Employability Skills Framework (U.S. Department of Education, 2012) with 39 subscale

identifying factors or skills. A sample of small, medium, and large corporations with offices in a

large city in the United States was surveyed using a Likert scale to determine which skills

identified within each set of skills were most needed in their organizations as they hire newly-

graduated college students. A student survey was administrated at one large four-year public

research university as they prepared to graduate and enter the workforce. The potential threats to

validity and reliability included low-response rate, non-response, outliers, and adequate size of

employer and student samples. The survey questionnaire provided the data needed to interpret

the results. Survey results were collected via a web-based survey, SurveyGizmo, which exported

data in SPSS format. All statistical analyses of the quantitative results were conducted with the

3

help of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (IBM SPSS) Version 22. This study

shed light upon the potential need for higher education administrators and employers to build

meaningful partnerships for a mutual goal: to ensure that graduates possess the skill sets desired

in the current workforce and beyond.

Keywords: attributes, employability skills, higher education, Likert scales, skill sets, skills,

soft skills, traits, word clouds, workforce readiness

4

Acknowledgements

Northeastern University expects its doctoral students to be change agents. During my

doctoral journey, which began in January, 2013, I had outstanding professors who continually

pushed me to strive to reach farther, dig deeper, and learn so much more. I am a lifelong learner.

I do believe, in the words attributed to Goethe, “Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin

it. Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it.” This doctoral journey had genius, power, and

magic in it at every turn, while keeping the focus at the mountain top reaching for the stars.

This journey could not have been completed without the help of many individuals. I

sincerely thank my advisor, Dr. Carolyn R. Bair, for sharing her knowledge, advice, inspiration,

and support throughout the writing of this doctoral thesis. To Dr. Joe McNabb and Dr. Cheryl

Richards, my second and third readers, your guidance and suggestions were most helpful to

ensure I produced a quality thesis. Also, Dr. Terri Manning and Dr. Bobbie Frye, whose

encouragement and advice gave me the motivation to complete this work. I also thank my

colleagues, with whom I spent hours and hours on discussion board discussing in a respectful

and meaningful dialogue on a range of educational issues during my coursework. During that

time, I grew as a person because of you.

I especially thank my husband, Dennis, who taught me to strive for perfection. His patience,

love, and support kept me working at a steady pace. I am also grateful for my family and friends

who listened to me enthusiastically. This helped me keep the momentum going throughout the

entire process. And, I thank God for giving me the opportunity to learn and grow intellectually

and acquire additional skills and talents to help make a difference in the lives of all individuals

and families. In the words attributed to Helen Keller, “I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot

5

do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse

to do the something that I can do.”

6

Table of Contents

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………....................2

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………..................4

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………...............11

Context and Background……………………………………………………………………11

Rationale and Significance…………………………………………………………………12

Research Questions and Hypotheses……………………………………………………….12

Definition of Key Terminology…………………………………………………………….13

Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………………......14

Applying Conceptual Theory to the Study…………………………………………………16

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………..19

Evolution of the Workforce………………………………………………………………..19

Historical background…………………………………………………………………20

Globalization…………………………………………………………………………..20

Human capital…………………………………………………………………………20

Knowledge economy………………………………………………………………….21

National Gallup-Purdue Index………………………………………………………...22

Changing Needs in the Workforce………………………………………………………….22

Industry needs within sectors………………………………………………………….23

Twenty-First Century Skill Sets…………………………………………………………….24

Workforce Readiness……………………………………………………………………….24

7

College and Career Readiness……………………………………………………………...25

Conley’s Key Cognitive Strategies……………………………………………………25

Predictors of college-to-career success………………………………………………..26

How Students Learn………………………………………………………………………...27

Banking concepts of education………………………………………………………..27

Assessment and teaching of 21st-century skills……………………………………….27

Common Core State Standard and Race to the Top assessment program…………….28

Internship experiences………………………………………………………………...28

Expectation gap……………………………………………………………………….29

Employability………………………………………………………………………………30

Stages of employability……………………………………………………………....30

Soft skills and core skills……………………………………………………………..31

Summation…………………………………………………………………………………32

Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………....32

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………….....34

Research Questions and Hypotheses………………………………………………………34

Research Design…………………………………………………………………………...38

Population and Sampling………………………………………………………………….38

8

Data Collection……………………………………………………………………………..42

The survey…………………………………………………………………………….42

Procedures…………………………………………………………………………….44

Data Analysis……………………………………………………………………………….45

Testing assumptions…………………………………………………………………...47

Descriptive statistics…………………………………………………………………..49

T-test for Equality of Means…………………………………………………………..50

Cohen’s d……………………………………………………………………………...51

Validity and Reliability……………………………………………………………………..51

Factor analysis………………………………………………………………………...52

Cronbach’s Alpha Statistical Test…………………………………………………….52

Timeline……………………………………………………………………………….53

Human Subjects…………………………………………………………………………….53

Summary……………………………………………………………………………………54

CHAPTER IV: REPORT OF RESEARCH FINDINGS………………………………………...56

Survey Administration……………………………………………………………………...56

Demographic Profile of Respondents………………………………………………………58

Results and Discussion of Research Question One and Research Question Two………….64

9

Survey Results for Open-ended Questions…………………………………………………75

Results and Discussion of Research Question Three………………………………………78

Hypotheses and Null Hypotheses……………………………………………………..78

Independent Samples Tests……………………………………………………………79

CHAPTER V: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,

AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………………….83

Results………………………………………………………………………………………83

Implications…………………………………………………………………………………85

Implications for practice………………………………………………………………85

Implications for theory………………………………………………………………...86

Future Research and Recommendations……………………………………………………88

Suggestions for future research……………………………………………………….88

Recommendations…………………………………………………………………….90

Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………...91

Postscript…………………………………………………………………………………...92

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….....94

APPENDIX A – SURVEY INSTRUMENT, 2001…………………………………………....102

APPENDIX B – WORKFORCE EMPLOYABILITY SKILLS SURVEY,

10

EMPLOYER SURVEY…………………………………………………………………..112

APPENDIX C – WORKFORCE EMPLOYABILITIY SKILLS SURVEY,

STUDENT SURVEY……………………………………………………………………..122

APPENDIX D – FACTOR ANALYSIS, POST-HOC POWER ANALYSIS…………………130

APPENDIX E – APPROVAL LETTER FROM INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD……..132

APPENDIX F – MEAN RANKED ORDER OF INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR STUDENT

GROUP AND FOR EMPLOYER GROUP………………………………………………134

11

Chapter I: Introduction to the Study and Conceptual Framework

The purpose of this proposed correlational quantitative research study was to compare the

perceived employability skills between employers and college graduates. There seems to be a

disconnect between theory, research, and practice in our higher education institutions and what

translates into career readiness in the workforce from the viewpoint of employers who are

rethinking and resetting their vision and mission to better attract, develop, retain, and engage all

their employees in the 21st century and beyond (McIntire & McLester, 2006; Zeiss, 2005). This

research study was designed to identify the discrepancies between the skill sets employers

identify as needed for job readiness for college graduates entering the workforce and the self-

perceptions of those college graduates entering the workforce as to how they would rate

themselves as possessing such skills through the lens of the Employability Skills Framework

(U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

Context and Background

National surveys consistently indicate that businesses have difficulty finding employees

with the right skills (Abernathy, 2014; McIntire & McLester, 2006; Needleman, 2014). Research

examining the outcomes of post-secondary education after college graduates transition into the

workforce has been studied extensively since the 1990s. That was when the “career success of

graduates started to be used as a key indicator to measure the quality of education in general, and

higher education in particular” (Teichler, 2009, p. 15). Thus, improving graduates’ employability

became a subject that was gaining attention. The needs in the labor market were changing due to

technological advances and the globalization of the economy. These created uncertainties in the

labor market, which made it unclear as to what additional skill sets, in addition to academic

preparedness, were needed for college graduates to make a successful transition to the

12

workforce. This study seeks to examine the perceived employability skills between employers

who hire college graduates and college graduates.

Rationale and Significance

Data were developed for the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS), a

national database, selecting common performance indicators relating to employer needs as well

as other college performance indicators. IPEDS began in 1986 and surveys most postsecondary

institutions annually (Goldschmidt, 2005). What stood out in the database was that “despite

employer interest in graduate quality, most states do not have a uniform system in place to

survey employers about the quality of university graduates” (Goldschmidt, 2005, p. 1). Another

example of why job preparedness for college graduates is so important is the 2006 Workforce

Readiness Report Card, which included results from a survey of more than 400 Fortune 500

companies. That study found the nation’s new workforce entrants “woefully ill-prepared for the

demands of today’s – and tomorrow’s – workplace” (McIntire & McLester, 2006, p. 22).

The findings in this research study will add information in order to communicate and

connect what skill sets are needed from college graduates in order to enter the workforce as

optimally prepared for success. With these findings, higher education institutions may be in a

better position to implement suggested changes needed to better prepare their graduates for the

workforce.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

This research study proposed to examine the extent to which employers and college

graduates view the following nine areas of skill sets as needed for college graduates for success

in the workforce: basic skills, thinking and analytical skills, interpersonal skills, personal

qualities, resource management, information use, communication skills, systems thinking, and

13

technology use (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). These employability skill sets will be

examined quantitatively through survey research to determine to what extent there may be

differences in the perceptions between employers and recent college graduates. The three

research questions are:

RQ1: To what extent do employers view college graduates as having the skill sets needed

for a successful transition to the workforce when interviewing for a job?

RQ2: To what extent would soon-to-be college graduates entering the workforce rate

themselves from 1-5 as having the skill sets needed for a successful transition to the

workforce when interviewing for a job.

RQ3: To what extent does the perceived level of workforce skill sets of college students

differ from the needed skill sets defined by employers in the transition from college to the

workforce?

Definition of Key Terminology

The following terms are operationally defined as they apply to this study:

Attributes. Characteristics or qualities of prospective employees that will prove valuable to a

prospective employer, e.g., attitude, work ethic are referred to as attributes.

Employability skills. “General skills that are necessary for success in the labor market at all

employment levels and in all sectors” are termed employability skills (U.S. Department of

Education, 2012).

Higher education. This refers to education beyond the secondary level, especially education

provided by a college, university, or other higher education institution.

14

Likert scales. These scales are a common ratings format for surveys. In this research,

respondents rank quality from unimportant to very important or very low skill to very high skill

using five levels.

Skill sets. This refers to a combination of different skills that someone has acquired that can be

used in the performance of a particular job.

Skills. This refers to abilities involving ideas, things, and/or people acquired through training or

practice needed to effectively carry out complex activities or job functions

Soft skills. Non-academic skills, such as communication skills, generally perceived as needed in

a wide range of working environments. These are considered soft skills (Finch, Hamilton,

Baldwin, & Zehner, 2013).

Traits. Components of a person’s behavior that is assumed to serve as an explanation of his or

her enduring personal characteristics, i.e. time management skills, communication and

collaboration skills.

Word clouds. A method for visually presenting text data by showing word frequencies larger

and bolder the more frequently the word is used.

Workforce readiness. “A set of common traits possessed by capable graduates as they enter the

workforce” (Hollister, 2015, p. 2).

Conceptual Framework

The Employability Skills Framework (see Diagram 1) provided a structure for this research

study. The development of the needed skill sets used in this research was based upon the

Employability Skills Framework. The skill sets were used to survey both employers and college

students to determine how they rank the skill sets on a Likert scale. Under this framework,

shown in Diagram 1 below, employability skills, which were the dependent variables in this

15

proposed research study, are defined as general skills necessary for success in the labor market at

all employment levels and in all sectors. The framework is comprised of nine key skills which

fall into three broad categories: (1) applied knowledge which includes applied academic skills

and critical thinking skills; (2) effective relationships, which include interpersonal skills,

personal qualities; and (3) workplace skills including technology use, systems thinking,

communication skills, information use, and resources management (U.S. Department of

Education, 2012).

The dependent variables in this study were the two groups of populations being surveyed—

employers and college students entering the workforce. The three research questions listed

above were addressed.

The Employability Skills Framework was developed as part of an initiative of the Office of

Career, Technical, and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education. The skills identified in

the framework were the result of a complex set of intersecting factors as stated in the OECD

Skills Studies, 2013 (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). It was created to be used as a

diagnostic tool to guide changes that may be needed or suggested in our education system.

16

Diagram 1. Employability Skills Framework

Diagram 1. U.S. Department of Education (2012)

Applying Conceptual Theory to the Study

The Employability Skills Framework (Diagram 1) utilized in this research study portrays a

diagram and summation of employability skills. The publication date of this framework was

2012. However, it became evident in the notes that a lot of groundwork was done when

supporting materials were collected from the following career and technical education, adult

education, workforce development, and business organizations: Association for Career and

Technical Education (ACTE), Board on Testing and Assessment, National Research Council,

The Boeing Company, Chicago Public Schools, The Conference Board, Georgetown University

Center on Education and the Workforce, Human Resource Policy Association, IBM Corporation,

17

Jobs for the Future, Kentucky Adult Education, National Association of State Directors of Career

and Technical Education Consortium (NASDCTEc), Partnership for 21st Century Skills, and the

Skills for America’s Future, The Aspen Institute. The U.S. Department of Education stated that

they continuously update these resources (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

As defined for this research study, employability skills are “general skills that are necessary

for success in the labor market at all employment levels and in all sectors” (U.S. Department of

Education, 2012). Applied knowledge may be attributed directly from the academic preparedness

a student gains from a college or university. Workplace skills and effective relationships are “not

necessarily specific to individual jobs but have broader application” (Abernathy, 2014, p. 1).

Thus, it becomes important to identify just which skills employers need in this technologically-

changing world and global economy. The trends show the inadequacy of college graduates to be

fully prepared to transition to the workforce (Abernathy, 2014; McIntire & McLester, 2006;

Needleman, 2014). Because of this, it is important that practitioners and policymakers

understand the depth, implications, and importance of workforce preparedness. Evidence

suggests that college graduates come to the workforce under-prepared. The perception is they

may have credentials and basic skills, but in reality employers are not seeing it (Department of

Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations, 2012). How do recently-graduated students

perceive themselves as prepared for the successful transition into the workforce when taking into

consideration the changing nature of employability skills in a global economy? How do these

student perceptions compare to how employers view their preparedness?

This research will add to the literature by employing the Employability Skills Framework to

explore the full range of skill sets needed by employers and recent college graduates who are

planning on entering the workforce upon graduation. For purposes of this study, employability

18

skills are defined as “general skills that are necessary for success in the labor market at all

employment levels and in all sectors” (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). As shown

throughout the literature review, these skills have a number of names--from soft skills, workforce

readiness skills, career readiness skills—yet basically they all have something in common with

the same set of core skills that employers are indicating they need for their prospective

employees transitioning from the college campus.

