A three-part series on graduate attributes, conversation, and what universities really are
In Part 1, we explored how universities—once communities built around dialogue—have become surprisingly quiet. The conversation deficit isn't just about missed opportunities; it's about the systematic underdevelopment of the very capacities universities claim to cultivate.
But universities aren't unaware of what they're trying to develop. In fact, they've thought about it deeply. They've articulated it carefully. They've published comprehensive frameworks describing exactly what graduates should be able to do.
The problem isn't lack of vision. It's the gap between aspiration and infrastructure. Between knowing what you want and creating the conditions that actually develop it.
Let's examine this gap through the lens of one institution's graduate attributes framework—and ask the difficult questions about how these attributes actually get developed.
Four clusters of graduate attributes—carefully researched, thoughtfully articulated
Stellenbosch University's Teaching and Learning Policy (revised 2012) defines what it means to be a Stellenbosch graduate. These aren't vague platitudes—they're specific commitments about the kinds of people the university aims to develop.
A lifelong learner who continues learning beyond formal education
A critical and creative thinker who can analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information from multiple sources
An autonomous learner who takes responsibility for their own intellectual development
A reflective practitioner who examines their own thinking and practice
A socially responsible citizen who contributes to society and works for the common good
An environmentally aware citizen who understands sustainability challenges
A culturally competent citizen who can engage respectfully across difference
An ethically grounded citizen who acts with integrity and moral awareness
An innovative problem-solver who can address complex challenges creatively
A skilled communicator who can articulate ideas clearly across contexts
A collaborative team member who works effectively with diverse groups
An adaptable professional who thrives in changing environments
A self-aware person who understands their own strengths, values, and motivations
An emotionally intelligent person who recognizes and manages emotions effectively
A resilient person who can navigate setbacks and maintain wellbeing
A balanced person who integrates multiple dimensions of a meaningful life
These are beautiful aspirations. The question is: How do students actually develop these attributes?
Graduate attributes aren't developed through information transfer—they require transformational learning
Simon Barrie, whose research on graduate attributes has shaped thinking worldwide, identifies four ways academics understand these attributes—and only one actually works:
"Students need basic skills before they can develop attributes." Result: Attributes never actually get developed—there's always one more prerequisite.
"Students learn content from us; they develop attributes elsewhere." Result: Nobody takes responsibility for developing attributes.
"Students learn content; then they translate it to develop attributes." Result: Translation rarely happens—knowing about critical thinking doesn't make you a critical thinker.
"Students develop attributes BY ENGAGING WITH content in particular ways." Attributes aren't learned separately—they're developed through how students encounter, wrestle with, and use disciplinary knowledge.
"Graduate attributes are not something you can teach students about. They are capacities that develop through deliberate practice in authentic contexts."
— Simon Barrie, Research on Graduate Attributes (2012)
This is the critical insight: You don't develop critical thinking by learning about critical thinking. You develop it by practicing critical thinking in contexts that matter. You don't become culturally competent by reading about diversity. You become it by engaging across difference in situations that require understanding.
Graduate attributes require what Barrie calls "transformational understanding"—they must be embedded in how students actually engage with their education, not added as supplementary modules or co-curricular activities.
Policy without practice—what's missing in how universities develop graduate attributes
Here's the difficult question: If graduate attributes require deliberate practice in authentic contexts, where do students actually practice these capacities?
Let's take each attribute cluster and ask: What would systematic development actually require?
What it requires: Opportunities to ask questions, defend positions, encounter contradictions, revise thinking, synthesize perspectives.
What's typically provided: Lectures where questions are discouraged (time constraints), assignments completed individually, exams testing recall.
The gap: How do you develop an enquiring mind without practicing inquiry through conversation?
What it requires: Engaging across difference, navigating disagreement productively, understanding multiple perspectives, practicing ethical reasoning in context.
What's typically provided: Lectures about social issues, readings about ethics, case studies analyzed individually.
The gap: How do you become culturally competent without practicing dialogue across difference?
What it requires: Collaborative problem-solving, giving and receiving feedback, articulating ideas under pressure, adapting to unexpected challenges.
What's typically provided: Individual assignments with delayed written feedback, group projects where collaboration is assumed but not taught.
The gap: How do you develop collaborative skills without practicing real-time dialogue and decision-making?
What it requires: Self-reflection, emotional awareness, understanding personal values, recognizing strengths and growth edges, building resilience.
What's typically provided: Academic content with no space for personal reflection, wellness services for crisis intervention.
The gap: How do you develop self-awareness without structured opportunities for reflection?
The pattern is clear: Every graduate attribute requires conversational practice.
In 2010-2011, Stellenbosch University conducted research on how its graduate attributes were perceived and developed across the undergraduate curriculum. The findings were sobering.
Key Finding from Van Schalkwyk, Muller & Herman (2011):
"Academic departments had limited engagement with and understanding of what it meant to address aspects of citizenship in the curriculum. Graduate attributes were viewed as something that happened elsewhere—in co-curricular activities, residence life, or student development programs—not as something integral to academic teaching."
In other words: The people responsible for most of students' time—academic departments—didn't see graduate attribute development as their job. And even when they did, they lacked clear strategies for embedding these attributes into their teaching.
This isn't unique to Stellenbosch. Research across South African universities reveals similar patterns: graduate attributes appear in policy documents but remain largely aspirational, without systematic integration into how students actually spend their time.
"Graduate attributes are often assessed for, rather than with, students. They can fail if students are not actively engaged as partners in the process."
— Donleavy (2012), research on graduate attribute development
Even students themselves often don't understand what graduate attributes are or how they're developing them. They appear in course outlines, get mentioned in orientations, but rarely become explicit objects of attention and development.
Universities have built impressive infrastructure for individual learning: libraries with millions of volumes, laboratories with sophisticated equipment, lecture halls with advanced technology, online platforms with vast resources.
But where's the infrastructure for dialogical learning? Where are the systematic opportunities for students to practice the conversational capacities that every graduate attribute requires?
Structured discussion prompts that move beyond "What did you think?" to questions that actually develop attributes
Conversation facilitation training for tutors, mentors, and residence advisors
Assessment methods that evaluate dialogical thinking, not just individual written work
Regular seminars where students must articulate and defend positions verbally
Mentorship programs with evidence-based conversation frameworks
Residence programs that facilitate meaningful peer dialogue beyond social activities
Capstone experiences that integrate graduate attributes through structured reflection and dialogue
These aren't impossible additions. They're not even expensive compared to what universities already invest in physical infrastructure. But they require a shift in thinking: recognizing that dialogue isn't supplementary to education—it's foundational to developing the attributes universities claim to value.
You can't develop graduate attributes by talking about them.
You develop them by practicing them through structured conversation.
The gap between graduate attribute aspirations and actual development isn't insurmountable. We know what works. Barrie's research shows that attributes develop through deliberate practice in authentic contexts. Stellenbosch's own BeWell program proved that structured conversation tools can produce measurable developmental outcomes.
What's needed is conversational infrastructure—systematic, evidence-based tools that embed dialogical practice into how students actually spend their time.
The infrastructure exists. The research validates it. Now it's time to implement it.
See the conversation tools that can bridge the graduate attributes gap