The post-compulsory curriculum has been closely scrutinised for many years and assessment practices at this level are carefully refined and monitored. It is notable, however, that for many students the most important assessments of all - the school reference or job interview - receive considerably less scrutiny. School references and job interviews place a considerable amount of emphasis on personal and interpersonal generic skills such as initiative, leadership and self-esteem, and these kinds of skills are now receiving attention from bodies representing government and employer interests. Some educators have criticised attempts to conceptualise these kinds of skills as being employment driven and a product of an economic rationalist approach to education. This paper will pay particular attention to generic skills that are personal or interpersonal. It is argued that these skills are acknowledged as important, but that they do not have great prominence in the post-compulsory school curriculum because there is a lack of confidence in the assessment of these more attitudinal kinds of conceptions - and the post-compulsory school curriculum is dominated by high stakes assessment.

The first part of this paper will outline a context for the discussion of generic skills. Progress in a project which aims to map personal generic skills will be presented and notions of personal generic skills will be considered from the perspective of schools, employer groups and tertiary institutions. The second part of the paper will outline the study mentioned above, where Year 11 students' levels on the Mayer Key Competencies were assessed by teachers using their global impression judgements. It is argued that use of a scheme such as this could be applied to the assessment of students' personal and interpersonal skills, thus providing a more rigorous form of assessment than is available at present.

In this paper 'generic' is used to describe skills or attributes that transcend traditional subject boundaries and are thus 'cross-curricular'. There may be opportunities for these skills to be addressed within a subject area, but the skill or attribute is not exclusive to a particular discipline. For example, 'working in a team' is a generic skill. Students can learn to do this in many different contexts.

The term 'skill' is being used loosely in this paper to side-step using 'competence', which suggests an emphasis on outcomes, or 'capability', which suggests an element of potential. For the present, conceptions described as 'competencies' and 'capabilities' are grouped together as 'skills'. This is imprecise, but the purpose is to group together various generic conceptions so that they can undergo a process of refinement. Further work in this area is still to be undertaken.

In Australia, probably the most widely known current expression of generic skills is the report of the Mayer Key Competencies (Mayer, 1992). These generic skills were developed in response to proposals by the Finn Committee (1991), commissioned by the Australian Education Council to respond to the needs of young people in an environment of high youth unemployment. The main motive for developing these conceptions is economic, but it should be noted that the Key Competencies are seen as important for all young people 'regardless of the education or training pathway they follow' (Mayer, 1992, 1) and that they are seen as a bridge between general and vocational education (Mayer, 1992, 6). Acknowledgment of the importance of developing skills of this kind in Australian school curricula goes back at least to the mid 1980s (Karmel, 1985), and there were similar moves in other countries, such as the UK Core (now Key) Skills, New Zealand's Essential Skills and the US Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, Workplace Know-How (Werner, 1995) (see Appendix 1). While some have seen these moves as an expected response to the contemporary economic rationalist approach to education (Skilbeck, 1990) others have been more vehement in their criticism seeing this approach as giving in to economic interests - harnessing human capital (Collins, 1995) and making schools 'servants of the economy' (Crittenden, 1995, 30).

The Mayer Key Competencies have placed less emphasis on personal and interpersonal skills than some overseas conceptions; for example the UK Key Skills include 'personal skills' and the US Workplace Know-how include 'interpersonal skills' (see Appendix 1). The Mayer Report gives some space to a discussion of why 'values and attitudes' have been excluded (Mayer, 1992, 9). Some personal and interpersonal skills which were recommended by the Finn Committee have been incorporated into the Key Competencies 'working with others and in teams' and 'planning and organising'. It seems that because the competencies are, by their nature, concerned with outcomes, it was thought that more personal conceptions would be difficult to assess. This is implied in the suggestion that the competencies 'can only contain those things which can be developed by education and training' and that are 'amenable to credible assessment' (Mayer, 1992, 9).