This conceptual framework is comprised of nine key skills. Refer to Appendix B, which

shows these skills on the Workforce Employability Skills Employer Survey and Appendix C,

which shows these skills on the Workforce Employability Skills Student Survey. The

Employability Skills Framework will serve as a structured guide to explore the full range of skill

sets needed by employers and recent college graduates who are planning on entering the

workforce upon graduation.

This study, therefore, is directed at increasing the existing levels of knowledge among

employers and higher education institutions on what skill sets are needed by college graduates

from four-year post-secondary institutions to be successfully employed in the workforce and

beyond.

19

Chapter II: Literature Review

This chapter describes the evolution of the workforce through the historical background of

the United States from an agrarian, rural society to an industrial and urban society. It includes the

changing landscape precipitated by the globalization of our economy along with the

technological advances. It also explores why, how, and what 21st-century skills may need to be

taught to our students in order to prepare them for the workforce at the time of college

graduation and beyond.

The articles included in this research study included not only the workforce needs in the

United States but also in several other countries, including Canada, Singapore, Sri Lanka,

England, Malaysia, and Holland. An interesting aspect of the review of the literature is that the

lack of consensus of a definition of employability skills was evident globally. Despite the lack of

a working definition of employability skills, the international articles also highlighted the

changing nature of employability skills for a global economy. Basic skills previously deemed as

life skills now necessitate having skills that can be linked to performance outcomes and mobility

(Chi Man Ng, Loke, Ramos, & Sung, 2013).

This literature review concludes with a summary of the components that surfaced through

the literature review, which indicate the gaps in the preparation of college graduates with regard

to having acquired the skill sets needed to be successful in the workforce as intellectually and

emotionally connected.

Evolution of the Workforce

The scope of this section includes the historical background of the workforce in order to

highlight the changing needs in the workforce in a global economy.

20

Historical background. During the Industrial Revolution, in the 18th to 19th centuries,

change occurred, taking the United States of America from an agrarian, rural society to an

industrial and urban society. However, in the 20th and 21st century, researchers tended to agree

that globalization and technological advances changed the landscape for doing business for all

business enterprises, large and small (Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998; Silva, 2009; Walters, 2004).

Job markets shifted and continue to change at an ever-increasing rate, from the industrial era to

the knowledge economy. For example, in the 1980s, micro-computers changed the nature and

structure of work. In the 1990s, the Internet and other wireless technology impacted the

landscape of the economy (Walters, 2004). The job market became more competitive, and

companies had to change how they did business.

Globalization. Globalization permeated the economic markets in the U.S. prior to the turn

of the century. The following table shows an example of how other countries use terminology

relating to employability skills. Some of their descriptive words, such as generic, core, key, and

basic, refer to those skills essential to employability (Kenny, English, & Kilmartin, 2007).

Table 1. Kenny, A.; English, R.; & Kilmartin, D. (2007, p. 5).

Human capital. Companies found they needed to develop and invest in human capital,

maximizing skill sets of employees. This is where the training and development of employees

was of paramount importance. Companies found they needed to recruit and hire the best

21

employee talent to meet the needs and pressures of the evolving technological and global

economy. Organizations will continue to have to implement strategic leadership capabilities in

order to have a competitive advantage in the global market (Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998).

Knowledge economy. “Making connections between classroom learning and real life

applications of that learning is key in preparing college graduates for that great job” (Pryor,

2014, p. 2). Due to “globalization, economic necessity and low civic engagement,” students

need to be taught 21st-century skills needed for success in the workforce (Saavedra, 2012, p. 8).

Employers had to shift from investing in their physical capital, i.e. machines, to investing in

human capital in the changing economy. Energies were channeled into innovation and the

development of worker skills (Zeiss, 2005).

In addition, “approximately 50% of small businesses in the U.S. were operating in

international markets, up from 20% in the early 1990s” (Hitt, Keats, & DeMarie, 1998, p. 33).

Foreign markets emerged as competitors in the new technologies (Zeiss, 2005). The economic

growth during the 1990s affected employability throughout the world, as technological changes

occurred at high levels of capitalization. Examples can be found in Hong Kong, the United

States, China, and Ireland, as well as other countries during that time period, where world

developments during the era of the 1990s, created “major structural changes in the world—

shaped by the collapse of the Soviet empire and the high-tech boom” (Badunenko, Henderson, &

Zelenyuk, 2008, p. 490). From a stakeholder perspective, employers, students, and higher

education administrators, clear associations can be made between perceived outcomes of

international experience and graduate employability “given outcomes associated with the forging

of networks, opportunities for experiential learning, language acquisition, and the development

22

of soft skills related to cultural understandings, personal characteristics, and ways of thinking”

(Crossman & Clarke, 2010, p. 599).

National Gallup-Purdue Index. The Gallup-Purdue Index Report, was initially released in

2014. The Index consisted of more than 30,000 U.S. college graduates which included research

experiences in employee engagement in the workforce. The purpose of the Index was a response

to a call for more accountability in higher education institutions. It also included historical data

on why there is a need to revisit how students are prepared in postsecondary education

institutions. The Index accumulated a tremendous amount of data which continues to be analyzed

and disaggregated over the next five years of this research study to discover patterns, trends, and

other important information. One observation made was that employers in both profit and non-

profit industries need to step up to the plate when it comes to providing meaningful college

internships and partnerships with our postsecondary institutions. The Index is designed to

continue the collection of data on outcomes in the changing global workforce (Gallup-Purdue

Index, 2014).

The Gallup-Purdue Index 2015 Report included further research to address additional

questions including the following two questions. Do students graduate well-equipped to find

good jobs and prosper financially? And, then, do graduates leave school prepared to pursue their

passions and lead healthy, fulfilling lives? Results showed that meaningful collegiate

experiences, such as having caring professors, internships, and mentors, had a positive effect on

long-term relationships and success in pursuing their life’s goals (Gallup-Purdue Index, 2015).

Changing Needs in the Workforce

One mission within higher education for many years was preparing college graduates to

access rewarding jobs beyond college. Yet, in 1990, the National Center on Education and the

23

Economy published a report entitled, America’s Choice: High Skills or Low Wages! The report

highlighted that there was a “dissolving need for unskilled labor” (2012, p. 36). This seemed to

be pointing toward the changing landscape of the economy worldwide and the technological

advances, which did create a need for skilled workers.

Industry needs within sectors. Recent college graduates found entry-level jobs that

required experience and skill sets beyond what they acquired during their college years.

However, this varied depending on the specific sector of the economy. For instance, the energy

and technology industry that was recruiting college graduates from the Colorado School of

Mines in Golden, Colorado, found their college graduates had obtained the needed skill sets

during their college careers (Wiseman, 2014).

Ogbeide’s research study in the hospitality industry indicated that employability

competencies among college graduates were not meeting the needs of businesses in the

hospitality industry. Some of the competencies included problem solving skills, communication

skills, critical thinking skills, teamwork, and interpersonal skills. The findings in Ogbeide’s study

suggested that the students’ “self-perceived level of competence at performing the employability

skills necessary for careers in the hospitality industry” was between moderate competence and

major competence on all the 67 employability skills listed in the study (Ogbeide, 2006, p. 65).

In North Carolina, the Commission on Workforce Development identified “talent

development” as a key priority within its strategic plan. North Carolina was prepared to invest in

the development of this talent through career education programs in the areas where skilled

workers are most needed in the fields of nursing, advanced manufacturing, bio-technology and

industrial maintenance (Coon, 2014). Subsequently, as baby boomers retire, manufacturers will

24

be seeking college graduates who can repair and/or operate computerized factory machines

nationwide (Hagerty, 2014).

Through these examples, it is shown that the needs of employers throughout the United

States vary according to the industry within its area of the country. Yet, there is still an

increasing amount of research overall corroborating the fact that businesses have difficulty

finding employees with the right skills (Abernathy, 2014; Bridgstock, 2011; McIntire &

McLester, 2006; Needleman, 2014; Paranto, 1999).

Twenty-First Century Skill Sets

There are many different labels identifying 21st-century skill sets and the terminology can

become misleading. What does this mean for the higher education institutions as they teach and

graduate their students in the 21st century in a global economy? Are they successfully preparing

graduates from four-year institutions with acquired skill sets needed for success in the workforce

which has changed from a traditional economy to a knowledge-based economy (McLester &

McIntire, 2006)? The CEO of Allstate, Jack Callahan, said “You will only win in the 21st century

by building knowledge, growing knowledge workers and putting knowledge workers at the

center of organization” (Hitt, Keats, and DeMarie, 1998, p. 36).

Workforce Readiness

Thinking critically and analytically is not much different than in previous generations which

portrayed these as important skill sets to have in order to become situated under the umbrella of

“career ready” skills. Philosophers and educators from ancient Socrates to 20th-century John

Dewey developed educational theories (Mooney, 2013). Dewey indicated that school needed to

be an extension of the home. He advanced “teaching through occupational skills, as they often

reflected the interests of the child” (Pieratt, 2010, p. 55). Thus, many children were prepared

25

with valuable skills, which could be used in the workforce of their day. Today, employees must

adapt and integrate a variety of work skills in order to stay relevant in the assigned job within a

company. What changes the conversation today is that work requiring routine skills is now being

absorbed by computers. What gives the 21st-century skills more credence is an emphasis on what

students can do with knowledge rather than what knowledge they have acquired through college

credits. New technologies are continuing to make it easier to measure a student’s “individual”

mastery of 21st century skills. However, defining these skills can be problematic, and measuring

mastery of these skills on a “larger scale” will be the true test of accountability (Silva, 2009).

College and Career Readiness

From research conducted by the American Youth Policy Forum (AYPF), a broad definition

of college and career readiness included completion of college coursework, self-motivation,

maturity, and persistence as well as the expectation to have identified career goals and how the

students would achieve them. Career readiness included multiple skill sets, abilities and

“dispositions beyond the academic domain” in addition to developmental maturity and cultural

knowledge needed to thrive in the collegiate atmosphere as well as the labor market and

“employer-desired skills to succeed in an innovation-based economy” (Hooker, & Brand, 2010,

p. 76). On the other hand, career readiness is defined as “the capability of an individual to make

appropriate career and employment choices taking into account the complexity of the contextual

facts, e.g., family and gender, that influence an individual’s career development and

employment” (Strauser, Wagner, Wong, & O’Sullivan, 2013, p. 544).

Conley’s Key Cognitive Strategies. Conley (2010) re-defined college and career readiness

with Key Cognitive Strategies (KCS) as follows:

1. Key cognitive strategies

26

2. Key content knowledge

3. Academic behaviors

4. Contextual and awareness skills

Conley used these 4-model keys as an assessment tool. Conley’s research is in the area

of college and career readiness. Camara stated that “career readiness has not been defined as a

measurable construct” (2013, p. 21). Yet, much of the research continues to combine the

definition for college and career ready in the same construct, versus specifically stating criteria

for each term separately (Conley, 2010; Barnes, Slate, & Rojas-LeBouef, 2010; U.S. Department

of Education, 2010).

Conley’s model is unique, as it includes cognitive and non-cognitive factors. Even though

some researchers attribute Conley’s skill sets to college and career readiness (American College

Testing, 2012; Lombardi, Conley, Seburn, & Downs 2012), some authors acknowledged that

career readiness “pertains to the knowledge, skills, and learning strategies necessary to begin

studies in a career pathway,” whereas they say “college and career readiness is a

multidimensional construct that includes academic preparation and non-cognitive factors

previously shown to affect college outcomes, which include, but are not limited to, motivation,

engagement, and self-efficacy” (Conley, 2012, p. 164). Other researchers agreed that self-

efficacy is a significant cognitive variable in college students’ academic success (Wright,

Jenkins-Guarnieri, & Murdock, 2012).

Predictors of college-to-career success. Because the initial benchmarks for career

readiness are now apparently based on college readiness by some researchers, what is needed are

“content validation approaches, including surveys, reviews of job requirements, and perhaps

some local concurrent and predictive validation studies” to show how a base of evidence can be

27

related to career readiness and success (Camara, 2013, p. 24-25). There is “insufficient evidence

to conclude that the same standard or benchmark will serve college and career readiness equally”

(Camara, 2013, p. 24).

There is still a need for empirical evidence to show that multiple factors are still the best

predictor of college-to-career success (Bridgstock, 2011; Watts, 2005). The employability of

individuals depends on those individuals’ continually having the flexibility and willingness to

learn new skills. Change, driven by technology and globalization, pushes businesses and

organizations to recognize those changes and to make adjustments where needed (Watts, 2005).

How Students Learn

Banking concept of education. The “banking” concept of education has been utilized in

our classrooms for decades (Freire, 2000). Instead of communicating with the students, using this

concept, education became for the teacher an act of depositing whatever information they choose

into what were called “containers,” or “receptacles,” referred to as the students. This resulted in

the creativity being effectively snuffed out of the equation. The solution became “not to integrate

those (students) into the structure of oppression, but to transform that structure so that they can

become beings for themselves” (Freire, 2000, p. 74). This shows one aspect of the evolution of

the education system in how skills are taught.

Assessment and teaching of 21st-century skills. The Assessment and Teaching of 21st

Century Skills consortium (AT21CS) organized skills, knowledge, and attitudes into four

categories: ways of thinking, ways of working, tools for working, and living in the world

(Saavedra, 2012). There are different terms being used for similar types of complex thinking,

learning, and communication skills; but the AT21CS demanded a higher order of those skill sets,

28

versus rote learning as alluded to above when talking about Freire’s “banking” concept of

teaching.

Common Core State Standards and Race to the Top assessment program. How

students learn 21st-century skills and how pedagogy addresses their needs are, in reality, 21st-

century skills in themselves. Saavedra noted that 21st-century teaching required transferring skills

to different contexts, developing metacognitions to help students to learn more effectively,

collaborating through teamwork, using technology to help students transfer skills to different

contexts, and fostering creativity as it is the spark that can be innovative throughout economic,

civic, and global spheres (Saavedra, 2012).

U. S. policy initiatives including Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (2010) and Race to

the Top Assessment Program (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) have highlighted as their

underlying goal the acquisition of that knowledge and those skill sets deemed necessary for

college and career readiness.

Internship experiences. An empirical study of self-perceived employability through

student surveys found the most influential factor in the students’ perception of their own

readiness for the workforce was in the internship experience. The students listed this factor as the

top indicator for student employment success (MacDougall, Qenani, & Sexton, 2014). The next

significant factor was what they termed self-managed career behavior, meaning that “when

students align their career planning in some way with their academic planning, they are going to

be 1.8 times more likely to be confident about their employability. Field-specific technical skills

increase employability by 1.42 times, whereas generic skills such as oral communication and

critical thinking increase perceived employability by 1.38 and 1.34 times, respectively” (p.208).

This research pointed to the connection between higher education and the workforce in the

29

university’s role in preparing and developing their graduates for employability in an increasingly

competitive global labor market (p. 200).

Pre-graduate experience such as co-op and internship placements were cited as important to

employers following the need for soft skills (Finch, Hamilton, Baldwin, & Zehnew, 2013).

