COMPARISON OF GENERIC COMPETENCE LEVELS OF HIGHER EDUCATION GRADUATES WITH EXPECTED COMPETENCIES IN WORLD OF WORK: EXAMPLE OF PHYSIOTHERAPY AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM

Abstract

Purpose: Generic competencies are those that are not specific to a particular profession. These competencies, which are expressed with concepts such as employability skills, transferable skills and 21st century competencies, are increasingly important in terms of employment and career. This research was carried out to identify and compare the generic competence levels of physiotherapy and rehabilitation undergraduate graduates and the competence levels required by the job they are working in, to investigate the skill mismatch. Methods: The research was carried out between March and December 2018 with an online survey method. All physiotherapy and rehabilitation undergraduate programs graduates who graduated in 2012 were invited to the study. Responses of 240 participants suitable for the analysis were included in the study. Results: It was determined that the highest competence level of the graduates is about “mastery of own field or discipline”. The highest competence level demanded in the work environment was about “using time effectively”. In 18 of the 22 competencies questioned, graduates rated their competence higher than desired at work. The only competence, in which the required competence level was statistically higher than the graduate competence levels, was “ability to perform well under pressure” (p=0.020). Furthermore, the skill gap was seen most in the ability to perform well under pressure. Conclusion: The results show that perceived overqualification is common in graduates. On the other hand, results reveal that the subject of working under pressure and efficient time management should be handled comprehensively in the undergraduate education process.

Keywords

• Skill
• Physical Therapists
• Employment
• Competency

YÜKSEKÖĞRETİM MEZUNLARININ GENEL YETERLİLİK DÜZEYLERİ İLE İŞ YAŞAMINDA BEKLENEN YETERLİLİKLERİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI: FİZYOTERAPİ VE REHABİLİTASYON LİSANS PROGRAMI ÖRNEĞİ

Öz

Amaç: Genel yeterlilikler belirli bir mesleğe özgü olmayan yeterliliklerdir. Literatürde istihdam edilebilirlik becerileri, transfer edilebilir beceriler ve 21. yüzyıl yeterlilikleri gibi kavramlarla da ifade edilen bu yeterliliklerin istihdam ve kariyer açısından önemi giderek artmaktadır. Bu araştırma fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon lisans mezunlarının genel yeterlilik düzeyleri ile çalışmakta oldukları işin gerektirdiği yeterlilik düzeylerini tespit etmek, karşılaştırmak ve beceri uyuşmazlığını sorgulamak amacıyla gerçekleştirildi. Yöntem: Araştırma Mart-Aralık 2018 tarihleri arasında çevrimiçi anket yöntemiyle gerçekleştirildi. Araştırmaya 2012 yılında mezun veren tüm fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon lisans programlarının mezunları davet edildi. Analiz için uygun 240 katılımcının yanıtları çalışmaya dahil edildi. Sonuçlar: Mezunların sahip oldukları en yüksek yeterlilik düzeyinin “kendi alanına ya da disiplinine hakimiyet” konusunda olduğu belirlendi. Çalışılan işte en yüksek düzeyde istenen yeterlilik “zamanı etkili kullanabilme” idi. Sorgulanan 22 yeterlilikten 18’inde mezunlar kendi yeterlilik düzeylerini, iş için istenen yeterlilik düzeylerinden daha yüksek olarak değerlendirdiler. İş için istenen yeterlilik düzeyinin mezun düzeylerinden istatiksel anlamda daha yüksek olduğu tek yeterlilik “baskı altında çalışabilme” idi (p=0,020), aynı zamanda “baskı altında çalışabilme” beceri açığının en fazla olduğu yeterlilik idi. Tartışma: Sonuçlar mezunlarda algılanan aşırı nitelikli olma halinin yaygın olduğunu göstermektedir. Buna karşın araştırma sonuçlarımız baskı altında çalışabilme yeterliliği ve verimli zaman yönetimi konusunun lisans eğitimi sürecinde kapsamlı olarak ele alınması gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Beceri
• Fizyoterapist
• İstihdam
• Yeterlilik

Kaynakça

1. 1. UNESCO. TVETipedia Glossary. International Centre for Technical and Vocational Education and Training (UNESCO-UNEVOC). https://unevoc.unesco.org/home/TVETipedia+Glossary. Erişim Tarihi: 14 Şubat 2020.
2. 2. Australian Physiotherapy Association. Physiotherapy Career Pathway. Competence Framework. Version 6.0. 2017 https://australian.physio/sites/default/files/professional-development/download/career-pathway/Competence_Framework_V6.0.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 05 Kasım 2019
3. 3. Erdoğan A (ed). Yükseköğretimde yeniden yapılanma: 66 soruda Bologna süreci uygulamaları. Ankara: Yükseköğretim Kurulu; 2010.
4. 4. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. Türkiye Yükseköğretim Yeterlilikler Çerçevesi (TYYÇ). 2011. http://tyyc.yok.gov.tr/ Erişim Tarihi: 17 Nisan 2020
5. 5. Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Çekirdek Eğitim Programı (FTRÇEP). Ankara; 2016. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Kurumsal/egitim_ogretim_dairesi/Ulusal-cekirdek-egitimi-programlari/fizyotreapi_cekirdek_egitim_programi.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 30 Ekim 2019
6. 6. Teijeiro M, Rungo P, Freire MJ. Graduate competencies and employability: The impact of matching firms’ needs and personal attainments. Econ Educ Rev. Haziran 2013;34:286–95.
7. 7. Allen J, Coenen J, Humburg M, Pavlin S, Robert P, Svetlik I, vd. Competencies and Early Labour Market Careers of Higher Education Graduates in Europe. Allen J, Pavlin S, Velden R van der, editörler. Ljubljana: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences; 2011. 1–136 s. (HEGESCO (Higher Education as a Generator of Strategic Competences)).
8. 8. Young J, Chapman E. Generic Competency Frameworks: A Brief Historical Overview. Educ Res Perspect. 2010;37(1):1–24.

