In this paper generic skills are explored among first-year theology students. Over the past two decades the terms like generic skills, graduate qualities, generic attributes and core capabilities have become a part of teaching and learning in higher education (Barrie & Prosser 2004). However, the theoretical background behind these concepts is not clear. The terms are many times used interchangeably. Barrie & Prosser (2004) and Barrie (2006) have proposed to use the concept of generic graduate attributes. According to them the concept of generic attributes includes more than the concept of skills or attitudes.

Barrie & Prosser (2004) suggest that the discussion about generic skills has been policy instead of research or theory driven. Also, there have been discussions about the relation between generic attributes and personality factors. Furthermore, according to Barrie (2006) generic graduate attributes are seen differently among the professionals in higher education. There is also a question how general generic skills are. For example, Neumann, Parry & Becher (2002) argue that hard and soft (pure and applied) disciplines have different kinds of implicit requirements for students to enter and successfully complete degree programmes.

Generic skills are defined here on the basis of a study by Lizzio & Wilson (2004). They define nine domains which describe commonly identified areas of generic capabilities. Those are self-management, interpersonal, adaptability and learning skills, problem-solving and decision-making, conceptual and analytical, team and group skills, oral communication, written communication, information management. Lizzio & Wilson (2004) studied mainly students from hard (pure and applied) sciences (only 28.7 % of management students). On the basis of interviews of academics Barrie (2004) presents a framework where three overarching graduate attributes (scholarship, global citizenship and lifelong learning) are being supported by the development of skills and abilities in five key clusters. These five clusters are research and inquiry, information literacy, personal and intellectual autonomy, ethical, social and professional understanding, and communication. The skill domains described by Lizzio & Wilson (2004) are congruent with the approach of Barrie (2004), although the clusters and categories are somewhat differently constructed. On the basis of this the adoption of the concept of generic skills in this study seems justified.

Despite the complexity of the phenomenon of generic skills there is a need to further understand the contents and structure of generic skills especially from different disciplinary viewpoints. The aim of this paper is to understand first-year theology students’ perceptions of their generic skills. In addition to enhancing the understanding of generic skills among theology students, this study provides viewpoints to understanding the structure of generic skills among soft (pure and applied) disciplines.

In this study 139 students from the Faculty of Theology in the University of Helsinki were surveyed during the first semester of their studies. A questionnaire was operationalised on the basis of Lizzio & Wilson (2004). Questionnaire included 52 items on which the students responded on a five-point Likert-scale (1- not at all like me – 5 very much like me). According to Lizzio &Wilson (2004), first-year students appear to be able to make coherent judgements of their areas of strengths and weaknesses. In formulating the items in the questionnaire, an attempt was made to include skills which were considered as part of a good Masters degree in the University of Helsinki. Those aspects fell easily to the domains described by Lizzio & Wilson (2004).

Principal axis factoring with oblimin rotation was used in order to find an implicit structure. Four items were deleted from the analysis because of the obliqueness of the distribution of answers. Kaiser-Mayer-Olkin was .747. The criteria of an eigenvalue greater than 1 produced thirteen factors (67.9 % of variance). Inspection of the scree plot suggested a 7 factor solution (51.4 % of variance) as a more appropriate structure of first-year students’ perceptions.

The first factor (alpha=.794) included items which represented mainly the dimension of oral communication. The second factor (alpha=.863) comprised capabilities from written communication and information management. The third factor (alpha=.714) included items of learning skills and adaptability. The fourth factor had a somewhat low alpha (.554). It consisted of items which represented self-management. The fifth factor (alpha=.650) included items which reflected resourcefulness and decision-making skills. The sixth factor (alpha=.738) included items mainly from interpersonal skills. Capabilities from the conceptual and analytical domains defined the seventh factor (alpha=.786).

The students reported that they had highest thoughts of themselves on the dimension of interpersonal skills (f6) (x=3.82, st.dev=.662). The mean on the interpersonal factor differed significantly from the next factors (p<.00). The means on the next five factors did not differ significantly from each other Conceptual and analytical skills (f7) (x=3.55, st.dev=.574), Resourcefulness and decision-making (f5) (x=3.54, st.dev=.586), Written communication and information management skills (f2) (x=.3.51, st.dev=.598), Self-management (f4) (x=3.50, st.dev=.561), oral communication (f1) (x=3.46, st.dev=.602). Significantly (p<.00) lower from all other factors was rated the factor of learning skills and adaptability (f3) (x=3.13, st.dev=649).

The factor structure in this study was similar compared to earlier studies by Lizzio & Wilson (2004) and Barrie (2004). However, there were also some differences. The factors of oral communication, written communication and information management are similar. Learning skills and adaptability and self-management formed own factors in this study, when in Lizzio & Wilson (2004) they loaded on the same factor. Resourcefulness and decision-making items loaded on this study to the same factor, when decision-making was missing from the factorisation by Lizzio & Wilson (2004). Also, interpersonal skills formed its own factor in this study as well as conceptual and analytical skills.

The first year students evaluated their skills significantly lowest on the factor of learning skills and adaptability. These items were similar to the cluster of personal and intellectual autonomy proposed by Barrie (2004). This is an interesting finding; because these are skills which are important in terms of goal directed studying. It would be interesting to see in the follow-up study how this factor will develop and how students who reported lower skills in the beginning of their studies, will manage later in their studies.