Emphasis on student development in the early identification of careers is shown to motivate

and help students to better manage their career skills and behaviors. This emphasis on students

identifying their career paths was found to be helpful and meaningful in the transition to the

workforce in the creative industries, where a study empirically linked having this particular set of

career self-management skills to successful graduate career outcomes (Bridgstock, 2011; Watts,

2006).

Expectation gap. Many college graduates are unprepared for the workplace (Bridgstock,

2011; Needleman, 2014). The research does not seem to report on meaningful connections

between postsecondary institutions and the workforce when it comes to outcomes and success in

the workforce. This may be attributed to differences between academic culture and the business

culture, thus making the gathering of data from recent college graduates and employers very

difficult (Goldschmidt, 2005).

With regard to newly-hired college graduates, researchers found that employers are not

meeting graduates’ job expectations. They called this an expectation gap (Jusoh, Siman, &

Chong, 2011, p. 520).

An examination of graduates from a large university in the United States, suggested

newcomer organizational entry perceptions, such as providing mentors and utilization of their

acquired skills and abilities, precipitated work attitudes and voluntary turnover (Holton &

Russell, 1999).

30

Employability

The concept of employability dates back to 1909 with the early work of William Beveridge,

an economist, who introduced the term. Beveridge discussed in depth the causes of

unemployment pre-war and post-war including the relationships between wages and

unemployment as well as supply and demand in the labor force. Beveridge described increasing

productivity, yet also voiced the problem of defects in personal characteristics or deficiencies in

human nature when he referred to those who are “willing to work every now and again but unfit

or unwilling to work continuously” (Beveridge, 1909, p. 137).

It was not until the 1970s that the term employability re-emerged. Its meaning changed

from skills leading toward gainful employment to skills leading to employability, primarily due

to the changing business environment (Crossman & Clarke, 2010; Misra & Mishra, 2011).

Differing definitions of perceived employability skills have been developed since that time.

Stages of employability. The concept of employability has gone through several stages over the

past century, from making a distinction between those who are/can be employed and those who

cannot, to a stage which considered all stakeholders including employers, universities,

policymakers, and potential employees in an interactive process called employability (Crossman

& Clarke, 2010; Gazier, 1998; McGrath, 1998). Studies spanning discussions of employability in

industrial, newly industrialized, and developing countries offer a lens based on human capital

and organization theories through which the breadth and depth of employability can be further

understood. These pointed to the need for future research to extend and refine measures and

efforts with regard to employers and newly-hired college graduates (Holton & Russell, 1999;

Jusoh & Chong, 2011).

31

Soft skills and core skills. There is a growing body of research that identifies soft skills as

one of the most important competencies employers look for when hiring new college graduates

(Finch, Hamilton, Baldwin, & Zehner, 2013). Employers referred to types of core skills as soft

skills needed in additional to students’ academic skill sets. Soft skills also include

communication skills, problem-solving, self-confidence, and teamwork (Finch, Hamilton,

Baldwin, & Zehner, 2013; Perera & Wickramasinghe, 2010).

The type of skill sets businesses requires and the need for higher education institutions to

better prepare students for the business world was researched by Paranto and Kelkar (1999).

Four major findings were--that:

• Business schools need to put emphasis on imparting core skills as the research

showed that employers value them most in their employees;

• Employers are more satisfied with graduates who possess core skills than those who

simply possess skills specific to their vocation, regardless of size or type of

organization for which they go to work;

• Business schools should place greater curricular emphasis on core competencies

which the business community desires; and

• Results show that employers satisfied with respect to core skills of graduates are

then also more willing to go back to the same school to meet their future personnel

needs (Paranto & Kelkar, 1999, pp. 84-85).

In that study, it was shown that core skills listed in their research were needed, in addition

to the students’ academic skill sets acquired during their tenure at the college or university. Core

skills were identified as “skills which are not job-specific, such as critical and creative thinking,

leadership ability, and interpersonal skills” (Paranto & Kelkar, 1999, p. 77). Additional research

32

found that employers continually cite soft skills as influencing employability (Finch, Hamilton,

Baldwin, & Zehnew, 2013).

Summation

Overall, the findings cited in this literature review support the main premise of why this

research study is needed. There appears to be a lack of consensus of a definition of employability

across the world. Despite the lack of a working definition of career readiness, employability, and

employability skills, studies also highlighted the changing nature of employability skills that

employers state are needed in the workforce as they search for college graduates to hire

(Crossman & Clarke, 2010; Misra & Mishra, 2011).

The purpose of this literature review was to examine research and related literature on

career readiness and employability as it relates to connecting college graduates at 4-year colleges

or universities to the workforce with a successful transition.

Analysis

In order to obtain an overview of career readiness and employability for college graduates,

the following two major components emerged through the literature review. First was the

evolution of the workforce, which included historical perspectives important in order to sense the

rapidity of the changing global economy, and the need to revisit what four-year colleges and

universities are teaching students and how students learn in order for the students to be prepared

to enter the workforce upon graduation. The second component examined the nature of the

changing landscape of the global economy, whereby 21st-century skills were identified as a

major set of skill sets important for students to acquire through utilizing the Employability Skills

Framework (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

33

Given what is known about the subject of career readiness, employability, and the growing

need for 21st-century skills in the workforce, it can be seen that one key to our success as a

country in this global economy is in the development of the potential talent, in what is sometimes

termed human capital, that will need to come from higher education institutions. Going forward,

perhaps there is a need to redefine higher education for the global economy and connect our

college graduates to the workforce in ways that can utilize their acquired learning to implement,

develop, and put into practice innovative ideas for the betterment of society as a whole.

There continues to be tension between the role of education and the needs of the workforce

(Perry & Wallace, 2012). In addition, the crux of the problem that needs to be solved is two-fold:

(1) defining 21-century skills and their relevance to the workforce; and, (2) showing if our

college graduates who are entering the workforce have acquired these skill sets and are

successfully implementing them into the workforce and beyond.

In reviewing the research, there appears to be a gap in the preparation of college graduates

with regard to having acquired the skill sets needed to be successful in the workforce as

intellectually and emotionally connected. There is a need to explore more fully just what job skill

sets employers are looking for when they interview potential four-year college graduates for

employment in their companies to determine if the college graduates they are hiring actually

have acquired these skill sets in their college settings.

34

Chapter III: Methodology

The purpose of this study was to measure the degree of difference between two or more

variables using the statistical procedure of correlational analysis (Creswell, 2015).

This chapter will describe the research design, including the population and sample

selection, data collection, data analysis, and validity and reliability.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

This research study was designed to examine the extent to which employers and college

graduates view the following nine areas of skill sets needed for college graduates for success in

the workforce (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

• Basic skills

• Communication skills

• Information use

• Interpersonal skills

• Personal qualities

• Resource management

• Systems thinking

• Technology use

• Thinking skill

These employability skill sets were examined quantitatively through survey research to

determine to what extent there may be differences in the perceptions between employers and

recent college graduates. These skill sets are the dependent variables. The independent variables

are the two populations that were studied:

35

• Employers who hire newly-graduated college students

• College students who are preparing to graduate and have indicated their intent to enter the

workforce

The three research questions are:

RQ1: To what extent do employers view college graduates as having the skill sets needed

for a successful transition to the workforce when interviewing for a job?

RQ2: To what extent would soon-to-be college graduates entering the workforce rate

themselves from 1-5 as having the skill sets needed for a successful transition to the

workforce when interviewing or a job?

RQ3: To what extent does the perceived level of workforce skill sets of college students

differ from the needed skill sets defined by employers in the transition from college to

the workforce?

The null hypotheses corresponding to these questions, along with the associated hypotheses

are:

H0: There is no statistically-significant difference that exists between the skill sets needed

by employers in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and those skill sets acquired by recent

college graduates at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

H1: Statistically-significant differences exist between the skill sets needed by employers in

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and those skill sets acquired by recent college

graduates at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

H0: There is no statistically-significant difference that exists between the perceived skill sets

acquired by recent college graduates at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and

those skill sets needed by employers in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

36

H2: Statistically-significant differences exist between the perceived skill sets acquired by

recent college graduates at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, and those skill

sets needed by employers in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina.

H0: There is no statistically-significant difference that exists between the perceived level of

workforce skill sets of recent college students at the University of North Carolina at

Charlotte, and the needed skill sets defined by employers in Mecklenburg County, North

Carolina.

H3: There is a statistically-significant difference that exists between the perceived level of

workforce skill sets of recent college students at the University of North Carolina at

Charlotte, and the needed skill sets defined by employers in Mecklenburg County, North

Carolina.

The conceptual framework and the literature review have informed the structure of the

survey instruments (See Appendix A and Appendix B). The Employability Skills Framework

was used with nine variables under three headings. Employability skills were defined as those

key skills and personal attributes needed to enter, operate, and thrive in the new world of work.

They are necessary for success in the labor market at all employment levels and in all sectors

(U.S. Department of Education website).

Applied Knowledge

1. Basic Skills – includes reading skills, writing skills, math strategies/procedures, and scientific

principles/procedures.

2. Thinking Skills – includes thinking creatively, critical thinking, making sound decisions,

solving problems, analytical reasoning, and planning/organizing.

Effective Relationships

37

3. Interpersonal Skills – includes understanding teams and working with others, responding to

customer needs, exercising leadership, negotiating to resolve conflict, and respecting individual

differences.

4. Personal Qualities – includes demonstrating responsibility, self-discipline, adapting and

showing flexibility, working independently, shows willingness to learn, integrity,

professionalism, and initiative and positive attitude.

Workplace Skills

5. Communication Skills – includes communicating verbally, listening actively, comprehending

written material, conveying information in writing, and observing carefully.

6. Information Use – includes locating, organizing, using, analyzing, and communicating

information.

7. Resource Management – includes managing time, money, resources, and personnel.

8. Systems Thinking – includes understanding and using systems, monitoring and improving

systems.

9. Technology Use – includes the ability to use Microsoft Office Suites, managing distraction of

social media, email ethics and etiquette, and applied technology in one’s discipline.

The following is an example of a question that was included in the employer survey and an

example of a question that was included in the student survey instruments. Nine

attributes/variables were listed, as well as the descriptors for each of the nine attributes/variables,

of the Employability Skills Framework and a Likert attitude scale from 1-5 was used, as follows:

(Employers) To what extent is each of the following basic skills important in the hiring of

college graduates? For employers, the Likert scale consisted of five categories: (a)

38

1=unimportant; (b) 2=little importance; (c) 3=somewhat important; (d) 4=important; and (e)

5=very important.

(Prospective employees – college students) To what extent do you perceive you have acquired

the following basic skills? Rate yourself on a scale from 1 to 5. For students, the Likert scale

consisted of five categories from low to high: (a) 1=very low skill; (b) 2=low skill; (c)

3=medium/moderate skill; (d) 4=high skill; and (e) 5=very high skill.

The survey/questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section was a compilation

of questions, both closed and one open-ended question on the workforce needs of employers.

The second section detailed demographic and academic information of the two populations

surveyed, which are employers and college students.

Research Design

This correlational quantitative research study exemplifies the positivist research paradigm,

which is consistent with its epistemology of scientific inquiry, which is objective. Objectivity is

important to positivist researchers in order to minimize bias and the research study outcome

showed an approximate reality, based on knowledge, not an absolute (Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003).

Creswell (2012) described quantitative research as an inquiry approach useful to “explain the

relationship among variables” (p. 626). In this research, survey instruments were developed to

gather data to answer specific questions, in order to compare the perceived employability skills

between employers and college graduates. Using survey research, a wide sample of students and

employers were asked questions about the variables comprising the employability skills

framework. The data were analyzed numerically using statistics. Measured data were used to

determine differences, comparisons, and correlations.

Population and Sampling

39

The populations examined in this study were 1) employers who hire prospective college

graduates, and 2) college seniors transitioning into the workforce upon graduation.

The participating site where data were collected from the student population is one

postsecondary institution, a public university in Charlotte, North Carolina, the University of

North Carolina at Charlotte (UNC at Charlotte). UNC at Charlotte is a public research university

that offers 21 Doctoral, 64 Master’s, and 90 Bachelor’s degree programs through nine colleges.

UNC at Charlotte has three campuses: Charlotte Research Institute Campus, Center City

Campus, and the main campus located in University City, about 8 miles from Uptown Charlotte.

The total number of undergraduate students is approximately 22,216.

Those college seniors who will be transitioning to the workforce in May 2016 were asked to

complete the survey. This gave all graduating students an equal chance of participating in the

research study, thus preventing bias in the choice of the sample.

UNC at Charlotte plays a significant role as part of the regional economic engine which

provides a local skilled workforce. The Director of the University Career Center at UNC at

Charlotte agreed to distribute the survey to all graduating students by providing each student a

link to the survey through email.

The other part of the research study involves employers in the Charlotte area, Mecklenburg

County, North Carolina, who recruit graduates of 4-year colleges or universities for possible

employment. The Charlotte (part of Mecklenburg County) area listing of the largest employers is

based on a survey conducted in 2013 by the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, which listed 273

firms that employ 500 or more people each. Of these firms, 151 are either regional/U.S. or world

headquarters. Businesses were selected to participate in this research by industry type, size of

company, and the need for skilled college graduates. Contact information was accessed from

40

Charlotte Works, a public-private partnership that serves local, relocating and expanding

businesses to meet employers’ hiring needs.

A listing of the Major Employers Directory, 2013, which lists all the major employers in the

Charlotte, NC, region, served as a reference. The directory for 2013 included a Summary by Two

Digit NAICS Code (North American Industry Classification System). This summary categorized

1,317 businesses, using the NAICS Categories: Agriculture; Utilities; Construction;

Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation and Warehousing; Information;

Finance and Insurance; Real Estate and Rentals and Leasing; Professional, Scientific and

Technical Services; Administrative, Support, Waste Management and Remediation services;

Educational Services; Health Care and Social Assistance; Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation;

Accommodation and Food Services; Other Services (Except Public Administration); and Public

Administration. Those businesses comprised of 18 categories, employ from 100 to 7,500+

employees each. The research department at Charlotte Works agreed to email a link to the survey

online to selected businesses in their database. Their database included most of the same

businesses listed in the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce Major Employers Directory 2013 (A.

Cooley, personal communication, January 20, 2016).

Guidelines suggest a sample with a minimum number of 100 is needed for quantitative

descriptive studies (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012, p.103). In order to determine the desired

sample size, the statistical procedures for use in data analysis were identified. (Creswell, 2015, p.

145).

For employers, cluster sampling helped identify a sample of employers in Mecklenburg

County, Charlotte, North Carolina, who were able to provide the type of data needed to answer

the research questions in the study. The companies within each industry are considered

41

“clustered” in that particular industry. A limitation in using cluster sampling is that each cluster

may share a similar culture and have similar characteristics. For example, industries in the

Finance and Insurance sector, the Health Care and Social Assistance sector or the

Accommodation and Food Services sector, share similar culture within their respective industry

classification. The advantages of cluster sampling in this research study were that it could be

used when it was not possible to select a random sample of employers in the Charlotte, North

Carolina, region. It was less time-consuming than other sampling methods as well as easier to

implement within clusters of industries. The disadvantage is that there is a far greater chance of

selecting a sample that is not representative of the population (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2012).