9. 9. Hager P, Holland S, (eds.). Graduate Attributes, Learning and Employability. C. 6. Dordrecht: Springer; 2006.
10. 10. Gibb J. Generic Skills in Vocational Education and Training: Research Readings. National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER). Leabrook (Australia): Australian National Training Authority; 2004.
11. 11. Brewer L. Enhancing youth employability: What? Why? and How? Guide to core work skills. Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO), Skills and Employability Department; 2013.
12. 12. Chan CKY, Fong ETY. Disciplinary differences and implications for the development of generic skills: a study of engineering and business students’ perceptions of generic skills. Eur J Eng Educ. 2018;43(6):927–49.
13. 13. QS Intelligence Unit. The Global Skills Gap in the 21st Century. The Institute of Student Employers (ISE). London; 2018.
14. 14. Sánchez AV, Ruiz MP, (eds.). Competence-based learning. A proposal for the assessment of generic competences. Bilbao: University of Deusto; 2008.
15. 15. World Economic Forum. The Future of Jobs Report 2018. Geneva: World Economic Forum; 2018.
16. 16. Passaretta G, Triventi M. Work experience during higher education and post-graduation occupational outcomes: A comparative study on four European countries. Int J Comp Sociol. 2015;56(3–4):232–53.
17. 17. Scott FJ, Connell P, Thomson LA, Willison D. Empowering students by enhancing their employability skills. J Furth High Educ. 28 Mayıs 2019;43(5):692–707.
18. 18. HEGESCO. Üniversite Mezunlarına Yönelik Lisans ve Yüksek Lisans Eğitimiyle Kazanılan Yeterliliklerin Araştırılması Projesi Anketi. 2008. s. 1--15. http://www.hegesco.org/pliki/Questionnaire_Turkish.pdf. Erişim Tarihi: 05 Temmuz 2017
19. 19. Akkoyunlu A, Kovačič H, Pavlin S, Svetlik I. Report on the Qualitative Analysis of Higher Education Institutions and Employers in Five Countries: Development of Competencies in the World of Work and Education. Pavlin S, editör. Slovenia: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences; 2009.
20. 20. Eng J. Sample Size Estimation: How Many Individuals Should Be Studied? Radiology. 2003;227(2):309–13.
21. 21. Erdogan B, Bauer TN, Peiró JM, Truxillo DM. Overqualified Employees: Making the Best of a Potentially Bad Situation for Individuals and Organizations. Ind Organ Psychol. 2011;4(2):215–32.
22. 22. Green F, Zhu Y. Overqualification, job dissatisfaction, and increasing dispersion in the returns to graduate education. Oxf Econ Pap. 2010;62(4):740–63.
23. 23. Harari MB, Manapragada A, Viswesvaran C. Who thinks they’re a big fish in a small pond and why does it matter? A meta-analysis of perceived overqualification. J Vocat Behav. 01 Ekim 2017;102:28–47.
24. 24. Green F, McIntosh S. Is there a genuine under-utilization of skills amongst the over-qualified? Appl Econ. Mart 2007;39(4):427–39.
25. 25. ÜNİ-VERİ. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Cumhurbaşkanlığı İnsan Kaynakları Ofisi. 2019. https://www.cbiko.gov.tr/projeler/uni-veri. Erişim Tarihi: 22 Şubat 2020
26. 26. CEDEFOP. Skill mismatch The role of the enterprise. Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg: European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP); 2012.
27. 27. Karagözoğlu Coşkunsu D, Toprak M, Duman Ç, İnal HS. Türkiye’de Fizyoterapistlerin İş Bulma Sürelerinin ve İstihdam Durumlarının Değerlendirilmesi. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 27 Ağustos 2018;29(2):44–52.
28. 28. Gürses HN, Alemdaroǧlu İ, Tanriverdi M, Alemdaroğlu İ, Tanriverdi M. Türkiye’de Fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon fakülte bölümü/yüksekokullarinin incelenmesi ve müfredat analizi. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 2014;25(1):16–27.
29. 29. Grissom JA, Loeb S, Mitani H. Principal time management skills: Explaining patterns in principals’ time use, job stress, and perceived effectiveness. J Educ Adm. 2015;53(6):773–93.
30. 30. Humburg M, Van der Velden R, Verhagen A. The Employability of Higher Education Graduates: The Employers’ Perspective. Publications Office of the European Union. Luxembourg; 2013. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/ecbcc42d-349e-4903-a844-9820680baa1a/language-en. Erişim Tarihi: 30 Aralık 2019
31. 31. Sarfraz I, Rajendran D, Hewege C, Mohan MD. An exploration of global employability skills: A systematic research review. Int J Work Organ Emot. 2018;9(1):63–88.
32. 32. Humburg M, van der Velden R. Skills and the graduate recruitment process: Evidence from two discrete choice experiments. Econ Educ Rev. 2015;49:24–41.
33. 33. Kruger J, Dunning D. Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;77(6):1121–34.