Linking the two perspectives in this manner is not simply a convenient way of reconciling two seemingly disparate models. It makes discussions of life skills more focused by adding a greater level of precision to the employability skills categories and providing a means for describing the thinking abilities. For example, given two individuals leading teams, one might perform their duties adequately by employing strategies common within the company, while the other might devise a new strategy more tailored to the project and the team members. Both would be employing teamwork skills, but it would be inaccurate to say both were using the same type of skills. Similarly, it is easy to imagine a person who can calculate the amount of carpet required to cover all the floors in a house but who might not understand a set of instructions explaining how to do so. In this case, is it fair to say that the person has practical abilities, or is it more appropriate to say that he or she has practical mathematics abilities but few practical reading skills?

Describing situations to characterize each of the cells in our matrix forces us to re-examine the meanings of the terms in each model and the relationships of the categories to each other within the same model. In most cases, the differences between the skill categories appear clear and the categories appear fairly discrete (although one might argue that problem solving can take place within a mathematical or technological setting, or that using technology requires communication and mathematical skills). In contrast, as one moves across the domains of thinking skills, they are not necessarily independent of one another. In the example cited earlier regarding leading a project team, the individual devising the new strategy—a creative thinker—may very well base those new strategies on what he or she has learned in business school or commonly used at the company, thus tapping into crystallized thinking. Furthermore, creating a new strategy may require an evaluation of how well different strategies would work, which requires fluid thinking. Without further exploration, it is premature to label these four categories as constituting a hierarchy, but it is important to recognize the possibility that this relationship exists.

It is also premature to provide anything other than tentative examples for each of the cells. In the table on the next page (see Figure 2), examples have been placed in some of the cells. In some cases, they represent commonly occurring tasks and situations that are distinct from others in the same row or column. In other cases, the examples may seem more obscure, contrived, or similar to other examples in the same row or column. It must be recognized that further work in developing examples for each cell may require refinements to the model. And, perhaps more importantly, this ultimately may be a product of the ALL assessments themselves.