Charlotte Works agreed to distribute the survey to the sample group of employers. The

employers were given three reminders approximately five days apart.

A research survey questionnaire was used to obtain data for this study, it was objectified

numerically to exclude potential bias (other than the open-ended question). In the case of the

open-ended question, word clouds were used to interpret the qualitative data.

For the student portion of this study, a convenience sampling of college seniors who

indicated that they planned to enter the workforce upon graduation was asked to participate as

subjects. Even though the students of UNC at Charlotte were chosen for convenience, that was

secondary to the other reasons for choosing them as subjects for this research study. The

advantages of utilizing convenience sampling are cost, access, and convenience, but it must be

acknowledged that the data may not be representative of the population of the United States

(Muijs, 2011, p. 36). However, many of the graduates at UNC at Charlotte will stay in the

Charlotte region and will interview for jobs in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North

Carolina, which justifies the use of the convenience sampling method for college seniors at the

42

University. The student sample provided useful information for addressing the survey

questionnaire in order to gain insight into the research questions. An administrator in the

University Career Center assisted by distributing the survey to the sample group of students who

were graduating and seeking employment in the workforce. The students were given three

reminders approximately five days apart.

Data Collection

“Survey research is well suited to descriptive studies, or where researchers want to look at

relationships between variables occurring in particular real-life contexts” (Muijs, 2011, p. 31).

This is one of the advantages of survey research, as it is not an artificial situation, but rather a

real-world setting. It was also possible to maintain the respondents’ anonymity, in order to obtain

candid responses. In addition, the use of standardized questions allowed for comparability

between respondents and groups of respondents. Surveys can be administered to large groups of

participants at the same time. The disadvantages are that “unclear or ambiguous questions cannot

be clarified and the respondent has no chance to expand on or react verbally to a question of

particular interest or importance” (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2011, p. 126).

The survey. Questions from a pre-existing survey, Advantage Carolina 2001 Workforce

Continuum Survey (See Appendix A) were synthesized into the survey instruments used in this

study (See Appendix B and Appendix C). The 23-item Charlotte Chamber’s Survey of the

Workforce Needs of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Employers 2001, shown in Appendix A, served as a

basis for this research study. This pre-existing survey was designed to assess the workforce

needs of employers currently and in the near future. The Charlotte Chamber of Commerce

worked with the UNC at Charlotte Urban Institute and Central Piedmont Community College to

design the survey. Prior to the survey design, the Institute conducted focus groups with

43

employers from around Mecklenburg County. Focus group participants were selected from the

industry cluster groups and were asked questions relating to issues such as hiring, retaining, and

training employees and work ethic. The responses were used to design a survey instrument that

directly related to employer concerns (UNC at Charlotte Urban Institute & Central Piedmont

Community College, January, 2001, p. 1). The questions were deemed relevant to the workplace

skills the questionnaire was designed to measure. Copies of the reports which included the

surveys/questionnaires were obtained from the Associate Vice President for Institutional

Research and Founder, Center for Applied Research, in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Employability Skills Framework helped to structure the survey instruments being used

in this study. The framework lists skill sets employers identify as needed for job readiness for

college graduates entering the workforce. The surveys gathered the self-perceptions of those

college graduates entering the workforce as to how they would rate themselves as possessing

such skill sets. It was non-experimental descriptive research utilizing a cross-sectional survey,

wherein the participants needed to be surveyed one time (Muijs, 2011).

Two groups were surveyed including graduating college seniors from the University of

North Carolina at Charlotte, who were entering the workforce and employers who were seeking

job applicants from the pool of graduating college students.

The selection of the survey was a key part of the design of this research study. Most

questions were closed questions; however, an open-ended question was included to allow

respondents to include their own opinion that may not have been covered in the set of closed

questions (Creswell, 2015).

The survey/questionnaire answered all three research questions. The employer survey

outcome included a list of identified skills needed by employers, in order of importance, as they

44

seek qualified candidates for employment within their business. The student survey revealed how

prepared those college graduates thought they were for entry into the workforce. The student

survey outcome showed a list of how students perceived they have acquired the identified skills

needed by employers.

Procedures. Data were collected using standard surveys (see Appendix B and Appendix C)

administered by web-based and e-mail forms during the months of May and June, 2016.

Survey results were collected via a web-based survey, SurveyGizmo, which exported data

in SPSS format. The raw data generated from all the surveys were screened for any incomplete

data sets and for outliers. The database was inspected to determine if there are any scores outside

the accepted range. A computer program within SPSS substituted a value for each missing score.

Missing data comprised less than 5%. From the data file, a researcher can substitute up to 15%

of missing data with scores without altering the overall statistical findings (Creswell, 2015, p.

180).

The majority of the questions were Likert-type items. For employers, the scale consisted of

five categories: (a) 1=unimportant; (b) 2=little importance; (c) 3=somewhat importance; (d)

4=important; and (e) 5=very important. These questions dealt with attributes that those

employers feel prospective employees need. This addressed RQ1. For students, the scale

consisted of five categories from 1=low to 5=high: (a) 1=very low skill; (b) 2=low skill; (c)

3=medium/moderate skill; (d) 4=high skill; and (e) 5=very high skill. Students were asked to rate

themselves as to their perceptions of having acquired the various attributes needed in the

workforce. This addressed RQ2. The majority of these questions were closed questions. There

was also one open-ended question in the student survey and in the employer survey which

allowed respondents to include their own opinion that may not have been covered in the set of

45

closed questions. These open-ended responses were analyzed using word clouds to visually

present the text data. Other questions included factual information dealing with the demographic

and academic information of the two populations surveyed, which are employers and college

students.

Surveys were self-administered from two different groups—employers and prospective

employees—to examine the potential discrepancies between the two groups on the nine variables

listed under this framework with 39 subscale identifying factors or skills. An open-ended survey

item was included to elicit both groups’ opinions on the critically-needed skills not listed on the

survey.

The Likert 5-point scale was used in the design of the surveys; this is an attitude scale

commonly used in educational research. Attitudes of both employers and students were

discovered by utilizing this scale within the questionnaire. Using an ordinal scale in which data

may be ordered in some way, high to low or least to most, will “indicate relative standing among

individuals” (Fraenkel, Wallen, & Hyun, 2011, p. 138). Ordinal measures provided the data

needed to address the research questions.

Data Analysis

This study is a non-experimental descriptive research study, which examined differences

between 2 groups: 1) employers in businesses, and 2) college students, based on the research

questions above.

Some forms of descriptive statistics were used to summarize and analyze data by looking at

the individual variables first and then looking at group differences. For example, a frequency

distribution of individual variables told how many participants responded in a certain way, and

are displayed in a bar chart. A histogram was used to check the normality of the continuous

46

variables in the study before conducting parametric t-tests. Then, a measure of central tendency,

or average, the mean, was used. This is simply the difference between the highest and the lowest

value, which is good for describing each survey item. The sample’s demographics were

described using descriptive statistics. The variables for the employer population included: type of

business by industry, number of employees, percent of newly hired full-time college graduates.

The variables for the student population included: age, gender, number of years taken to

complete degree, internship experience, major, minor, already have committed to job upon

graduation. A number 1-3 were assigned to these responses for purposes of data collection and

analysis. The modified data instrument used comprised a 15-item survey/questionnaire for

employers and a 19-item survey/questionnaire for the students. Thus, the data score total range

would be 0-75 (15 x 5), and 0-95 (19 x 5), respectively.

In this research study, the ordinal variables were treated as continuous. “Parametric

statistics can be used with Likert data, with small sample sizes, with unequal variances, and with

non-normal distributions, with no fear of coming to the wrong conclusion.” “These findings are

consistent with empirical literature dating back nearly 80 years” (Norman, 2010, p. 631)

The statistical tests that were used in this research study were parametric t-tests, in order to

see if the two groups differed significantly on each of the nine skills areas. “The t-test is an

appropriate statistical procedure when the independent variable has two and only two categories

and the dependent variable is continuous” (Muijs, 2011, p. 119). Nine t-tests were performed,

one for each of the nine main dependent variables, employability skills, which individually are

considered ordinal variables; however, they were combined, treating the 5-point Likert-scale data

as scale/continuous data. A 10th t-test compared the total score of the survey results between the

two groups.

47

Testing assumptions. The t-test most often used is the Independent Samples T-Test. In the

process of analyzing data, the data must pass six additional assumptions required for an

independent t-test to give a valid result. If these assumptions are not met in a data set, the use of

an additional statistical test, the Mann Whitney test, becomes necessary. The six assumptions

are:

• Assumption #1: The dependent variable should be measured on a continuous scale.

• Assumption #2: The independent variable should consist of two categorical, independent

groups.

• Assumption #3: There should be no relationship between the observations in each group

or between the groups themselves. This is considered having independence of

observations.

• Assumption #4: There should be no significant outliers.

• Assumption #5: The dependent variable should be approximately normally distributed for

each group of the independent variable. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, accessed

through SPSS, was used.

• Assumption #6: There must be homogeneity of variances, which tested in SPSS using

Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances.

Before checking assumptions #4, #5, and #6 using SPSS, the researcher

made sure that the data met assumptions #1, #2, and #3.

These assumptions were met, as described below. Therefore, there was no need to perform

the Mann Whitney test.

The dependent variable is continuous—assumption #1 met.

In order to calculate a mean, the variables must be continuous.

48

Only two independent groups were being compared—assumption #2 met.

Essentially, there are only two groups being compared: an employer group consisting of 42

employers and a student group consisting of 42 students.

Independence of observations—assumption #3 met.

Each of the 84 participants were members of only one group, that of employer or student.

There was no overlapping from one group into the other group.

No significant outliers—assumption #4 met.

Using SPSS statistics, box plots indicated the outliers for each of the nine variables. In

analyzing the outliers, the scores falling at the extreme end of the score distribution were

recoded to reflect the cutoff value. The following list shows the outliers within each of the nine

variables.

• Basic skills. There were four outliers within the employer data where the extreme

values were less than or equal to 12. These were recoded to the cutoff value of 13.

• Communication skills. There were no outliers.

• Information use. There were no outliers.

• Interpersonal skills. There were three outliers within the employer data where the

extreme values were less than or equal to 17. These were recoded to the cutoff value

of 18. There were two outliers within the student data where the extreme values were

less than or equal to 10. These were recoded to the cutoff value of 14.

• Personal qualities. There were two outliers within the student data where the extreme

values were less than or equal to 11. These were recoded to the cutoff value of 15.

• Resource management. There were no outliers.

49

• Systems thinking. There were two outliers within the employer data where the

extreme values were less than or equal to 6. These were recoded to the cutoff value of

9.

• Technology use. There was one outlier within the employer data where the extreme

value was less than or equal to 11. This was recoded to the cutoff value of 13.

• Thinking skills. There was one outlier within the employer data where the extreme

value was less than or equal to 20. This was recoded to the cutoff value of 22.

• All factors. There were two outliers within the student data where the extreme values

were less than or equal to 98. These were recoded to the cutoff value of 128.

Normality of data—assumption #5 met.

The Shapiro-Wilk’s test was used as the numerical means of assessing normality. This test

was used because it is “more appropriate for small sample sizes (<50 samples), but can also

handle sample sizes as large as 2000 (Laerd Statistics, 2013). This test revealed the data were

normal. The Shapiro-Wilk test was repeated after outliers were recoded to the cutoff values.

Homogeneity of variances—assumption #6 met.

The Levene’s test for homogeneity of variances was performed through SPSS. It showed

that the equal variances between the two groups holds in the data. The bottom row was reported

for 8 of the variables which were significant; the top row was reported for one of the variables,

information use, which showed a non-significant score of .447 (see Table 10).

Descriptive Statistics. IBM’s SPSS-version 22, was used to calculate descriptive statistics

for all survey instrument items. An alpha level of .05 was set by the researcher as the cut-off

point for the significance level for all statistical analyses. The level of statistical significance

needed to reject a null hypothesis is less than .05, meaning that the “probability that we would

50

find the value we have in our sample if there was no relationship in the population is less than

5%” (Muijs, 2011, p.67). Statistics for each analysis were based on the cases with no missing or

out-of-range data for any variable in the analysis. The p-value is the metric used with a 95%

confidence interval of the difference. Summated scales were created for each of the

categories/variabilities.

Since statistical significance was found using the independent t-test, the researcher moved

on to examine and report the practical significance of the results. In comparing two groups, two

things need to be looked at: whether the relationship is statistically significant, and how large the

effect size is, which reveals the strength of the relationship. Since the p-value is less than 0.05 in

7 of 10 of the Independent Samples T-tests, then the difference is statistically significant.

The output from the nine t-tests for each area respectively showed if the two groups differed

significantly on each of the areas. The tenth t-test showed the differences in the total score of the

survey results between the two groups. This, in effect, provided the data needed to interpret the

results from the data analysis in order to answer RQ3: To what extent does the perceived level of

workforce skill sets of college students differ from the needed skill sets defined by employers in

the transition from college to the workforce?

All statistical analyses of the quantitative results were conducted using the Statistical

Package for Social Sciences software (IBM-SPSS), version 22.

T-test for Equality of Means. A 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference was used for

the t-test for Equality of Means. The results showed the null hypothesis can be rejected on 7

scales and on 3 scales (information use, resource management, and systems thinking), the results

fail to reject the null hypotheses.

51

Cohen’s d. The t-test indicated the level of statistical significance and Cohen’s d was used

as a measure of effect size. Cohen’s d suggests these guidelines for the measure of effect size to

determine whether an effect size is strong: 0-0.20=weak effect; 0.21-0.50=modest effect; 0.51-

1.00=moderate effect; and >1.00=strong effect (Muijs, 2011, p. 121).

The Cohen’s d statistical test for this research determined the effect size to have a moderate

effect (see Table 10) with a score between .51 and 1.00 (Muijs, 2011, p. 120). This calculation

shows the strength of the differences among the variables (Creswell, 2012).

Validity and Reliability

In quantitative research, generalization from the sample to the population is recommended.

To test for this, the concept of significance testing has been supplemented with effect size

measures (Muijs, 2011, p. 71). Cohen’s d, mentioned in the data analysis section above, is an

effect size measure and was used in this research study.

Validity basically indicates whether we are measuring what we purport to measure. There

are 3 main types of validity: content validity, criterion validity and construct validity. Validity is

a multidimensional construct; all three types of validity are used to show that it is a valid

measure (Muijs, 2011).

Validity and reliability are important in order that the results can be trusted. Because the

questions used in the survey for this research study vary from the questions utilized in the pre-

existing survey instrument (Appendix A), validity was established through a factor analysis,

which examined the structure of the items. Reliability, the extent to which test scores are free of

measurement error, was established through the coefficient alpha statistical test, a measure of

internal consistency, shown below (Muijs, 2011, p. 71).