Expressions of generic skills of the kind discussed are not necessarily exclusively the result of economic concerns although there are many instances where they are seen as employment-related. It is useful to look at expressions of personal and interpersonal generic skills from three perspectives: generated by schools, employers and tertiary institutions. The purpose of this exercise is to suggest that while motivation for developing conceptions of generic skills is clearly coming from employer groups, other interests are also involved.

National statements of broad educational goals include generic skills. For example, the national goals of schooling in Australia state that students need to develop self-confidence, self-esteem, respect for others and 'positive attitudes for life-long education' (Australian Education Council, 1989). At a state government level, the Victorian Student Profile of capabilities which was developed as a component of the Victorian Certificate of Education is a further example of an attempt from the school perspective to acknowledge that in addition to the assessment of school subjects, the assessment of various personal and interpersonal generic skills is important at the post-compulsory level. The six capabilities in this profile are: initiative, self-management, co-operative work, adaptability, reflection/evaluation and communication. At the level of individual schools, an informal survey of 40 secondary schools conducted by the author indicated that 'personal attributes', 'peer relationships' and 'student's perception of his/her strengths' are important elements in school references. These kinds of conceptions are also expressed frequently in Bickford's The Good Schools Guide, a publication in which Victorian secondary schools outline their main goals and objectives for the scrutiny of prospective students and their parents. (Bickford, 1993)

It seemed to the author that it would be interesting to explore the range of personal and interpersonal generic skills that are included in broad school goals and reference pro formas. A literature review was undertaken to explore these conceptions. It included the Victorian Student Profile and the employment-related generic skills mentioned above. The present state of this study, which is ongoing, is summarised in Appendix 2. The ten personal/interpersonal skills which are most frequently expressed in these documents are outlined in Table 1 below. It can be seen that some of these skills encapsulate the less cognitive of the Mayer Key Competencies - such as 'planning and organising' (2 self-management) and 'working with others and in teams' (3 ability to work collaboratively). The order is not intended to be hierarchical and at this point considerably more refinement is needed. For example, there is overlap between some of the skills outlined; in order to 'work independently' a person requires some skills in 'self management'.

Studies carried out by the National Industry Education Forum indicate that employers endorse the notion of assessing the Mayer Key Competencies in a rigorous manner at the post-compulsory level of schooling (Stanton, 1995 and Reynolds, 1996). There are, however, additional generic skills identified by employers, as Stanton's research reveals. As a part of his investigation, Stanton asked major employers (BHP, BP, NRMA, BTR-Nylex, Australian Newsprint Mills, The Regent Melbourne and David Jones Victoria) to identify the competencies or attributes that they look for when they are recruiting staff from outside the organisation at entry level positions. Table 2 below outlines the skills that emerged in responses to this question and aligns them with the ten generic personal and interpersonal skills given in Table 1.

Seven of the ten personal and interpersonal generic skills are mentioned and there are also more generally expressed notions of these kinds of attributes, with 'interpersonal skills' being mentioned in a general way, and notions such as 'common sense' and 'maturity'. Although skills such as 'self management' did not emerge spontaneously from employers' responses, skills like this that are not aligned seem in keeping with the responses. Overall this alignment exercise supports the idea that personal and interpersonal generic skills are important to the employers of school leavers.

These outcomes are further supported by studies in the UK. For example Wellington (1994) mentions a study he undertook in Wales, where employers of school leavers were asked 'What are you looking for in school leavers?' many of the attributes mentioned are similar to the personal and interpersonal generic skills outlined above: 'willingness to learn'. 'ability to work as a member of a team', 'enthusiasm' and 'initiative'. It should be noted that Wellington considers that these skills and attributes should be acknowledged, but they should not form the basis of the post-compulsory curriculum.

