What is it? Technology-based solutions include a range of innovative practices that make use of new technologies to improve graduate employment outcomes. These applications include:

  • Work simulations
  • Video games
  • E-portfolios
  • CV analysers

Evidence? Currently, there is only limited evidence for the effectiveness of these innovations. The existing evidence only provides proof of concept for how education providers can develop their own novel solutions to improve graduates’ employment outcomes.

Should HEPs adopt it? More research into these technology-based solutions is necessary before we can determine whether they should be adopted by HEPs. Because these programmes can be delivered at scale for a relatively low cost, investment in further research and scaling of effective approaches could potentially generate large net savings for education providers, whilst also improving the impact of their careers and employability services.

Technology-based solutions are a range of innovative practices that make use of new technologies to improve graduate employment outcomes. These applications include:

  • Work simulations – virtual environments that allow students to acquire the skills they would gain through work experience in a more controlled environment and at scale
  • Commercially available video games
  • E-portfolios
  • Automated curriculum vitae (CV) analysers

The existing evidence on using technology-based solutions to improve graduate employment outcomes is focused on the general student population, with no targeting towards individuals from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds.

Currently, there is no strong evidence on the effectiveness of technology-based solutions to improve employability and employment outcomes.

There are two studies investigating the impact of work simulation on students’ skills and knowledge (Asiri and al, 2017; Strachan, 2016). The evidence highlights that work simulation appears to contribute to the development of generic interpersonal skills (e.g., teamwork and negotiation) as well as industry-specific skills (e.g., collaboration on complex problems and overall business awareness). However, these studies are not causal, meaning they cannot tell us for sure that work simulation is responsible for any impact on students’ outcomes. They also do not include a comparison group and are based on self-reports of experiences rather than behavioural outcomes.

There is limited evidence testing the approach of using commercially available video games to improve employability skills. Most of it is not causal and relevant data is lacking (Barr, 2019). However, Barr (2017) used an experimental design to assess the impact of this intervention on students’ graduate attributes (i.e., teamwork, communication skills, problem-solving) and found statistically significant improvements in the treatment group. These results are promising but, due to the small number of students included in the study, we cannot generalise and assume that the intervention will work for all groups of students.

There is not sufficient evidence on e-portfolios and CV analysers to  reliably assess the impact of these interventions on employment outcomes. However, the role of e-portfolios is explored in one review that indicates that prospective employers perceive them to be positive. They are seen as comprehensive and illustrative (Mitchell et al., 2021). Yet, despite any reported preferences, graduates are  generally required to submit CVs or written applications. One study looked at a CV analyser that maps out potential career pathways and makes suggestions for skills to acquire, based on matches between keywords in the CV and job adverts (Green et al., 2020). The authors suggest that the tool could help enhance students’ CVs.

Since technology-based interventions cover a wide range of programmes, with no causal evidence to support their impact, it is not possible to distil common features that impact graduate outcomes. We require more causal evidence to help us assess what features actually have an impact.

It is useful to note that students can self-administer the majority of the interventions presented, with minimal oversight by careers and employability staff. If future robust studies show that these interventions are effective in improving employment and employability outcomes, even by a small amount, they could potentially represent a highly cost-effective and efficient approach for HEPs.

Although there is some proof of concept for how HEPs can develop technology-based solutions, there is little to no robust evidence on the approaches. Currently we do not have enough evidence to make claims about the efficacy of technology-based programmes and we require more causal evidence, particularly in a UK context.

TASO’s advice on the efficacy of technology-based solutions to improve employability and employment outcomes is based mainly on evidence from narrative studies. One paper using an experimental design is limited by its sample size.

Asiri, A., Greasley, A. & Bocij, P. (2017) A review of the use of business simulation to enhance students’ employability (WIP). In SummerSim 2017, July 9–12 2019, Bellevue, WA, USA. Linked here.

Barr, M. (2017) Video games can develop graduate skills in higher education students: a randomised trial. Computers & Education. 113, 86–97. Linked here. 

Barr, M. (2019). Graduate skills and game-based learning: Using video games for employability in higher education. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Linked here.

Green, N., Liu, M. & Murphy, D. (2020) Using an Electronic Resume Analyzer Portal (eRAP) to improve college graduates’ employability. Information Systems Education Journal. 18 (3), 28–37. Linked here. 

Mitchell, L., Campbell, C., Somerville, M., Cardell, E. & Williams, L. T. (2021) Enhancing graduate employability through targeting ePortfolios to employer expectations: a systematic scoping review. Journal of Teaching and Learning for Graduate Employability. 12 (2), 82–98. Linked here. 

Strachan, L. (2016) Teaching employability skills through simulation games. Journal of Pedagogic Development. 6 (2), 8–17. Linked here.