52

Factor analysis. This exploratory statistical technique was performed to look at the

structure of the variables. This analysis ascertained the level of scale validity. With the factor

analysis, 80% of the variance was explained with eigenvalues greater than 1. Generally, only

eigenvalues above 1 are retained (Muijs, 2011, p. 200). One variable, personal qualities,

clustered with another variable, interpersonal skills. However, in order to stay true to the

employability skills conceptual framework which is guiding this research, this variable was not

eliminated nor reconfigured. Changing the configuration had the potential to change the thrust of

the research which is based on the conceptual framework. For purposes of this research, refer to

Appendix D, which shows the factor analysis in order to confirm the physicality of the variables

(Muijs, 2011).

Cronbach’s Alpha Statistical Test. This test was used to calculate the internal consistency

for reliability. For research purposes an acceptable guideline is an alpha coefficient of 0.7

(Muijs, p. 217). Only one variable, basic skills, fell below 0.7. The other variables scored high

based on the guideline of 0.7. The values for each of the variables are as follows:

• Basic skills .672

• Communication skills .858

• Information use .815

• Interpersonal skills .789

• Personal qualities .891

• Resource management .800

• Systems thinking .895

• Technology use .774

• Thinking skills .818

53

Timeline. The timeline for this proposed research study was Spring 2016 following

approval by Northeastern University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The researcher had

already made contacts with the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce Research Department,

Charlotte Works Research Department, and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte Career

Center, to obtain permissions to acquire email/contact lists and/or other access for businesses and

students to enable emailing a link to the online survey. The request for student information

included senior students who plan to graduate from the University in May 2016 with plans to

enter the workforce. In May 2016, the researcher sent a link to the web-based survey to Charlotte

Works and UNC at Charlotte University Career Center, who distributed the link to the

participants selected, both to employers and to college seniors who were completing their final

semester(s) prior to graduation.

To maximize the validity of the data, contact was made by the researcher with Charlotte

Works and UNC at Charlotte to ask for their endorsement of this research study in order to

encourage their businesses and students to participate. In this way both the University Career

Center and Charlotte/Mecklenburg businesses identified through Charlotte Works helped ensure

that adequate numbers of employers and students participated. Because web-based surveys for

students sometimes fall prey to a lack of adequate responses, an Amazon $100 gift card was

offered as an opportunity to participate in a drawing for those students who completed the

survey. The drawing was administered by UNC at Charlotte in order to protect the anonymity of

the students from the researcher.

Human Subjects

54

This study was designed to gain compliance with the regulations of the Institutional Review

Board (IRB), and an application for approval to conduct this research study was made. IRB

approval was granted on May 8, 2016.

Written permission was granted from the Director of the University Career Center at UNC

at Charlotte to partner with the University Career Center in order to move forward with

identifying subjects and distributing the student survey. Permission was also granted in writing

from the Research Department at Charlotte Works to have them assist in identifying employer

subjects and distributing the business survey.

A number was assigned to each participant to ensure anonymity. An informed consent form

was developed for distribution to students in order that student participants would know their

rights, agree to be involved in the study and know that their rights are being protected. For the

cluster sampling of employers, an informed consent form was developed to protect their

anonymity and confidentiality.

Summary

This study used survey research and quantitative methods to determine the differences

between employer’s perceptions of needed skill sets and college students’ perceptions of

acquired skill sets obtained during their studies. This correlational quantitative research study

design identified nine skill sets obtained within the Employability Skills Framework (U.S.

Department of Education, 2012) with 39 subscale identifying factors or skills. A sample of small,

medium, and large corporations with offices in a large city, Charlotte, Mecklenburg County,

North Carolina, in the United States, was surveyed using a Likert scale to determine which skills

identified within each set of skills were most needed in their organizations as they hire newly-

graduated college students. A student survey was distributed to graduating seniors at one large

55

four-year public research university, UNC at Charlotte, as they prepared to graduate and enter

the workforce. The potential limitations to validity and reliability were minimal. These

limitations included low-response rate, non-response, outliers, and adequate size of employer and

student samples. However, based on the results of the factor analysis and the Cronbach’s Alpha

statistical test, the researcher concluded that validity and reliability were achieved. The survey

questionnaire provided the data needed to interpret the results. Survey results were collected via

a web-based survey, SurveyGizmo, which exported data in SPSS format. All statistical analyses

were conducted with the help of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences software (IBM SPSS)

Version 22. The following chapter shows the results of these statistical analyses.

56

Chapter IV: Report of Research Findings

The purpose of this research was to compare the perceived employability skills between

employers and college graduates. Survey instruments were constructed and distributed to two

groups: graduating college seniors and employers. These surveys were created to identify and

measure discrepancies between the skill sets employers identify as needed for job readiness for

college graduates entering the workforce and the self-perceptions of those college graduates

entering the workforce. Data were collected and analyzed using a variety of statistical methods.

The most important results are summarized and synthesized below.

Survey Administration

Employer surveys were distributed to a designated representative from each of 1,833

businesses in the database of Charlotte Works. This database included major companies as well

as small businesses in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, who employ from 1

to over 500 employees. There were 37 businesses included in the original distribution of the

employer survey whose on-line invitations to participate in the survey were returned due to

incorrect or insufficient email addresses. However, the employer survey was successfully sent to

1,796 out of 1,833 businesses listed. The employer survey remained open for six weeks, during

which time three reminders were sent. At the conclusion of this time period, 42 employers’

responses were received. This number included only complete surveys; there were no partial

surveys received. The total number of employer responses used in this study was 42.

For most well-designed surveys, “the rates of item nonresponse are typically low” (Fowler,

2014, p. 137). However, because this research was conducted using web-based surveys, non-

response “can be very substantial” (Muijs, 2011, p. 36). The survey/questionnaire was well-

designed to where the estimated time for participants to complete the survey/questionnaire was

57

ten minutes. In the case of the student survey/questionnaire, students were given the option of

participating in a free drawing for an Amazon gift card. Both employers and students were

invited to participate in the web-based online survey and were thanked upon their completing the

survey. The response rate for the employers’ survey was 2.39% and the response rate for the

student survey was 5.82%. Even though the response rate was minimal, the results provide an

interesting look at the employability skills issue in the transition of students from college to the

workforce.

From the data file, a researcher can substitute up to 15% of missing data with scores without

altering the overall statistical findings (Creswell, 2015, p. 180). When the missing values were

replaced by the mean, it was confirmed that it did not alter the results. Since the missing data fell

below 5% in both the student and employer survey responses, no substitution was made for the

missing values.

Student surveys were distributed to all 2,838 seniors at the University of North Carolina at

Charlotte, (UNC at Charlotte) who were graduating in May 2016. The survey remained open for

one month, during which time three reminders were sent. At the conclusion of this time period,

205 student surveys were completed. Of these, 23 responses were quarantined by SurveyGizmo.

The answer pattern suggested that the respondent may have straight-lined or answered in a visual

pattern through the questions without reading the questions. For these quarantined responses, the

response time varied from 4.004 seconds per question to 14.868 seconds per question. After

review, these responses were filtered out of the SurveyGizmo reports and eliminated from the

study. There were also 16 partial responses. Since the number of student responses and the

number of employer responses needed to be balanced in order to perform the group difference

test, these partial responses were eliminated, bringing the number of usable student responses to

58

166. An SPSS sampling tool was then used to choose a random sample of 42 student responses

from the 166 usable student responses (Fowler, 2014). The overall total student responses used

in this study were 42. The response rate for the student survey was 5.82%. Of these responses,

25% were included in this study.

SurveyGizmo used a data cleaning tool to remove responses with a poor data quality score,

to identify and quarantine fast responses and to view and export quarantined responses. This

helped to eliminate skewing of the results.

Demographic Profile of Respondents

For the employer survey, the variables used to describe the employer population in

Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, included the number of employees within the

company responding, the position level of the respondent within the company, and the type of

business by industry.

For 63.4% of employer responses the number of individuals employed by the company

locally was between 1-99 employees, while 34.1% reported 100-499 employees employed by the

company locally (see Table 1).

Table 1

How many individuals are employed by your company locally?

Number of Employees # Percent

1-99 employees 26 63.41 100-499 employees 14 34.15 5,000 or more employees 1 2.44

Total 41 100.00 Missing 1 Total 42

59

When indicating the respondent’s position within the company, 73.8% of the respondents in

the employer survey held the following positions within their company:

CEO/President/Executive, Senior Leadership, or Mid-level Manager (see Table 2).

Table 2

Please indicate your position level within your organization? (Please select one)

Position Level # Percent CEO/President/Executive 9 21.40 Senior Leadership 12 28.60 Mid-level Manager 10 23.80 Supervisor 4 9.50 Team Leader 5 11.90 Individual Contributor 2 4.80 Total 42 100.00

The type of businesses within industry included a wide variety. The most responses came

from the manufacturing and professional/technology services industries. The remaining

industries listed few responses: healthcare and social assistance, retail trade, finance and

insurance, administration and waste services, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing,

educational services, construction, information, and arts and recreation. The category, other

services, did obtain several responses (see Table 3).

60

Table 3 Indicate the focus of industry (Mark all that apply)

Industry # Percent Health Care and Social Assistance

4 9.50

Retail Trade 1 2.40 Finance & Insurance 2 4.80 Accommodation & Food Services

0 0.00

Admin & Waste Services 1 2.40 Professional & Tech Services

9 21.40

Wholesale Trade 0 0.00 Manufacturing 10 23.80 Transportation & Warehousing

1 2.40

Management of Companies 0 0.00 Construction 2 4.80 Information 1 2.40 Public Administration 0 0.00 Arts & Recreation 1 2.40 Agriculture; Forestry 0 0.00 Mining 0 0.00 Other Services 13 31.00

Note: Employers could select more than one response so numbers and percentages do not add up

to 42 or 100%

For the student surveys, the variables used to describe the student population surveyed

while they were students at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, included age, gender,

race, number of years taken to complete degree, internship experience, major, minor, whether

they had already committed to a job upon graduation, and where they were seeking employment

upon graduation.

While 81.1% of the students identified as being between 20-24 years of age, only 7.1%

identified as being 36 or older (see Table 2). Female participants comprised 64.3%, and male

61

participants comprised 35.7% of the respondents (see Table 2). White/Caucasian respondents

made up the majority of respondents at 78.6% followed by Black/African American participants

at 11.9% (see Table 4).

Table 4 Demographics of student respondents

Demographics # Percent Age

20-24 years old 34 81.00 25-30 years old 5 11.90 36 years old and above 3 7.10

Gender

Male 15 35.70 Female 27 64.30

Race

White/Caucasian 33 78.60 Black/African American 5 11.90 Asian/Asian American 2 4.80 Latino/Hispanic 1 2.40 Other 1 2.40

Total 42 100.00

The number of years taken to complete their undergraduate degree showed 69.0%

completed their degree within four years, while 21.4% completed the degree in 5-6 years (see

Table 5).

Table 5

Please indicate the number of years taken to complete your undergraduate

degree?

Years # Percent Years 0-4 years 29 69.00 0-4 years 5-6 years 9 21.00 5-6 years 7-8 or more years 4 10.00 7-8 or more years Total 42 100.00 Total

62

During the undergraduate years, 69.0% indicated they completed internships (see Table 6).

When asked about their major and minor course of study, the responses were quite varied, from

mechanical engineering, computer engineering, business, mathematics, criminal justice, and

architecture to athletic training, communications, exercise science, elementary education, middle

grades education, psychology, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, and graphic art and design

(see Table 7).

Table 6

During your undergraduate years, did you complete any internships?

Response # Percent Yes 29 69.00 No 13 31.00

Total 42 100.00

Table 7 Indicate your course of study--both your major and minor(s)

Area of Study # Percent Accounting 2 4.80 Architecture 1 2.40 Athletic training 1 2.40 Bachelors of science in business administration with a concentration in operations and supply chain

1 2.40

BS mathematics minor computer sciences

1 2.40

Communication studies 1 2.40 Communication, psychology 1 2.40 Computer Engineering 1 2.40 Computer science, philosophy 1 2.40 Criminal justice and military science

1 2.40

Criminal Justice, Psychology, and Sociology

1 2.40

CS Business 1 2.40

63

Double major: psychology and criminal justice

1 2.40

Earth and Environmental Science B.S.

1 2.40

Economics, Finance 1 2.40 Elementary education and reading education

1 2.40

Exercise science 1 2.40 Exercise Science 1 2.40 Finance 2 4.80 Graphic Design & Art History 1 2.40 Major-Sociology, minor- Women's and gender study

1 2.40

Major: Communication Studies; Minors: Public Health, Spanish

1 2.40

Major: Finance Minor: Economics

1 2.40

major: international business, minor: Spanish, Economics

1 2.40

Management Information Systems

1 2.40

Marketing 2 4.80 Marketing, Psychology 1 2.40 Mechanical Engineering 1 2.40 Mechanical Engineering 1 2.40 Middle Grades Education 1 2.40 Middle grades Education, English and Science

1 2.40

Psychology and Anthropology 1 2.40 Psychology and minor 1 2.40 Psychology and Sociology 1 2.40 Public Relations and sociology

1 2.40

Social Work 1 2.40 Spanish 1 2.40 Special Education Minor: Urban Youth and Communities

1 2.40

Systems Engineering with a minor in mathematics

1 2.40

Total 42 100.00

64

There were 61.9% responses indicating these students had not committed to a full-time job

upon graduation (see Table 8). As far as where students were seeking employment upon

graduation, the majority indicated Charlotte-Mecklenburg as well as North Carolina (see Table

8).

Table 8 Are you already committed to a full-time job upon graduation?

Response # Percent

Yes 16 38.10 No 26 61.90

Total 42 100.00

Table 9 Where are you seeking employment upon graduation?

Where: # Percent Charlotte-Mecklenburg 29 69.00 North Carolina 30 71.40 Southeastern United

States 8 19.00

Other United States 7 16.70 Other Countries 1 2.40

Note: Students could select more than one response so numbers and percentages do not add up to 42 or

100%

These data helped to give interesting insights into the demographic characteristics of the

student survey group of respondents.

Results and Discussion of Research Question One and Research Question Two

RQ1: To what extent do employers view college graduates as having the skill sets needed

for a successful transition to the workforce when interviewing for a job?

65

RQ2: To what extent would soon-to-be college graduates entering the workforce rate

themselves from1-5 as having the skill sets needed for a successful transition to the workforce

when interviewing for a job?

