Our research addresses the sources of inequity at all levels, from individual learners and their families, to schools and other educational institutions and their communities, through to systems and policies.
A report by A/Prof Kalervo N. Gulson, A/Prof Andrew Murphie and Simon Taylor (University of New South Wales, Australia) and Dr. Sam Sellar (Manchester Metropolitan University, England).
The Phase 2 report surveyed nearly 2,500 parents, grandparents and caregivers and collected data about more than 5,000 children across Australia on home use of digital devices by young people during the pandemic.
A new report recommends scrapping the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) for a new National Assessment System that puts students’ interests first.
In this short article, we explain what play is, how we all benefit from letting the children play more, what Australians think about play, and what parents and teachers can do to get our children, and all of us, to play more and better in and out of school.
Listen to Senior Lecturer Dr Sally Baker in conversation with Associate Professor Andrew Harvey, Director of the Centre for Higher Education Equity and Diversity Research at La Trobe University discussing the history, present and future of equity in higher education.
There is a growing body of work that examines the ‘transitions out’ of higher education, using the lens of equity to examine patterns in graduate outcomes and employment/ further study destinations of under-represented students in Australian higher education.
There is a significant silence in the literature regarding equity at the postgraduate level, both internationally and in the Australian context. Instead, the focus on widening participation and supporting equity is almost exclusively located in undergraduate education, and this attention is also mirrored in government and higher education institution policy initiatives.
As an identified equity group, both in legislative and higher education policy terms, students with disabilities have also been a growing focus of attention. This literature is broadly focused on three things: firstly, it has offered characterisations of the composition of the students with disabilities population is (in terms of what disabilities are most reported in enrolment data); secondly, it outlines the challenges and barriers that students with disabilities can face; and thirdly, it explores institutional responses to such issues.
The literature suggests that there are strong relationships between equity group students and an increased likelihood of, or actual, attrition. Edwards & McMillan’s (2015) research strongly suggests that students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to complete their higher education studies, particularly for low SES, rural and remote, and Indigenous students.
Much like space, time is such a constant element of social life that it is often taken for granted in social research. However, although time is often understood as a ‘simple, singular, and linear contextual dimension of people’s experiences’, there is a substantial body of work that points to how time can be better understood as complex, conflicting, multi- dimensional and intersectional.
There are three dominant conceptual framings in the literature included in this review: equity, social justice, and social inclusion. These three conceptualisations are evident in all the different types of contributions included in this review: empirical work, theoretical discussions, literature reviews, research reports.
There is a body of work that traces the history, evolution and development of equity in Australian higher education policy. The work of Gale & Tranter (2011) was very useful in this regard, presenting a historic overview of Australian higher education through the lens of equity/ social justice as well as tracing how higher policy is shaped by (and shapes) social and economic drivers, policies and social justice intentions.
Students with caring/ parenting responsibilities is a sub-set of the broader literature on mature-age students and how gender impacts on students’ access and engagement with higher education studies. There are myriad challenges that student-parents face with regard to their studies, largely thematised in the literature in terms of time, balance, and care, all of which are underpinned by a common finding that universities are considered inflexible, unresponsive and “care-blind”.
The literature highlights out-of-home-care (OOHC) students as one of the most underrepresented groups in higher education (HE). This is evident in the extremely low participation rates of OOHC students in HE, their significantly low educational outcomes and the higher retention rates observed among care leavers in HE.
There has been a strong focus on low SES students in Australian higher education since the then-Labor government chose to focus exclusively on low SES students despite the suggested target groups of low SES, Indigenous and rural and remote students in the 2008 Bradley review.
There is a small body of work that explicitly links equity with language and literacies (often packaged under the unhelpfully reductive ‘skills’ label; see Lea & Street, 1998; Lillis, 2001; Wingate, 2006 for critique of this description of language).
There is a strong focus on Indigenous students’ access to, retention, participation and success in higher education. Eleven of the papers included in the review specifically focus on Indigenous students, but several others include Indigenous students in their analysis. As with other equity groups, research suggests that there are particular demographic patterns.
Following the policy focus on social inclusion, there is a sustained focus on how this notion plays out in the teaching and learning environment. At the policy level, social inclusion was a centrepiece of the Bradley review of Australian higher education (2008), using the terms ‘widening participation’, ‘equity’, ‘access and participation of under-represented groups of students’, and ‘social inclusion’.
