Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a Pathways to Higher Education
Similar a Pathways to Higher Education (20)
Más de National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education
Más de National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (20)
Último
Último (20)
Pathways to Higher Education
- 1. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J 25 Nov, 2015 Ian Cunninghame & Professor Sue Trinidad, NCSEHE July 2017 PATHWAYS TO HIGHER EDUCATION: THE EFFICACY OF ENABLING AND SUB-BACHELOR PATHWAYS FOR DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS IN AUSTRALIA
- 2. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J The Report Funded by the Australian Government Department of Education and Training via the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program’s (HEPPP) National Priorities Pool, 2014 with the public report released in 2016. Pitman, T., Trinidad, S., Devlin, M., Harvey, A., Brett, M. & McKay, J. (2016). “Pathways to Higher Education: The Efficacy of Enabling and Sub-Bachelor Pathways for Disadvantaged Students”. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE), Perth: Curtin University.
- 3. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J The HESP Review 50% of students come through pathways. Need for transparency of HE admission processes for pathways. We know a greater proportion of equity students transitioning via pathways. Generally experience better first-year retention rates.
- 4. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J
- 5. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J The Project Team Tim Pitman, National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education Sue Trinidad, National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education Marcia Devlin, Federation University Australia Andrew Harvey, La Trobe University Matthew Brett, La Trobe University Jade McKay, Deakin University
- 6. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J The Brief … to undertake a review of current enabling programmes offered by Australian higher education providers and report on the extent to which these courses are effective in increasing access and participation to, and subsequent success in, undergraduate courses for domestic students from disadvantaged groups….
- 7. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J Key Questions Are enabling programs effective for widening participation for disadvantaged students in their own right? Are enabling programs less or more effective than other alternative pathways to higher education, for disadvantaged students?
- 8. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J Methodology 1. Detailed taxonomy of enabling pathways into HE 2. Statistical analysis of the Australian Government Department of Education and Training data to explore the efficacy of enabling programs. 3. National student survey exploring the perceptions of students who participated in enabling programs and other pathways into HE.
- 9. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J How to Measure? The 3 Ps… 1. Creating a typology of enabling programs (the “potential”) 2. Comparing retention and success rates (the “proof”) 3. Surveying the students (the “perceptions”)
- 10. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J Defining Disadvantage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons Persons from low socioeconomic status backgrounds Persons from regional and remote areas Persons with disabilities Persons from non-English speaking backgrounds Women enrolled in non-traditional areas of study
- 11. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J The Literature Enabling programs are not exclusive to, but enrol disproportionately from, groups of students under-represented in the Australian HE sector. This is in line with their fundamental aim. Enabling pathways offer access to HE for many students who would otherwise be denied the opportunity to participate. The VET sector appears prima facie to be a viable pathway into HE for disadvantaged students. Students articulating from the VET sector into HE encounter barriers to success, resulting in below-average performance.
- 12. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J The Potential
- 13. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J ncsehe.edu.au
- 14. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J Overall Findings 1. Diversity of enabling programs. 2. Lack of transparency, transferability and information about enabling programs. 3. Programs are relatively unrestricted in regards to access. 4. Greater proportion of students enrolled are from equity groups.
- 15. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J Overall Findings (cont.) 5. Disadvantaged students who articulate via an enabling program generally experience better first-year retention rates than those using other pathways 6. In terms of success, equity group of students articulating from enabling pathways are experiencing academic barriers to success. 7. Enabling students express greater satisfaction with their articulating experience in comparison with those using a VET pathway.
- 16. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J Overall Findings (cont.) 8. Most VET students undertook the VET qualification for its own benefits, not as a pathway to university studies. 9. The relatively low cost of an enabling program to the student is a significant attraction for disadvantaged students. 10. Need for greater consistency among programs to improve transparency, quality, student mobility and equity.
- 17. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J Snapshot of One Equity Group: Students from Low SES Backgrounds “It gave me the confidence I need to even try. I am 41 years old and had left high school when I was in year 10 and from then on had worked full time office based jobs. Due to being a poor student at school I had always thought that university was out of reach for me. However, completing [the enabling program] revealed I had more potential than I ever would have imagined.”
- 18. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J Current Bill Going to Parliament
- 19. CRICOS Provider Code 00301J ncsehe@curtin.edu.au Email: S.Trinidad@curtin.edu.au Twitter: @NCSEHE Website: ncsehe.edu.au/contact/ Publication: https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/pathways-to-higher-education-the- efficacy-of-enabling-and-sub-bachelor-pathways-for-disadvantaged-students/
Notas del editor
- FACE Session - Thursday 29 June, 11.30-12.00 I am Ian Cunninghame Research Fellow at the Australian Government Funded National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education hosted at Curtin University, Western Australia. I am presenting this research on behalf of the Director, Sue Trinidad and research team who undertook this research in Australia. Title: ‘Pathways to Higher Education: The Efficacy of Enabling and Sub-Bachelor Pathways for Disadvantaged Students’ Presenter(s): Ian Cunninghame and Sue Trinidad Institution: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Curtin University, Western Australia The Australian National Priorities Pool funded project Enabling Programmes for Disadvantaged Student Groups was funded as part of the Australian Government Department of Education and Training initiative with the findings released in a public report in Australia in June 2016. The National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE) with a team of researchers from Curtin University, La Trobe University, Federation University and Deakin University conducted a review of current enabling programs and reported on the extent to which current enabling courses offered by Australian higher education providers are an effective means of increasing access to, participation and success in undergraduate courses for students from disadvantaged groups; appropriateness as a pathway to university for disadvantaged groups compared to other pathways; the variability in quality between enabling courses; and what, if any, particular practices or means of delivery should be incorporated to enhance effectiveness for people from disadvantaged groups.
- Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to discuss the “Pathways to Higher Education” report at the FACE conference. We completed this national project for the Australian Government Department of Education and Training, considering the efficacy of a variety of sub-bachelor pathways to higher education as a HEPPP National Priorities Pool project 2014-2015. It represents the most complete and up-to-date study of this kind, specific to the Australian higher education sector. The research was undertaken in 2015 and the report was publically released in 2016 by the Government. The full report can be found on the National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE website).
- Relevant to higher education deliberations in Australia with changing policy we contributed to the Higher Education Standards Panel Review (2016) with the following findings: We know that more than half of students admitted into higher education do not use an ATAR and transition via alternative pathways. Greater attention needs to be paid to the transparency of higher education admissions processes in these alternative pathways. Students, parents of students and the media need to be better educated in this regard. We have provided this feedback to the Higher Education Standards Panel review A greater proportion of students enrolled in and transitioning via enabling pathways are from recognised equity groups than any of the other sub-bachelor pathways examined. In terms of raw numbers, enabling programs are second only to Vocational Education and Training (VET) studies in transitioning more equity-group students to Bachelor-level studies than the other sub-bachelor pathways examined. Students from recognised equity groups who articulate via an enabling program generally experience better first-year retention rates than those articulating via most other sub-bachelor pathways. Therefore, we believe it of critical importance that measures designed to improve the transparency of higher education admission processes give appropriate consideration to the full range of alternative pathways, including enabling programs, sub-bachelor programs and VET. These pathways add a degree of complexity to any proposed admissions transparency framework. It is essential that this complexity be recognised, otherwise prospective students will be misinformed. Our research reveals much variety in the structure, duration and focus of enabling programs that will need to be accommodated in an admissions transparency agenda. This variety does not fit neatly into the principles proposed by the Higher Education Standards Panel or the recent HESP review. For example, students cannot be expected to have equal knowledge of how various admissions processes treat enabling and pathways programs (Principle 2), and presenting information about diverse entry pathways in a comparable form (Principle 6) risks drifting into overly elaborate and lengthy descriptions.
- Some suggestions for how these challenges may be resolved include: Integrating information about key entry pathways (e.g. enabling and VET) within any admissions transparency framework; and Informing students the degree to which these programs have currency within institutional admissions processes. For example, institutional policies that indicate that students may gain entry following a pathways program are potentially misleading within a transparency agenda if institutional admissions practices do not value this pathway, or do value this pathway but with limited prospect of success. Finally, a broader question relating to pathways programs, and particularly enabling programs, is the extent to which these programs could or should align with any nationally agreed definition. There are important policy implications of knowing which types of enabling programs are more effective than others and this question could be considered in more detail by the Higher Education Standards Panel. These points were made in our submission to the HESP review in July 2016 accompanied with a copy of the report.
- Project Team from four Australian universities
- The brief was to…
- We used these two key questions to drive the research focus.
- Methodology
- Methodology put as the 3 P’s
- Defining disadvantage in Australia
- identified across 27 universities It is a ‘moveable feast’ – these numbers changed between the initial analysis and review, indicating a dynamic area of practice Programs ranged in duration from as little as four weeks to as much as 18 months (longer if taken part-time) The programs were quite diverse, however shared the following broad characteristics: The programs were expressly for the purpose of preparing (i.e. enabling) a student to undertake a higher education degree course; They were tuition free for domestic students, however some were also provided to other types of students (e.g. international students) at a charge; Most had no or minimal pre-requisites for entry, in terms of academic capability.
- https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/enabling-programs-help-disadvantaged-university/ Findings There were 11 participant universities, we surveyed a total of 2,678 enabling pathway and VET pathway students via a pilot survey and a larger, national survey (2,593 students). Our findings reinforce enabling programs offer an alternative pathway into higher education for equity students, with many of the students we surveyed satisfied with the enabling program they completed and how prepared they then were for university education. This is important given that 50% of higher education students are now coming via alternative pathways (HESP, 2016). Equity students who enter university via enabling programs generally experience better first-year retention rates than those entering via most other sub-bachelor pathways across Australia, found the strong university performance existed despite the students’ more extreme levels of disadvantage. Pre-degree programs fall into two distinct groups that attract student cohorts. Group 1 are the students who access three to six-month enabling programs are clear about their ambition to enter university but lack the academic preparation. What we found was that enabling pathway students tended to have better academic success and retention than sub-degree students. The second group of sub-degree programs includes diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate degrees and vocational pathways. Students who sign up for these tend to be less certain about attending university but are seeking vocational skills to achieve a specific occupational outcome.