Ranked frequency tables of the 9 variables which included basic skills, communication

skills, information use skills, interpersonal skills, personal skills, resource managements skills,

systems thinking skills, technology use skills, and thinking skills, follow. The data on these

tables answer RQ1 and RQ2 (see Tables 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19). Each table shows

a comparison of the mean ranked order within each of the listed variables. For responses in the

employers’ survey, the Likert scale consisted of five categories: (a) 1=unimportant; (b) 2=little

importance; (c) 3=somewhat important; (d) 4=important; and (e) 5=very important. For

responses in the student’s survey, the Likert scale consisted of five categories from low to high:

(a) 1=very low skill; (b) 2=low skill; (c) 3=medium/moderate skill; (d) 4=high skill; and (e)

5=very high skill.

These tables present the N size of the student and employer population, the mean, and the

standard deviation for each of the 9 variables. Each variable has a number of subscales listed that

comprise the variable, which is described in each table. For further analysis, refer to Appendix F

for the mean ranked order of all the individual items for the student group and for the employer

group.

It is interesting to note the mean scores for 34 of the 39 subscales showed employers

ranking the skills needed higher than the students perceived acquisition of these skills. The mean

scores for 5 of the 39 subscales showed students ranking the skills acquired higher than the

employers needed skills. The 5 subscales were: exercising leadership, managing money,

managing personnel, improving systems and monitoring systems.

66

Table 11 Comparison of mean ranked order within basic skills between both groups

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following? Student

Basic Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Reading skills: basic skills 42 3 5 4.048 0.795 Writing skills: basic skills 42 3 5 4.025 0.780 Math strategies/procedures: basic skills

42 1 5 3.537 0.965

Scientific principles/procedures: basic skills

42 1 5 3.317 0.922

To what extent is each of the following important in the hiring of college graduates?

Employer

Basic Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Reading skills: basic skills 42 2 5 4.738 0.627 Writing skills: basic skills 42 3 5 4.714 0.508 Math strategies/procedures: basic skills

42 1 5 4.095 1.008

Scientific principles/procedures: basic skills

42 1 5 3.000 1.012

67

Table 12 Comparison of mean ranked order within communication skills between both groups

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following? Student

Communication Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Comprehending written material: communication skills

42 2 5 4.122 0.802

Listening actively: communication skills

42 2 5 4.098 0.932

Communicating verbally: communication skills

42 2 5 4.095 0.878

Conveying information in writing: communication skills

42 1 5 3.951 0.987

To what extent is each of the following important in the hiring of college graduates? Employer

Communication Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Communicating verbally: communication skills

42 4 5 4.781 0.414

Listening actively: communication skills

42 4 5 4.732 0.443

Comprehending written material: communication skills

42 3 5 4.463 0.588

Conveying information in writing: communication skills

42 3 5 4.439 0.586

68

Table 13 Comparison of mean ranked order within information use skills between both groups

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following? Student

Information Use Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Using information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.191 0.804

Organizing information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.167 0.794

Locating information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.095 0.878

Analyzing information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.071 0.778

Employer

Information Use Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Using information: information use skills

42 3 5 4.537 0.545

Organizing information: information use skills

42 3 5 4.268 0.663

Locating information: information use skills

42 3 5 4.220 0.681

Analyzing information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.146 0.718

69

Table 14 Comparison of mean ranked order within interpersonal skills between both groups

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following? Student

Interpersonal Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Respecting individual differences: interpersonal skills

42 3 5 4.366 0.724

Understanding teams & working with others: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 4.119 0.942

Responding to customer needs: interpersonal skills

42 1 5 4.073 1.045

Exercising leadership: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 4.000 0.796

Negotiating to resolve conflict: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 3.829 0.793

To what extent is each of the following important in the hiring of college graduates? Employer

Interpersonal Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Responding to customer needs: interpersonal skills

42 3 5 4.691 0.517

Understanding teams & working with others: interpersonal skills

42 3 5 4.667 0.570

Respecting individual differences: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 4.452 0.739

Exercising leadership: interpersonal skills

42 3 5 3.976 0.563

Negotiating to resolve conflict: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 3.905 0.878

70

Table 15 Comparison of mean ranked order within personal qualities between both groups

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following? Student

Personal Qualities N Min Max Mean SD

Integrity: personal qualities 42 2 5 4.476 0.804 Professionalism: personal qualities 42 1 5 4.286 0.891 Initiative & positive attitude: personal qualities

42 1 5 4.167 0.908

Adapting & showing flexibility: personal qualities

42 2 5 4.095 0.759

Self-discipline: personal qualities 42 2 5 4.071 0.894 To what extent is each of the following important in the hiring of college graduates? Employer

Personal Qualities N Min Max Mean SD

Integrity: personal qualities 42 4 5 4.878 0.327 Initiative & positive attitude: personal qualities

42 4 5 4.833 0.377

Professionalism: personal qualities 42 4 5 4.714 0.457 Self-discipline: personal qualities 42 4 5 4.643 0.485 Adapting & showing flexibility: personal qualities

42 3 5 4.500 0.552

71

Table 16 Comparison of mean ranked order within resource management skills between both

groups

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following? Student

Resource Management Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Managing time: resource management skills

42 2 5 4.071 0.894

Managing resources: resource management skills

42 2 5 3.781 0.924

Managing money: resource management skills

42 1 5 3.762 1.031

Managing personnel: resource management skills

42 1 5 3.650 1.001

To what extent is each of the following important in the hiring of college graduates? Employer

Resource Management Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Managing time: resource management skills

42 3 5 4.512 0.546

Managing resources: resource management skills

42 3 5 3.951 0.623

Managing money: resource management skills

42 1 5 3.610 0.907

Managing personnel: resource management skills

42 1 5 3.244 1.031

72

Table 17 Comparison of mean ranked order within systems thinking skills between both groups

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following? Student

Systems Thinking Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Understanding & using systems:systems thinking skills

42 2 5 3.786 0.898

Improving systems:systems thinking skills

42 2 5 3.463 0.886

Monitoring systems:systems thinking skills

42 2 5 3.463 0.886

To what extent is each of the following important in the hiring of college graduates? Employer

Systems Thinking Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Understanding & using systems:systems thinking skills

42 2 5 4.024 0.715

Improving systems:systems thinking skills

42 1 5 3.390 0.694

Monitoring systems:systems thinking skills

42 1 5 3.390 0.694

73

Table 18

Comparison of mean ranked order within technology use skills between both groups

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following? Student

Technology Use Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Email ethics and etiquette: technology use skills

42 2 5 4.119 0.889

Applied technology in your discipline: technology use skills

42 2 5 3.929 0.894

Ability to use Microsoft Office Suites: technology use skills

42 1 5 3.857 1.049

Managing distraction of social media:technology use skills

42 1 5 3.762 1.078

To what extent is each of the following important in the hiring of college graduates? Employer

Technology Use Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Email ethics and etiquette: technology use skills

42 3 5 4.634 0.574

Ability to use Microsoft Office Suites: technology use skills

42 2 5 4.293 0.804

Managing distraction of social media:technology use skills

42 1 5 4.195 0.968

Applied technology in your discipline: technology use skills

42 2 5 4.024 0.811

74

Table 19 Comparison of mean ranked order within thinking and analytical skills between both

groups

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following? Student

Thinking & Analytical Skills N Min Max Mean SD

Making sound decisions: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.238 0.726

Planning/organizing: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.171 0.729

Solving problems: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.071 0.745

Critical thinking: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.071 0.778

Analytical reasoning: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 3.976 0.715

Thinking creatively: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 3.952 0.795

To what extent is each of the following important in the hiring of college graduates? Employer

Thinking & Analytical Skills Min Max Mean SD

Critical thinking: thinking & analytical skills

42 4 5 4.691 0.468

Solving problems: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.691 0.563

Making sound decisions: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.571 0.630

Planning/organizing: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.548 0.550

Analytical reasoning: thinking & analytical skills

42 2 5 4.405 0.735

Thinking creatively: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.214 0.717

75

Survey Results for Open-ended Questions

To further answer RQ1 and RQ2, a content analysis of the open-ended question in each of

the two surveys is discussed by referring to the word clouds, which show word frequencies

generated by the qualitative data (see Chart 1 and Chart 2). In the Employer Survey, employers

were asked to respond to one open-ended statement as follows: “Please share with us any

comments you may have about the needed workforce skills of your prospective college graduates

when considering their employment.” In the Student Survey, students were asked to respond to

one open-ended statement as follows: “Please share with us any comments you may have about

your preparedness to enter the workforce based on your employability skill sets.”

The responses received by both employers and students in the portion of the survey asking

for their additional comments on the employability topic were quite interesting. Both the

employers’ and students’ comments strengthened the premise that there is a difference between

the perceived level of workforce skill sets of college students and the needed skill sets defined by

employers in the transition from college to the workforce. The statistical t-tests also shows a

statistically significant difference (see Table 10).

The word clouds presented here (see Chart 1 and Chart 2) give a visual method of

presenting this qualitative data by focusing on word frequencies. The more frequent the word is

used in the comments, the larger and bolder the word is displayed in the word cloud. For

example, the employers word cloud highlights the words ‘skills’ ‘work’ ‘learn’ ‘thinking’ ‘ethic’

‘interview’ ‘critical’ ‘knowledge’ ‘people.’ Employers were focusing on seeking employees with

acquired skill sets to bring to the workforce, at which time those skill sets can be adapted to

transition college graduates into the type employee who will be successful in the workforce. One

employer wrote, “First and foremost is the ability to listen reflectively and to think critically.

76

Having common sense and initiative are a must.” Another employer wrote, “Professionalism,

interview skills, and self-sufficiency needed.” These comments reflect the ranked order of skill

sets that were gathered in the surveys that are most important to employers (see Table 10).

In addition, the following three responses captured common themes among the employer’s

responses. “Strong work ethic is required. What you can do for our organization instead of what

we can do for you is valued.” “Recent graduates have noticeably weak interviewing skills.” “We

look for potential employees to be ethical—hardworking—dedicated to acquiring new skills—a

willingness to learn and grow.”

Chart 1. SurveyGizmo, (2016).

Word cloud displaying employer responses to open-ended statement.

In contrast, the student word cloud highlights the words ‘feel’ ‘UNCC’ ‘college’

‘employment’ ‘job’ ‘full-time’ ‘enter.’ Students, on the other hand, were feeling their way into

77

job seeking yet questioning their preparedness. As an example, three students’ comments

reflected the ‘feeling’ that they are ready for employment, yet do not elaborate on the ‘why’

except to question ‘where to start looking.’ However, one student applauded the Hire-A-Niner

program offered through the University Career Center. Some students cited the importance of

internships. Seeking employment in the workforce is important; however, comments failed to

focus on skill sets they perceived they had acquired in their undergraduate years.

In addition, the following three responses captured common themes among the student’s

responses. “Confident, but I think there should be more hands on skill development taught at the

undergraduate level.” “Felt unprepared in terms of Excel skills, especially for Finance. Would

have liked more personal finance education.” “I feel that my internship gave me better insight on

finding a job.”

Chart 2. SurveyGizmo, (2016)

Word cloud displaying student responses to open-ended statement

78

Results and Discussion of Research Question Three

RQ3: To what extent does the perceived level of workforce skill sets of college students

differ from the needed skill sets defined by employers in the transition from college to the

workforce?

Overall, the independent samples t-tests (see Table 10) revealed a statistically-significant

difference between the perceived level of workforce skill sets of college students and the needed

skill sets defined by employers. The employers set high expectations of skill sets needed, while

the students indicated their lack of the adequacy of their preparation in attaining the skill sets

employers were seeking.

Hypotheses and Null Hypotheses.

H0: There is no statistically-significant difference that exists between the skill sets needed

by employers in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and those skill sets acquired by

recent college graduates at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Since there is a statistically-significant difference as shown in the independent samples t-

tests for 7 of the components: basic skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills, personal

qualities, technology use, thinking skills, and all factors combined, the researcher rejects the null

hypothesis for these 7 components. Since there was no statistically-significant difference as

shown in the independent samples t-tests for 3 of the components: information use, resource

management, and systems thinking, the researcher fails to reject the null hypothesis for these 3

components.

H1: Statistically significant differences exist between the skill sets needed by employers in

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, and those skill sets acquired by recent college

graduates at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

79

Independent Samples Tests. These tests were conducted to compare the two independent

groups to determine whether there was a significant difference between the two groups,

employers in relation to their perceived employability skills needed in the workforce and the

students in relation to their perceived employability skills upon entering the workforce. The 10

tests revealed a statistically significant difference among 7 of the 10 variables (see Table 10).

Included are a number of descriptive statistics: number of respondents, mean, and the standard

deviation for each of the two groups, students and employers.

As shown in Table 10, the independent samples t-tests, the Cohen’s d is shown in the

column identified as “d.” The value under the ‘t’ column gives us the actual t-test statistic. The

‘df’ column shows the degree of freedom and the ‘sig’ column shows our significance level. The

independent samples t-tests revealed a significant difference between the two groups, students

and employers, in 7 of the 10 t-tests. The 7 t-tests showing a significant difference are as follows:

Basic skills (t = -3.57, df = 75, p < .05).

Communication skills (t = -4.10, df = 58, p < .05).

Interpersonal skills (t = -2.18, df = 73, p < .05).

Personal qualities (t = -4.10, df = 56, p < .05).

Technology use (t = -2.60, df = 68, p < .05).

Thinking skills (t = -4.40, df = 72, p < .05).

All factors (t = -3.32, df = 65, p < .05).

The 3 t-tests showing no significant difference are as follows:

Information use (t = -1.25, df = 82, p > .05).

Resource management (t = -.09, df = 82, p > .05).

80

Systems thinking

(t = -.58, df = 82,

p > .05).

Table 10

Mean differences between students and employers-independent samples t-tests analyses

Group

Student Employer

Component df Mean SD Mean SD t p d

Basic Skills 75 14.926 2.588 16.691 1.880 -3.574** 0.001 -0.551

Communication

Skills 58 16.266 3.077 18.415 1.431 -4.104*** 0.000 -0.633

Information Use 82 16.524 2.568 17.171 2.152 -1.251 0.214 -0.193

Interpersonal

Skills 73 20.578 2.901 21.762 1.998 -2.179* 0.033 -0.336

Personal

Qualities 56 21.095 3.594 23.569 1.548 -4.096*** 0.000 -0.632

81

Resource

Management 73 15.264 3.318 15.317 2.289 -0.086 0.932 -0.013

Systems

Thinking 65 10.713 2.520 10.972 1.423 -0.580 0.564 -0.089

Technology Use 68 15.667 3.244 17.194 1.990 -2.601* 0.011 -0.401

Thinking Skills 72 24.480 3.284 27.167 2.208 -4.400*** 0.000 -0.679

All Components 65 156.822 18.593 167.779 10.503 -3.325** 0.001 -0.513

Note: ***p<.001. ** p <.01. *p <.05.

d = MS – ME / σpooled; where σpooled = √ σ2s + σ2e / 2

df=N-2 where equal variances assumed and Levine’s test for equality of variances not significant

or N where equal variances not assumed and Levine’s test for equality of variances was

significant at p <.05.