While the main focus of this paper is the post-compulsory school curriculum, it is interesting to note that there are also moves within universities to encourage the development of personal and interpersonal generic skills. Courses at the Charles Sturt University are underpinned by conceptions similar to the Mayer Key Competencies (Bryce et al, 1996) and, glossing over the distinction already mentioned between 'competence' and 'capability' (Stephenson, 1995), courses at the Orange Agricultural College, University of Sydney address nine capabilities some of which include conceptions in keeping with personal generic skills: 'to display a confident but realistic judgement of one's capacity to achieve', 'to recognise and accept continuous learning as being central to one's capacity to realise potential and live a fulfilling life', and others as interpersonal: 'develop communication abilities by connecting with everything involved in communication: people, ideas, texts, media, and technology'. These capabilities have been derived mostly from movements such as the ability-based learning program of Alverno College in the US (1994), as well as from industry, education and training influences (Australian Capability Network, 1995).

Developments at university level have been mentioned to show that concern about cross-curricular elements of learning exists outside the areas of school and training providers, and to suggest that at the school level development of these generic skills is important for all students, not only those who hope to enter the workforce when they leave school.

A strong argument against incorporating skills of the kind discussed into the secondary school curriculum has been a belief that these skills - particularly those concerned with 'attitudinal' abilities - are difficult to assess. Because the post-compulsory curriculum is very much driven by high stakes assessment, it is likely that any element, no matter how intrinsically worthwhile, will be ignored if it cannot be assessed in a way that will contribute to a student's overall assessment.

A recent project directed by Doug McCurry (McCurry and Bryce, 1997) devised and trial tested a scheme for assessing the Mayer Key Competencies which could be applied to other generic skills, even those involving personal and interpersonal attributes. The scheme is based on two fundamental assumptions: teachers can make global judgements of their students' performance on generic skills without setting special tasks, and teachers' assessments of these skills are general rather than subject specific.

The trial covered 110 teachers in 10 schools across four Australian states. The teachers were asked to give global assessments of eight Key Competencies for 629 Year 11 students they were currently teaching using a framework developed by the project. The framework took account of three performance levels outlined by the Mayer Committee. It aimed to be cost efficient - an essential element for senior teachers who are often already over-burdened with responsibilities for assessment tasks - and it aimed to achieve consensus. The strategies developed for assessing generic skills were thought by teachers to be cost efficient and on average it took each teacher about 10 minutes to assess a student on the set of Key Competencies.

In order to reach consensus about a student's performance on a particular competency or skill, it is essential that there is a shared understanding of what is meant by that competency. Although the Mayer Report includes a chapter on each of the competencies outlining ways in which students might display such skills, the competencies still seem to be open to a number of interpretations.

In order to arrive at common understandings of the competencies the researchers decided to 'tease out' the meanings by developing a series of facet descriptors which would map each competency. The facet descriptors were intended to be:

• a part of a general but coherent notion;
• a different aspect from the others in the group for that competency;
• a key distinguishing feature of performance on the competency.

For example, the facets developed for 'collecting, analysing and organising information' are:

A comprehending and interpreting ideas and information;

B analysing and evaluating ideas and information;

C synthesising and developing ideas and information.

Each of the facets A, B, and C identifies a different aspect of the competency and could describe a particular strength of a student. The facets are not intended to be hierarchical.

To try to ensure genuinely generic interpretations of the competencies it was important to acknowledge that some are more concerned with approaches or attitudes than with acquisition of skills or knowledge. For example, with the competency 'using technology' it would be likely that teachers might look at performance in a subject specific (rather than generic) way by outlining the kinds of technology a student is able to use. This is overcome to a large extent if the assessment is envisaged as approaches to or attitudes towards technology rather than the ability to use it. Indeed with the rapid development of technologies, an attitudinal emphasis may be more useful.

The competency 'solving problems' has been criticised for being so general as to be meaningless: ability to solve which problems? But if it is seen as involving attitudes as well as knowledge and skills it can be given meaning. This attitudinal approach is reflected in the facets for 'solving problems':

A shows focus and persistence;

B shows independence and responsibility;

C shows initiative and creativity.

On the other hand, the competency 'using cultural understandings' (later dropped from the final list of competencies) has been seen as vague and fraught with value and ideological judgements. It seems more fruitful to consider such a competency in a more cognitive way - as involving particular kinds of thinking skills concerning inter- and intra- personal skills and socio-cultural issues.