- Findings pages 4-5 of Report The main findings from this research project are: There is currently a diverse range of enabling programs available throughout the higher education sector in Australia, including course length, content, and mode of delivery. 2) There is a lack of transparency, transferability and information about enabling programs that is likely to hinder student take-up, mobility and progression. Greater consistency of program design would increase opportunities for institutions to recognise enabling programs other than their own for the purposes of admission to further undergraduate studies. 3) With the exception of programs designed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, most programs are relatively unrestricted in regards to access; both in terms of what types of domestic students can apply and their prior academic performance. 4) A greater proportion of students enrolled in and transitioning via enabling pathways are from recognised equity groups than any of the other sub-bachelor pathways examined. In terms of raw numbers, enabling programs are second only to VET studies in transitioning more equity-group students to Bachelor-level studies than the other sub-bachelor pathways examined.
- 5) Students from recognised equity groups who articulate via an enabling program generally experience better first-year retention rates than those articulating via most other sub-bachelor pathways. 6) In terms of success (i.e. the ratio of units passed to units studied), the evidence appears to be that the equity group of students articulating from many sub-bachelor pathways are experiencing academic barriers to success. However this finding needs to be treated with caution, due to the low numbers of students transitioning via many of the sub-bachelor pathways. Across all equity groups, students transitioning via the Associate Degree, Advanced Diploma and Diploma pathways generally experienced better success rates than those transitioning via enabling programs. However this finding should be treated with caution, due to the low numbers of students available for this particular part of the analysis. 7) Overall, students articulating via an enabling program expressed greater satisfaction with their experience in comparison with those using a VET pathway. This sentiment was more strongly expressed when participants were asked to consider how well the pathway had prepared them for university studies and whether or not it gave them the confidence to pursue, and a feeling of belonging in, these studies.
- 8) Almost two-third (66.2%) of surveyed students articulating via the VET pathway undertook the VET qualification for its own benefits, not as a pathway to university studies. Furthermore, greater proportions of equity-group students utilise the enabling pathway than the VET pathway. These findings further reinforce the reality that, by and large, the various sub-bachelor pathways serve distinct cohorts of students and act in a complementary, not contrasting, fashion. 9) The absence of fees encourages many students to enrol in an enabling program who might otherwise not have enrolled in a VET or other university pathway. Enabling programs are currently limited in the extent to which they can both widen and deepen access to higher education because: generally higher education institutions recognise only their own enabling programs for articulation purposes; more than half of all enabling places available nationally are enrolled through only eight institutions; and most enabling programs place limitations on the courses to which the students can articulate to. 10) Diversity in the sector has led to a wide range of innovative enabling programs, whose overall success is evident in the national retention rates – and to some extent the success rates - of enabling graduates who proceed to undergraduate level. Further research is required to establish which types of enabling programs are more effective than others, and to promote greater consistency among programs to improve transparency, quality, student mobility, and equity.
- Reiterating: In summary, the data do provide evidence around potential mature age pathways. However, they also suggest that school leavers are happy to enrol in such pathway programs where they are available. Expanding enabling places would therefore likely lead to more under-prepared school leavers choosing a pathway rather than Bachelor program, and would therefore be likely to reduce attrition at Bachelor level. When asked how their chosen pathway could have been improved, the majority of enabling students were happy with their program and how it prepared them for university study whereas other students were less satisfied with their pathway and saw room for improvement. The results here need to be taken in the context since the first group of students coming through enabling programs moved into first-year university courses while the second group (diplomas, advanced diplomas, associate degrees and vocational pathways) tended to receive credit to move into second year. While 19 per cent of students believed they should have done a TAFE course instead, 32 per cent of VET students indicated an enabling program would have been a better option. In total, for more than 66 per cent of students transitioning via a TAFE qualification, university was never the goal. The qualitative findings from the student survey indicate that enabling programs might be improved: By better aligning course content, structures and processes with those at the institutions’ undergraduate level, so as to help acculturate students with their post-enabling experience; Ensuring that the enabling program provides the students with both generic and specific knowledge; By enhancing the academic skills development aspects of the enabling courses; and By providing clearer and more transparent information to prospective students who do not always understand what an enabling program is or does.
- http://theconversation.com/programs-that-prepare-students-for-university-study-may-no-longer-be-free-77851 Enabling Programs will no longer be free if the Higher Education Bill is changed. Students will have to start paying through HECS for enabling courses and many universities are looking a fee-based Diploma courses in 2018.
- Thank you and do download the publication and contact us at NCSEHE ncsehe@curtin.edu.au Pitman, T., Trinidad, S., Devlin, M., Harvey, A., Brett, M. & McKay, J. (2016). “Pathways to Higher Education: The Efficacy of Enabling and Sub-Bachelor Pathways for Disadvantaged Students”. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE), Perth: Curtin University. URL https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/publications/pathways-to-higher-education-the-efficacy-of-enabling-and-sub-bachelor-pathways-for-disadvantaged-students/