82

Overall, as stated earlier, the independent samples t-tests (see Table 10) revealed a

statistically-significant difference between those skill sets perceived by students as having

acquired as they transition to the workforce and the skill sets needed by employers. Thus, these

independent samples t-tests provide answers for RQ3. Discussion of these findings follow in

Chapter 5.

83

Chapter V: Results, Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations

The purpose of this quantitative correlational research study was to compare the

perceived employability skills between employers and college graduates. This research study

using as a conceptual framework the Employability Skills Framework could help to identify

the expected/desired workforce preparedness of college graduates. Survey instruments were

constructed and distributed to two groups: graduating college seniors and employers. These

surveys were created to identify and measure the discrepancies between the skill sets

employers identify as needed for job readiness for college graduates entering the workforce

and the self-perceptions of those college graduates about having acquired these needed skill

sets as they prepare to enter the workforce. This chapter discusses the findings reported in

chapter four, assesses the implications for theory and practice, makes recommendations for

potential subsequent leadership actions, and includes suggestions for future research based on

the results of this research study.

Results

The three research questions were:

RQ1: To what extent do employers view college graduates as having the skill sets needed

for a successful transition to the workforce when interviewing for a job?

RQ2: To what extent would soon-to-be college graduates entering the workforce rate

themselves from 1-5 as having the skill sets needed for a successful transition to the

workforce when interviewing for a job?

RQ3: To what extent does the perceived level of workforce skill sets of college students

differ from the needed skill sets defined by employers in the transition from college to

the workforce?

84

Overall, the ranked frequency tables shown in Chapter 4 displayed the extent to which

employers viewed college graduates as having the skill sets needed to transition successfully to

the workforce and showed to what extent the college graduates entering the workforce rated

themselves as having acquired the needed skill sets for a successful transition to the workforce.

The data suggests that the student respondents’ level of perception of their having acquired all

employability skills listed was between a score of medium/moderate skill level (category 3)

and high skill level (category 4). Employer respondents, on the other hand, listed the

importance of all surveyed employability skills between important (category 4) and very

important (category 5). Student respondents placed 61% of the 39 skills in the high skill level

(category 4). On the other hand, the data suggests that the employer respondents, on a Likert

scale of 1-5, placed 80% of the 39 skills in the important level (category 4) indicating the

importance of skill sets needed by college graduates to be successful in the workforce. The

employability skill with the highest mean for the students was “integrity” within the personal

qualities variable (M = 4.476), while “scientific principles/procedures” within the basic skills

variable, (M = 3.317) had the lowest mean. For the employers, the employability skill with the

highest mean was “integrity,” within the personal qualities variable (M = 4.878), while

“scientific principles/procedures” within the basic skills variable, (M = 3.000) had the lowest

mean.

In describing the ranked frequency tables, it became evident that employers had high

expectations of job skills needed when interviewing college graduates for a job and students

felt under-prepared with how they perceived they have acquired the needed skill sets

employers are looking for. Thus, research questions #1 and #2 were answered.

85

Overall, as stated earlier, the independent samples t-tests (see Table 10) revealed a

statistically-significant difference, <.05, between those skill sets perceived by students as

acquired as they transition to the workforce and the skill sets needed by employers. Thus, these

independent samples t-tests provide answers for RQ3. It is important to note because the

statistical significance was <.05, it is more probable that the “differences found between our

samples also would be found in the populations from which they were drawn” (Gall, Gall, &

Borg, 2003, p. 139).

Implications

Implications for practice. Why is job preparedness for college graduates so important?

The literature review makes mention of the 2006 Workforce Readiness Report Card, which

included results from a survey of more than 400 Fortune 500 companies. That study found the

nation’s new workforce entrants “woefully ill-prepared for the demands of today’s—and

tomorrow’s—workplace” (McIntire & McLester, 2006, p. 22).

The results of this study have the potential to contribute to educational practices during

any educational policy change discussions. These discussions and follow-up actions should

help fill the gap between theory, research, and practice in our higher education institutions.

Higher education institutions may then be in a better position to implement suggested changes

regarding employability skills needed to better prepare their graduates for success in the

workforce. There are three prime entities involved in implementing change in public

education: (1) the higher education institutions who prepare students to enter the workforce,

(2) the employers whose businesses hire college graduates, and (3) education policy makers.

This study, therefore, is directed at increasing the existing levels of knowledge among

employers, higher education institutions, and policy makers on what skill sets are needed by

86

college graduates from four-year postsecondary institutions to be successfully employed in the

workforce and beyond.

Implications for theory. As stated previously in the literature review, national surveys

consistently indicate that businesses have difficulty finding employees with the right skills

(Abernathy, 2014; McIntire & McLester, 2006; Needleman, 2014). Since the 1990s, research

examining the outcomes of post-secondary education after college graduates transition into the

workforce has been studied more extensively. This is when the “career success of graduates

started to be used as a key indicator to measure the quality of education in general, and higher

education in particular” (Teichler, 2009, p. 15). Improving graduates’ employability became a

subject that was gaining attention. One reason was because the needs in the labor market were

changing due to technological advances and the globalization of the economy. This is where a

gap existed. Much of past research dwelled on business needs or college graduates’ skills

separately. There was no coordination of how to reach a level of continuity between needs in

the workforce and skills being acquired at the university level. Differences in findings were

not readily apparent or researched as communication between businesses and postsecondary

institutions was not based on clear definitions of skills needed from a theoretical or conceptual

framework as is done in this research study.

The results of this research study indicate that the use of the employability skills

framework (U.S. Department of Education, 2012) served as a valuable tool to define skills and

skill sets needed in today’s workforce. Clear differences are shown in this study to have a level

of statistical significance between the needs of the workforce and the students’ perceived level

of having acquired these skills. A comparison of these two populations led to some interesting

results that should help in the communication of institutions of higher education and business

87

and industry, as well as policy makers, in order to further clarify the employability skills

needed in today’s rapidly changing world. These results show that the employability skill sets,

including academic preparedness, are needed for college graduates to make a successful

transition to the workforce.

Diagram 1. Employability Skills Framework

Diagram 1. U.S. Department of Education (2012)

This Employability Skills conceptual Framework used in this research study was

developed as part of an initiative of the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, U.S.

Department of Education. The skills identified in this conceptual framework were the result of

a complex set of intersecting factors as stated in the OECD Skills Studies, 2013 (U.S.

88

Department of Education, 2013). It was created to be used as a diagnostic tool to guide

changes that may be needed or suggested in our education system. Future research can expand

on the employability skills framework and the results shown in this study in order to reach a

broader spectrum of the higher education institutions and businesses.

Future Research and Recommendations

Suggestions for future research. A good deal of research was included in the literature

review listing the various skills needed by employers when hiring college graduates. However,

there was not a clear consensus, not only on the skill sets needed, but also on how to define the

sets of skills needed. For example, some refer to these sets of skills as career skills, 21st -

century skills, or soft skills. Despite the lack of a consensus for a working definition of

employability skills among various researchers across the world, the international articles

researched in this study highlighted the changing nature of employability skills for a global

economy. For example, basic skills previously deemed as life skills now necessitate having

skills that can be linked to performance outcomes and mobility (Chi Man Ng, Loke, Ramos, &

Sung, 2013).

Further research is needed that places more focus on using this conceptual framework

(see Diagram 1) to broaden the scope of the current research. Larger samples and different

groups of research participants, including a variety of education institutions, could enhance the

findings. This study focused on the differences between the needs of businesses in the hiring

of college graduates and the students’ perceptions of whether they had acquired the needed

skills to be successful in their transition to the workforce. Yet, there is much more that can be

done in order to instigate the changes needed in our education system.

89

The factors analysis did show one of nine variables, personal qualities, was clustered with

another variable, interpersonal skills. This information could be helpful to the U.S. Department

of Education as they seek to update and redefine variables within the employability skills

framework as they continue to use this framework as a diagnostic tool to guide changes in our

educational system.

Another area that was brought out in the student surveys when collecting demographic

data was the topic of internships. One variable used to describe the student population

surveyed while a student at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte was the completion

of internships. It was revealed that 69% of those surveyed did complete at least one internship.

Thus, the importance of internships is a relevant topic for future research. In the student

survey, students were to respond to the open-ended statement: “Please share with us any

comments you may have about your preparedness to enter the workforce based on your

employability skill sets.” One student comment says: “I’ve never had an issue with

employability and I’ve been able to keep an internship since my junior year of college.” This

would make for an interesting and needed research study, as employers responded to the need

for college graduates to have work experience. Internships would definitely meet this criteria.

In addition, an observation included in the literature review stated that the data collected

through the Gallup-Purdue Index (2014) suggests additional meaningful college internships

and partnerships between industry and postsecondary institutions were very important.

Competency in foreign language would be a useful topic for future research because of

the global economy and emerging needs from businesses at home and abroad. In the student

demographic data, 14% cited as a major or minor, Spanish, yet no additional comments were

made by employers or students as to what, if any, importance foreign language would be as an

90

additional skill set for a student transitioning into the workforce. In the American Council of

Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) report, What Will They Learn? (2013-14), they recommended

the general education program at a university must require at least six of seven courses

including intermediate-level foreign language. ACTA cites the other six courses required for a

foundational undergraduate education should include: composition, literature, U.S. history or

government, economics, mathematics, and natural science.

Recommendations. Connecting college to career has been one of the goals of higher

education since the founding in 1636 of Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher

education in the United States. If, in fact, connecting college to career continues to be one of

the goals of higher education, then this study points to the need to revisit how students are

prepared in postsecondary education institutions to transition to the workforce. Perhaps, higher

education institutions need to be more accountable for results in the preparation of their

students for the workforce.

Included in the review of the literature, the purpose of the Gallup-Purdue Index (2014)

was discussed, which was a response to a call for more accountability in higher education

institutions. Universities need to provide more information about learning outcomes in order to

assure that their curriculum is meeting the needs of students by connecting them to the

workforce prepared to become successful in their chosen field. In order to do that, universities

need to perform curricular self-examinations to expose what reforms may be needed to effect a

better outcome for their students in the transition to the workforce upon graduation.

This research study on the differences of the perceived employability skills between

employers and college graduates confirmed the need to do just that. With educational policy

91

clarification, there is also a need to connect the definition of employability skills at the college

level and the business level where graduating college students are seeking employment.

When we seek to provide outcomes for college graduates as to the skill sets acquired during

their college years, future research could do a longitudinal study of graduates from various

postsecondary institutions two years after their graduation to access whether the employment

of college graduates had remained stable over that time period. This would add a valuable

piece of data to the current literature.

In addition, employers in business and industry need to provide more meaningful college

internships with our postsecondary institutions. It is hoped that this study will shed light upon

the potential need for higher education administrators, employers, and policy makers, to build

these additional and more meaningful partnerships for a mutual goal: to ensure that graduates

possess the skill sets desired in the current workforce and beyond.

Conclusions

Basically, the following conclusions were derived from this quantitative research study.

The above results and findings helped confirm what has been written about the needed

employability skills to ensure career readiness of college students.

For example, in 2002 the Council for Aid to Education began developing the Collegiate

Learning Assessment (CLA). The results of the CLA in 2014 showed forty percent of college

graduates were found to be “unprepared for the white-collar workforce because they had not

developed the skills” such as critical thinking and written communication, between their

freshman and senior years of college. The CLA in 2014 was administered to 32,000 students

from 169 colleges (Saffron, J., 2015, p. 19).

92

Surveyed businesses in this research study rated 34 of the 39 subscales of skill sets higher

than students rated their perception of the acquisition of the same skill sets. This clearly shows

businesses have higher expectations for college students they hire in order to ensure a

successful transition to the workforce. On the other hand, the results of this research clearly

show that subjects overwhelmingly felt they were under-prepared for the workforce upon

college graduation. This should serve as a wake-up call for higher education institutions. Many

of their reputations are at stake. These results show unequivocally that in today’s rapidly-

changing technological and global world, college graduates agree with the businesses surveyed

in this study that they are under-prepared to enter the workforce with the needed skill sets,

both academic skills and soft skills. Changes are needed and they are needed now in order for

the United States of America to remain competitive in the global market.

It is hoped that this study will shed light upon the potential need for higher education

administrators and employers to build partnerships for a mutual goal: to ensure that graduates

possess the skill sets desired in the current workforce and beyond.

Postscript

What can be done with these findings? When I embarked on this incredible doctoral

journey at Northeastern University, most professors made it very clear that their doctoral

students needed to become change agents for whatever results were discovered during the

dissertation process in order to make a positive contribution in the field of educational

excellence. That is my responsibility and I take that very seriously. If college graduates don’t

feel prepared for the workforce, as the findings in this research show, what action steps can be

taken to turn these findings into action?

93

This study gives additional information to communicate and connect what employability

skill sets are needed from college graduates that businesses say are important. Networking

with a call to action with those three entities primarily involved in implementing change in

public education will be a first step: (1) the higher education institutions who prepare students

to enter the workforce, (2) the employers whose businesses hire college graduates, and (3)

education policy makers. I need to share and encourage change at the university level in order

that students can benefit and become more competent and confident when they transition from

college to the workforce.

94

References

Abernathy, T. (2014, November 21). Gaps between employers, workers: Work-force

development needs transformation. Charlotte Business Journal, 21-22.

American College Testing (2012). The condition of college & career readiness, 2012: North

Carolina. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED534953

American Council of Trustees and Alumni. (2013-2014). Top “flagship” universities failing

students. Inside Academe, 19(3), 1-2.

American Council of Trustees and Alumni. (2013-2014). What will they learn? Executive

summary. Retrieved from www.goacta.org

Badunenko, O., Henderson, D. J., & Zelenyuk, V. (2008). Technological change and transition:

Relative contributions to worldwide growth during the 1990s. Oxford Bulletin of

Economics and Statistics, 70(4), 461-492.

Barnes, W., Slate, J., & Rojas-LeBouef, A. (2010). College-readiness and academic

preparedness: The same concepts? Current Issues in Education, 13(4), 1-27.

Bennett, R. (2002). Employers’ demands for personal transferable skills in graduates: A content

analysis of 1000 job advertisements and an associated empirical study. Journal of

Vocational Education and Training, 54(4), 457-474.

Beveridge, W. (1909). Unemployment: A problem of industry. London, England: Longmans,

Green and Co.

Boote, D. N., & Beile, P. (2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the

dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3-

15.

95

Bridgstock, R. (2011). Skills for creative industries graduate success. Education + Training,

53(1), 9-26.

Cai, Y. (2013, April). Graduate employability: A conceptual framework for understanding

Employers’ perceptions. Higher Education. 65(4), 457-469.

Camara, W. (2013). Defining and measuring college and career readiness: A validation

framework. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 32(4), 16-27.

Chi Man Ng., M., Loke, F., Ramos, C., & Sung, J. (2013). The nature of employability skills:

Empirical evidence from Singapore. International Journal of Training and Development,

17(3), 176-193.