Teachers were involved in wording and evaluating the facet descriptors and to assist these deliberations, the Key Competencies were re-ordered on a continuum from more cognitive to more attitudinal. This re-ordering is shown in Table 3 below.

Teachers were asked to make judgements about students that were not based on specific tasks or instances of behaviour but that were overall and synthesised impressions of their knowledge and experience of students at Year 11 level. The Mayer Report proposes that Key Competencies be assessed over three levels of achievement. Three levels were used for the research project: Level 1 (basic achievement at Year 11 and 12), Level 2 (medium achievement at Year 11 and 12) and Level 3 (high achievement at Year 11 and 12). To facilitate assessment, level descriptors were written and the levels were broken into 'level codes' which enabled teachers to assess over an eight-point scale as shown in Table 4 below.

Teachers were encouraged to make their judgements by thinking of how some students stand out either because they exceed or do not meet usual expectations. For example, a teacher first considers whether a student is particularly strong or particularly weak in a competency. If particularly strong, is the student strong enough to be Level 3, or is Level 2 (perhaps M/H) more appropriate? If particularly weak, is the student weak enough to be NY, or is Level 1 appropriate? If a student is not particularly distinguished it is necessary to decide between Levels 1 and 2. It is interesting to note that after general familiarisation, teachers said that whilst undertaking assessments they made little reference to the level descriptions, but they revisited the facet descriptions frequently.

The aim of the procedure was for the 'overall assessor' to review the outcome from the algorithm and either confirm or change it on the basis of knowledge about particular teachers or the student. In the trial, overall assessors were generally happy with the kinds of decisions the algorithm presented. It was found that the algorithm could determine results in 90 per cent of cases. Reporting of a range of up to three points on the eight-point scale was considered to be meaningful (for example 5 - 7, or 2 - 4). It was often the case, however, that there was complete consensus (for example a result of 5) or a range over only two points, such as 3 - 4. In the few cases where the result was a range over more than three points, it was considered meaningless, and was reported as 'a broad range of views'.

Table 5 below indicates how teachers' assessments were reported for a particular student in the trial. The letters A, B, C refer to facet descriptors. As an adjunct to the global assessment exercise, the researchers thought it might be interesting to look at the consistency with which teachers agreed on which facet was a student's strongest facet for each competency. Thus for Student 4, Teacher Six assessed all three facets of KC2a as 6, and considered that A was the student's strongest facet. The table with bars is what would be reported, for example in a student's school report (the upper table shows the means of achieving this). It can be seen that there was strongest agreement between teachers on KC1 where all arrived at 5, Medium achievement, low Level 2. With KC2a it was not possible to reach reportable agreement.

How did teachers feel about making judgements in this way? There were a few negative comments which seemed mainly to focus on the fact that the process was new and that teachers are mainly used to assessing in relation to their particular subject area. But a majority of participants made comments indicating that they were happy with the process. Some pointed out that teachers are making these kinds of judgements all the time:

Teachers sometimes summed up this professional judgement as 'gut feeling', but they felt that they could trust this feeling.

Teachers do need to know their students well if they are going to make confident global impression judgements of this kind. Some teachers who had expressed anxiety about the process felt happier when reminded that in a non experimental situation they would usually have at least a year to get to know students and think about their performance and that they are not the only person judging a student in a particular area - the final assessment for a student is a synthesis of several teachers' judgements.

To what extent do teachers' global impression judgements stand up to the kind of scrutiny required of grades that may shape a student's future? One way of examining the extent to which individual teachers agree in the way they assesses individual students is to make pairwise comparisons of every instance when different teachers assess the same student. This gives the percentage of times teachers give the same score, an adjacent score, or a score that differs by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 points. There was found to be substantial agreement on the eight-point scale. The critical issue in this trial was to look at the percentage of comparisons where there was a difference of 2 points or more. For the various competencies, this percentage was between 8 and 12 per cent meaning that in approximately 90 per cent of cases there was a difference of two points or less between any two teachers assessing the same student. It was found that between:

• 27% and 32% of cases, pairs of teachers gave the same score;
• 30% and 34% of cases, pairs of teachers gave adjacent scores;
• 24% and 29% of cases, pairs of teachers gave scores that differed by two points;
• 10% and 14% of cases, pairs of teachers gave scores that differed by three points;

and that in:

• a total of 86% to 90% of cases teachers were within the non-discrepant range.