Conley, D. T. (2010). College and career ready: Helping all students succeed beyond high

school. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Coon, J. H. (2014, April 20). Community colleges creating tomorrow’s workforce. The Charlotte

Observer, 24A.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative

and qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five

traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Crossman, J. E., & Clarke, M. (2010). International experience and graduate employability:

Stakeholder perceptions on the connection. Higher Education, 59, 599-613.

96

Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2012, January). Employability

skills framework: Stage 1 Final Report, 1-21. Retrieved from

http://www.vetpd.qld.gov.au/resources/pdf/tla/employability-skills-framework-phase-1-

report

Finch, D. J., Hamilton, L. K., Baldwin, R., & Zehner, M. (2013). An exploratory study of factors

affecting undergraduate employability. Education + Training, 55(7), 681-704.

Fowler, F. J., Jr. (2014). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fraenkel, J., & Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. (2011). How to design and evaluate research in

education (8th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. NY: Continuum International Publishing Group.

(Original work published in 1970).

Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.).

Boston: Pearson Education.

Gallup-Perdue Index (2014). Great Jobs; Great Lives, 1-23. Retrieved from pdf file

GallupPurdueIndex Report 2014 050514 mh LR pdf (118MB)

Gallup-Perdue Index (2015). Great Jobs; Great Lives, 1-24. Retrieved from pdf file

http://www.gallup.com/services/185924/gallup-purdue-index-2015-report.aspx

Gazier, B. (1998). Employability: Definitions and trends. In Gazier, B. (Ed.), Employability:

Concepts and policies. Berlin, Germany: European Employment Observatory.

Goldschmidt, N. P. (July-August, 2005). Lessons learned from surveying employers. Assessment

Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in Higher Education. 17(4), 1-3.

Hagerty, J. R. (2014, May 13). Skilled worker supplier fuels U. S. manufacturing revival. The

Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from

97

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560014176690166

Hamblett, J., & Holden, R. (2007). The transition from higher education into work: Tales of

cohesion and fragmentation. Education & Training, 49(7), 516-585.

Hitt, A., Keats, B. W., & DeMarie, S. M. (1998). Navigating in the new competitive landscape:

Building strategic flexibility and competitive advantage in the 21st century. Academy of

Management Executive, 12(4), 22-42.

Hollister, D., (2015). College & workforce readiness: Bridging the gap. Pearson Math Instructor

Exchange. Retrieved from www.instructorexchange.com

Holton III, E. F., & Russell, C. J. (1999). Organizational entry and exit: An exploratory

longitudinal examination of early careers. Human Performance, 12(3/4), 1-

24.

Hooker, S. & Brand, B. (2010). College knowledge: A critical component of college and career

readiness. New Directions for Youth Development, 75-86.

Hoy, W. K. (2010). Quantitative research in education: a primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jusoh, M., Simun, M., & Chong, S. C. (2011). Expectation gaps, job satisfaction, and

organizational commitment of fresh graduates roles of graduates, higher learning

institutions and employers. Education + Training, 53(6), 515-530.

Kenny, A., English, R., & Kilmartin, D. (2007). “Key skills framework: Enhancing

employability within a lifelong learning paradigm.” Articles. Paper 2, 1-35.

http://arrow.dit.ie/dirreart/2.

Laerd Statistics. (2013). Independent t-test using SPSS statistics. Retrieved from

https://statistics.laerd.com/SPSS-

Lombardi, A. R., Conley, D. T., Seburn, M. A., & Downs, A. M. (2012). College and career

98

readiness assessment: Validation of the key cognitive strategies framework. Assessment

for Effective Intervention, 38(3), 163-171.

MacDougall, N., Qenani, E., & Sexton, C. (2014). An empirical study of self-perceived

employability: Improving the prospects for student employment success in an uncertain

environment. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(3), 199-213.

Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2012). The Literature Review, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

McGrath, S. (2009). What is employability? UNESCO Centre for Comparative Education

Research, School of Education, University of Nottingham. Retrieved from

http://www.nottinghamenterprise.com/educationresearchprojects/documents/educationalp

artnershipsafrica/rpg

McIntire, T., & McLester, S. (Nov., 2006). The workforce readiness crisis: We’re not turning out

employable graduates nor maintaining our position as a global competitor. Why?

Technology and Learning, 27(4), 22-27.

Misra, R. K. & Mishra, P., (2011). Employability skills: The conceptual framework and scale

development. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 46(4), 650-660.

Mooney, C. G. (2013). Theories of Childhood. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Muijs, D. (2011). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

National Center on Education and the Economy (1990). America’s choice: High skills or low

wages! The report of the commission on the skills of the American workforce. Retrieved

from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED323297

Needleman, S. E. (2014, July). Skills shortage means many jobs go unfilled. Retrieved from

99

http://online.wsj.com/articles/small-business-owners-work-to-fill-job-openings-

1404940118

Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances

In Health Sciences Education. 15(5), 625-632.

Ogbeide, G. C. (2006). Employability skills and students’ self-perceived competence for careers

in the hospitality industry. Published doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri,

Columbia.

Paranto, S. R., & Kelkar, M. (1999). Employer satisfaction with job skills of business college

graduates and its impact on hiring behavior. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education,

9(3), 73-89.

Perera, L., & Wickramasinghe, V. (2010). Graduates’, university lecturers’ and employers’

perceptions towards employability skills. Education + Training. 52(3), 226-244.

Perry, J. C. & Wallace, E. W. (2012). What schools are doing around career development:

Implication for policy and practice. New Directions for Youth Development, 2012(134),

33-44, doi: 10.1002/yd.200133

Pieratt, J. R. (2010). Advancing the ideas of John Dewey: A look at the High Tech Schools.

Education & Culture, 26(2), 52-64.

Pryor, J. H. (2014). Internships matter. Professional Pathways: A Career Management

Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.cla.purdue.edu/careers/

Roberts, C. R. (2010). The dissertation journey, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rood, R., (2011). Traditional versus accelerated degree program graduates: A survey of

employer preferences. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 122-134.

Saavedra, A. R. & Opfer, V. D. (2012). Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century

100

teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 8-13.

Saffron, J. (2015, October). Why is it necessary to ask universities what students are learning?

Carolina Journal, Issues in Higher Education, 19.

Silva, E. (2009). Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 630-634.

Sommerfeld, A. (2011). Recasting non-cognitive factors in college readiness as what they truly

are: Non-academic factors. Journal of College Admissions, 213, Fall, 18-22.

Strauser, D., Wagner, S., Wong. A. W. K. & O’Sullivan, D. (2013). Career readiness,

developmental work personality and age of onset in young adult central nervous system

survivors. Disability and Rehabilitation, 543-550.

Sturgis, J., & Guest, D. (2001). Don’t leave me this way! A qualitative study of influences on the

organizational commitment and turnover intentions of graduates early in their career.

British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 29(4), 447-462.

SurveyGizmo, Report for workforce employability skills – Employer survey (2016). Retrieved

from http://surveygizmo.com

SurveyGizmo, Report for workforce employability skills – Student survey (2016). Retrieved

from http://surveygizmo.com

Teichler, U. (2009). Higher education and the world of work: Conceptual frameworks,

comparative perspectives, empirical findings. Rotterdam, Holland: Sense Publishers.

UNC Charlotte Urban Institute and Central Piedmont Community College, report prepared for

the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce (1996, August). Job skill needs in Charlotte-

Mecklenburg. Charlotte, NC: Central Piedmont Community College.

UNC Charlotte Urban Institute and Central Piedmont Community College, report prepared for

the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce (2001, January). Survey of the workforce needs of

101

Charlotte-Mecklenburg employers. Charlotte, NC: Central Piedmont Community

College.

U. S. Department of Education (2010). College- and career-ready students, 1-19. Retrieved

from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/college-careerready.pdf

U. S. Department of Education (2012, September 30). The employability skills framework.

Contract No. EDVAE10O0102. Retrieved from

http://cte.ed.gov/employabilityskills/index.php/framework/

U. S. Department of Education (2013). OECD skills studies. Retrieved from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264204904-en

Walters, D. (2004). A comparison of the labour market outcomes of postsecondary graduates of

various levels and fields over a four-cohort period. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29(1),

1-28.

Watts, A. G. (2005). Career guidance policy: An international review. Career Development

Quarterly, 54(1), 66-76.

Wiseman, P. (2014, April 22). Job market for college grads improved, though ‘dream job’ might

have to wait. The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved from

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/personal-finance/headlines/20140422-as-

commencements-near-job-market-for-college-grads-improves----though-dream-job-

might-have-to-wait.ece

Wright, S. L., Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., & Murdock, J. L. (2013). Career development among

first-year college students: College self-efficacy, student persistence, and academic

success. Journal of Career Development, 40(4) 292-310.

Zeiss, T. (2005). Get ‘em While They’re Hot. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.

102

Appendix A – Survey Instrument, 2001

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

Appendix B – Workforce Employability Skills Survey

Employers Survey

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

Appendix C – Workforce Employability Skills Survey

Student Survey

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Appendix D – Factor Analysis, Post-Hoc Power Analyses

131

Appendix D – Post-Hoc Power Analyses

Post-hoc estimated power analyses for two sample comparison of means based on actual

sample parameters and statistical power desired

Component

Actual Sample Size

Statistical Power Desired

Estimated Power Based on Actual Parameters

Basic Skills 75 0.900 0.919

Communication Skills 58 0.900 0.926

Information Use 82 0.900 0.235

Interpersonal Skills 73 0.900 0.523

Personal Qualities 56 0.900 0.917

Resource Management 73 0.900 0.051

Systems Thinking 65 0.900 0.080

Technology Use 68 0.900 0.648

Thinking Skills 72 0.900 0.983

All Components 65 0.900 0.827

132

Appendix E – Approval Letter from Institutional Review Board

133

134

Appendix F – Mean Ranked Order of Individual Items for Student Group and for

Employer Group

135

Mean ranked order of individual items for student group

To what extent do you perceive you have acquired the following?

Individual Items N Min Max Mean SD

Integrity: personal qualities 42 2 5 4.476 0.804 Respecting individual differences: interpersonal skills

42 3 5 4.366 0.724

Professionalism: personal qualities 42 1 5 4.286 0.891 Making sound decisions: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.238 0.726

Using information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.191 0.804

Planning/organizing: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.171 0.729

Organizing information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.167 0.794

Initiative & positive attitude: personal qualities

42 1 5 4.167 0.908

Comprehending written material: communication skills

42 2 5 4.122 0.802

Understanding teams & working with others: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 4.119 0.942

Email ethics and etiquette: technology use skills

42 2 5 4.119 0.889

Listening actively: communication skills

42 2 5 4.098 0.932

Communicating verbally: communication skills

42 2 5 4.095 0.878

Locating information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.095 0.878

Adapting & showing flexibility: personal qualities

42 2 5 4.095 0.759

Responding to customer needs: interpersonal skills

42 1 5 4.073 1.045

Analyzing information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.071 0.778

Self-discipline: personal qualities 42 2 5 4.071 0.894 Managing time: resource management skills

42 2 5 4.071 0.894

Critical thinking: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.071 0.778

Solving problems: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.071 0.745

136

Table 9 (cont.) Reading skills: basic skills 42 3 5 4.048 0.795 Writing skills: basic skills 42 3 5 4.025 0.780 Exercising leadership: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 4.000 0.796

Analytical reasoning: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 3.976 0.715

Thinking creatively: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 3.952 0.795

Conveying information in writing: communication skills

42 1 5 3.951 0.987

Applied technology in your discipline: technology use skills

42 2 5 3.929 0.894

Ability to use Microsoft Office Suites: technology use skills

42 1 5 3.857 1.049

Negotiating to resolve conflict: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 3.829 0.793

Understanding & using systems:systems thinking skills

42 2 5 3.786 0.898

Managing resources: resource management skills

42 2 5 3.781 0.924

Managing money: resource management skills

42 1 5 3.762 1.031

Managing distraction of social media:technology use skills

42 1 5 3.762 1.078

Managing personnel: resource management skills

42 1 5 3.650 1.001

Math strategies/procedures: basic skills

42 1 5 3.537 0.965

Monitoring systems: systems thinking skills

42 2 5 3.463 0.886

Improving systems: systems thinking skills

42 2 5 3.463 0.886

Scientific principles/procedures: basic skills

42 1 5 3.317 0.922

137

Mean ranked order of individual items for employer group

To what extent is each of the following important in the hiring of college

graduates?

Individual Items N Min Max Mean SD

Integrity: personal qualities 42 4 5 4.878 0.327 Initiative & positive attitude: personal qualities

42 4 5 4.833 0.377

Communicating verbally: communication skills

42 4 5 4.781 0.414

Reading skills: basic skills 42 2 5 4.738 0.627 Listening actively: communication skills

42 4 5 4.732 0.443

Writing skills: basic skills 42 3 5 4.714 0.508 Professionalism: personal qualities 42 4 5 4.714 0.457 Responding to customer needs: interpersonal skills

42 3 5 4.691 0.517

Critical thinking: thinking & analytical skills

42 4 5 4.691 0.468

Solving problems: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.691 0.563

Understanding teams & working with others: interpersonal skills

42 3 5 4.667 0.570

Self-discipline: personal qualities 42 4 5 4.643 0.485 Email ethics & etiquette: technology use skills

42 3 5 4.634 0.574

Making sound decisions: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.571 0.630

Planning/organizing: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.548 0.550

Using information: information use skills

42 3 5 4.537 0.545

Managing time: resource management skills

42 3 5 4.512 0.546

Adapting & showing flexibility: personal qualities

42 3 5 4.500 0.552

Comprehending written material: communication skills

42 3 5 4.463 0.588

138

Table 10 (cont.)

Respecting individual differences: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 4.452 0.739

Conveying information in writing: communication skills

42 3 5 4.439 0.586

Analytical reasoning: thinking & analytical skills

42 2 5 4.405 0.735

Ability to use Microsoft Office Suites: technology use skills

42 2 5 4.293 0.804

Organizing information: information use skills

42 3 5 4.268 0.663

Locating information: information use skills

42 3 5 4.220 0.681

Thinking creatively: thinking & analytical skills

42 3 5 4.214 0.717

Managing distraction of social media: technology use skills

42 1 5 4.195 0.968

Analyzing information: information use skills

42 2 5 4.146 0.718

Math Strategies/procedures: basic skills

42 1 5 4.095 1.008

Understanding & using systems: systems thinking skills

42 2 5 4.024 0.715

Applied technology in your discipline: technology use skills

42 2 5 4.024 0.811

Exercising leadership: interpersonal skills

42 3 5 3.976 0.563

Managing resources: resource management skills

42 3 5 3.951 0.623

Negotiating to resolve conflict: interpersonal skills

42 2 5 3.905 0.878

Managing money resource: management skills

42 1 5 3.610 0.907

Monitoring systems: systems thinking skills

42 1 5 3.390 0.694

Improving systems: systems thinking skills

42 1 5 3.390 0.694

Managing personnel: resource management skills

42 1 5 3.244 1.031

Scientific principles/procedures: basic skills

42 1 5 3.000 1.012