Table 6 below compares these results with the kinds of percentages that are expected in external test assessments where trained markers assess a single piece of writing produced under test conditions assessed on specified criteria with described levels of performance over a ten point scale

It can be seen that the teachers' judgements of Key Competencies compare favourably with those of trained markers using specified criteria.

There is need for further research and refinement of conceptions of personal and interpersonal generic skills, but there is evidence to suggest that conceptions of this kind should form a significant part of the post-compulsory school curriculum. In the past these kinds of skills may have been glossed over because of concern that the more attitudinal kinds of skills cannot be assessed with sufficient confidence. The study by McCurry and Bryce outlined in this paper could be replicated with conceptions other than the Mayer Key Competencies and, given that the process worked for the more attitudinal Key Competencies, it should provide a useful approach for the assessment of other 'attitudinal' conceptions. This could assist schools to place more emphasis on the personal and interpersonal generic skills they espouse in statements of goals and reference pro formas, which in turn could lead to the provision of more reliable and credible information that could be used by employers or built on by tertiary studies.

Alverno College Faculty (1994). Student Assessment-As-Learning at Alverno College. Milwaukee: Alverno College

Australian Capability Network (1995). http://www.nor.com.au/community/ACN/

Australian Education Council (1989). Information Statement: Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling in Australia, Melbourne: AEC

Bickford, M. (1993). The Good Schools Guide. Melbourne: The Education Library

Bryce, J. et al (1996). The Mayer Key Competencies and Arts Education, a DEETYA funded project undertaken by the National Affiliation of Arts Educators and the Australian Council for Educational Research. Camberwell: ACER

Collins, C. (1995). Curriculum Stocktake. Canberra: Australian College of Education

Crittenden, B. (1995). Liberal and vocational education: convergence or confusion? in C. Collins (ed). Curriculum Stocktake. Canberra: Australian College of Education

Finn, B. (chair) (1991). Young people's participation in post-compulsory education and training. Canberra: Australian Education Council

McCurry, D. and Bryce, J. (1997). The School Based Key Competencies Levels Assessment Project: Final Report. Camberwell: ACER

Mayer, E. (chair) (1992). Report of the committee to advise the Australian Education Council and Ministers of Vocational Education and Training on employment-related key competencies for post-compulsory education and training, Carlton South: Australian Education Council

New South Wales Department of School Education (1991). The Values We Teach. Sydney: NSW Department of Education

OECD. (1997). Prepared for life? How to measure cross-curricular competencies. Paris: OECD

OECD. (1995). Public expectations of the final stage of compulsory education. Paris: OECD

OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (1989). Towards an "Enterprising" Culture, Educational Monograph No 4. Paris: OECD

Remy, R.C. (1980). Handbook of Basic Citizenship Competencies, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, National Institute of Education, US Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Reynolds, C. (1996). Business, Industry, Key Competencies and Portfolios, Melbourne: NIEF

Skilbeck, M. (1990). Curriculum Reform An Overview of Trends. Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD

Stanton, J. (1995). Business. Industry and Key Competencies: Report of a Project, Melbourne: NIEF

Stephenson, J. (1995). 'Learning for life: information literacy and the autonomous learner' Second National Information Literacy Conference, Adelaide

UNESCO. (1980). Educational Goals. Paris: UNESCO

Wellington, J. (1994). 'How far should the post-16 curriculum be determined by the needs of employers?', The Curriculum Journal, 5, 3.

Werner, M.C. (1995). Australian key competencies in an international perspective. Adelaide: NCVER

The author would like to acknowledge the substantial input of Doug McCurry who directed the project on Key Competencies assessment. Barbara Johnson supplied material concerning the capabilities movement at tertiary level and Margaret Batten and Michele Lonsdale were invaluable constructive critics.

* US Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills