Higher Education Equity Literature Database

Context: Paper responds in part to OECD reports on equity in higher education and explores two assumptions about equity that guide equity/WP enactments: fairness and inclusion (and HE policy is seen as either a success or failure, depending on the ontology). Fairness is based on growth in the total number of people from equity groups while inclusion is based on proportional distribution of different groups of students - "ranked in hierarchy of social advantage" (p.24).
Aim: To discuss two dominant views of equity - fairness and inclusion - as well as the types of freedom HE makes possible and the impact of status on equity.
Theoretical frame: Draws on Sen (2009) for discussion of social justice and Sen (1985) for 3 types of freedom (as agency, as power, as control)
Findings:
Equity as fairness or inclusion
1985 OECD report was based around equity-as-inclusion (proportional distribution) while 2008 OECD review placed main emphasis on fairness, but gave more weight to inclusion than in 1985. Offers example of 'Transforming Australia's HE System' (2009) as example of policy that includes both fairness (40% of 25-34 year olds) and inclusion (20% low SES) but fairness given priority because it was to be achieved 5 years before the inclusion target - also because there will be no change that "Would weaken the hold of existing social users of the system" (p.29), the target is not likely to be met. In this case, Marginson argues that universities will likely be positioned as "villains" for not doing enough, thus warranting "a slackening of support for measures to strengthen the position of the disadvantaged" (p.29), which happened in 1980s. Marginson asks: "Is equity policy in higher education doomed to be the domain of perpetual unacheivement, in which equity programs are periodically tried and periodically fall away again?" (p.29). Yes - if fairness remains in dominant position (it should be inclusion). "...enhancement of equity can only succeed when manifest in behavioural change" (p.31)
Two notions of social justice
Sen (2009) reviewed justice and outlined two traditions: 1) 'transcendent institutionalism' = utopian ideal of what justice might look like (social arrangements like law, systems and institutions) = fairness; 2) 'realisation-focused comparison' = achievement of social justice in actual situations/ justice is plural and interest-bound = inclusive.
Freedoms
Sen (1985) argues there are 3 types of freedom: as agency, as power, as control and the self-determining person is constituted by all 3. Agency = having the capacity to act; power = freedom from constraint. HE has the potential to augment students' agency freedom and freedom as power "through learning, knowledge and credentialing" (p.30). Also, discussion of how these freedoms connect with fairness and inclusion - fairness "strategies focus on purifying the mechanisms of fair competition... [b]ut this neglects the fact that individual agents have an unequal capacity to compete" (p.30). Equity as inclusion has 3 implications for practice: 1) a one-size-fits-all approach is 'not optimal'; 2) people who have experienced disadvantage are the best drivers of inclusive practice; 3) the excluded need to be included throughout the system (beyond HE - in schools, colleges, communities, families and public debate).
Status: "The ubiquity of status in higher education is a formidable challenge to equity" (p.31). Universities are instrumental in creating and perpetuating social status and this is their "primary currency" so that "Leading universities attract leading students and high achieving staff in an on-going process of social exchange" and "knowledge is ordered according to the status of universities that produce it and in continuous judgements about relative position in systems of research publication and valuation" (p.31). Some countries - like Australia - pretend that status does not exist. As a result, "governments may buy marginal progress towards its fairness target and avoid a costly political confrontation, while the disadvantaged are mostly fobbed off with places in least valued institutions" (p.32).
Marginson raises question about equity and international students (p.33)

Context: Increasing emphasis on evaluating interventions to demonstrate effectiveness and to inform program planning, especially int eh context of decreasing HEPPP funding such that universities will need to make decisions about how to prioritise funds.
Aim: Provide discussion of the evaluation approach undertaken at Deakin University
Theoretical frame: Bourdieu habitus and capital and socio-ecological approach
Methodology: Qualitative - 42 participants took part in individual interviews, paired interviews and focus groups.
Findings: No findings are reported. Challenges of the evaluation process are discussed.
Core argument: While quantitative data can provide information on population trends, understanding the more complex impacts of WP activities on students lived experience requires qualitative. Evaluation should be of the breadth of HEPPP interventions at an institution, not individual activities, to acknowledge the intersecting influences across the socio-ecological context on the students habitus and their HE experiences.

Context: Pressure to evaluation WP (due to "reductionist doctrine of 'evidence-based practice'"; abstract) to demonstrate value for money, which is made more complex by lack of common agreement about what 'effectiveness' looks like/ is. Authors point to work (e.g. McCaig, 2015) that has critiqued institutional approaches to WP that are more rhetorical than practical/ transformative: "The tension here is obvious: a university can meet its targets (and ostensibly be effective) for recruiting disadvantaged students without impacting at all on the
national targets if it is simply capturing a greater share of the existing applicant pool; a ' zero sum game' where outreach is conflated with recruitment and universities seek easy wins, leading to few additional students being encouraged into higher education" (p.1). 'Effectiveness' used in this article to "'Effectiveness ' is used to "judg[e] the amount of change which can be ascribed to an activity" (p.2).
Aim: To ask questions of how evaluation practices can assess whether outreach activities lead to change
Methodology: "Methodologically agnostic" (p.2) within realist tradition; essay
Findings: Authors note two main trends in WP evaluation work:
1) tracking "with respect to (a) their involvement in activities, (b) their changing attitudes and choices and (c) school outcomes including qualifications" (p.2)
2) trials (e.g. RCTs)
Five challenges for evaluating outreach:
1) Selection/ self-selection biases (because of opt-out potentially omitting 'hard-to-reach' students, leaving participants likely to be from families who are already disposed to education
2) Priming/ social desirability effects (students quickly "become attuned to the idea that there are a ' correct' collection of attitudes to express to practitioners, teachers and parents", p.3)
3) Deadweight/ leakage (leaking = when people outside of target group -e.g. relatively advantaged students - are captured within activity, skewing the results; deadweight = targeting students who would have followed that path without engaging in the outreach)
4) Complexity/ bounded rationality (easy to reduce complexity in evaluation tools which cannot recognise messiness of social life, and that humans cannot make totally rational decisions, meaning that predictable, causal relationships are impossible [and undesirable])
5) Confounding factors/ non-linearity (generally understood that outreach = process, but WP is only part of the school experience/ educational journey, meaning it is impossible to ascribe changes to a particular activity without contextualization).
Core argument: Authors propose a 'small steps' approach based on five ideas:
1. Articulation of clear theory of change and mechanisms expected to bring change at individual level
2. Criticality about causality, using a trial/ RCT approach
3. Criticality about measurability, basing evaluation on knowledge and behaviours rather than attitudinal data
4. Using appropriate timescales - avoid longitudinal tracking for evaluation and focus on individual activities ("confidence in each intervention in its own terms", p.6)
Focus on educational disadvantage: evaluation needs to recognize the difference between compound educational disadvantage and recruitment).

Context: School students in rural areas of Australia have historically accessed HE at lower rates than students from metropolitan areas, and this has been linked to an attainment gap. The scale of outreach evaluation is often limited to single institutions, which means that isolating the effectiveness of certain activities is easily conflated with the influence of other variables. Further, the amount of quantitative survey data needed to adequately quantify success is often difficult to achieve in rural Australian contexts. Reporting increases in enrolment rates for students who have attended outreach activities is not sufficient evidence.
Aim: To determine the influence of university-run rural outreach in NSW on progression to university.
Theoretical frame: None
Methodology: Mixed methods, including quantitative statistical multi-level growth modelling predicting ATAR eligibility as well as applications, offers and enrolments to university from outreach engagement in schools. This quantitative analysis was supported by qualitative narrative analysis and 35 semi-structured in-depth interviews with schoolteachers.
Findings: On-campus experience programs were the most common outreach activity reported and were thought of as having the most impact by practitioners. Generally, teachers held outreach programs in very high regard. Despite this, though, the quantitative analysis showed that the total impact of outreach in NSW (the impact of all outreach themes combined) did not significantly predict any outcomes (ATAR eligibility, application, offers and enrolments in university). In fact, the only outreach theme to significantly predict an outcome were programs to 'boost parental and/or community involvement and support', which had a significant positive effect on number of university enrolments. This was despite that only three teachers though having familial or community support was the best source of student motivation for university attainment. Instead, teachers cited financial issues and physical distance to a university, or other distance-related factors such as being separated from family and friends, as the biggest barriers to university attainment. Further, despite a general positivity towards outreach programs, teachers did express uncertainty that the programs had a lasting effect on students' decision to progress to university, as supported by the quantitative results.
Core argument: Despite general positive regard for rural outreach programs among rural schoolteachers, quantitative modelling showed that overall, outreach programs did not predict ATAR eligibility, or applications, offers or enrolments to university. The authors argue that the fond opinion of outreach programs among teachers may stem from staffing issues commonly experienced in rural Australian schools. Further, the authors suggest that outreach programs being viewed as university marketing strategy may hinder their effectiveness. Other problems with such programs may be in presuming low aspirations among students or in challenging or imposing on students' cultural identities, which may be very different from those of the outreach practitioners. As such, outreach messages may contain paternalistic, colonial and neoliberal undercurrents interpreted as irrelevant by their target audiences.

Context: A theory of change (ToC) is a theory on how and why an initiative works. Theory of change approaches to evaluation acknowledge the complexity of outreach activity and the complex interrelated environments in which they operate, instead of ignoring them as approaches seeking to determine causation (eg RCTs) do. Once the ToC has been developed, it can be used to plan the evaluation to test whether the change theory actually materialised by testing the assumptions and monitoring intended (and unintended) outcomes.
Aim: To demonstrate the use of a ToC model for evaluating an academic enrichment program at the University of Birmingham.
Theoretical frame: Theory of change
Methods: Mixed methods- student attitudinal surveys (pre & post), end of program survey, post-program telephone interview and institutional monitoring data
Findings:
Knowledge, understanding and confidence: Measured using pre-post data - 'I feel I know enough about university to help me make a decision about going' increased 36% to 74%, 'I feel confident about my ability to meet the academic requirements of university' increased 12% to 34%, 'I am very clear about the university application process' increased 67% to 81%, 'I am very clear about writing personal statements' increased 26% to 74%.
Increased application rates to selective universities: The percentage of applications made to Russell Group universities increased (unclear what the comparison group was?).
Raised academic attainment: Participants had better A Level results compared to national averages (but participants were selected partly on GSCE results, so unsurprising?)
Core Argument: ToC approach lends itself well to evaluating widening participation interventions. ToC is not an evaluation method per se, but is a useful guide to the evaluation process from defining evaluation focus, identifying research questions, mapping data collection requirements, analysis and reporting findings

Context: Life story interviewing is a method intended to generate rich, narrative data and has been used to explore social and cultural issues impacting upon individuals lives, including education. However, it is relatively new to the widening participation literature.
Aim: To assess the case for adoption of this approach.
Method: Employing a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) analysis of the method. Reporting on a small pilot study conducted with 3 undergraduates who had participated in various WP activities.
Findings:
Strengths: Insights into students 'learner journey', including their educational experiences going back to early childhood and the influences that informed their progression to HE. Evidence gathered from the pilot study identified the potential for developing new outreach activities.
Weaknesses: The time and resources to conduct life story interviews (between 60-90 minutes per student). Samples sizes are small - raising issues of generalisability of findings. Quality of data was dependent on ability of researcher to facilitate (same with all qual methods but semi-structured interviews are more reliant on interviewer skill than structured interviews). Method is dependent on the student being able to remember experiences that sometimes happened years earlier.
Opportunities: Most WP evaluation uses student pre and post surveys which is limited in demonstrating impact. Calls for qualitative studies which explore learner journeys and more deeply understand decision making process around HE.
Threats: Principle threat to adoption of this method is the orthodox which places a premium on quant methods, based on the idea that numerical evidence is more persuasive and objective.
Core argument: Qualitative analysis is better equipped to understand the complexity of engagement with WP and evolving decisions about HE. Life story interviews, while time intensive, are a good compliment to quantitative data in their ability to examine this complexity.

This blog post is part of the Gonski Institute for Education’s open access annotated bibliography (OAAB) series, a project led by Dr Sally Baker. OAABs offer a snapshot of some of the available literature on a particular topic. The literature is curated by a collective of scholars who share an interest in equity in education. These resources are intended to be shared with the international community of researchers, students, educators and practitioners. The literature has been organised thematically according to patterns that have emerged from a deep and sustained engagement with the various fields.

Context: College teacher performance in relation to teacher-student dynamics.
Aim: To investigate how college teachers' experience of relational turning points (change in relational dynamic) with students and how this may impact on teaching outcomes.
Methodology: Survey of n=390 college teachers with open-ended answers; constant comparative analysis; open coding.
Findings:
Turning points shaped during consultation sessions were highlighted by respondents. These are opportunities to discuss education and career advancement, discussion of course policy or assignment, or other modes of assistance which are mostly face to face (42). Teachers who reported these types of turning points indicated increased job satisfaction (45). Teachers who experienced students deceiving them (through activities such as plagiarism) reported a decreased satisfaction with their job (45).
Core argument: Teacher-student relationships play a key role in teacher job satisfaction.

Context: With a particular focus on developed countries, the authors review the use of graduate employment outcomes as a measure of student success, and critique the way graduate outcomes are conceptualised and measured.
Aims: This study raises suggestions for more appropriate measures which align with broader conceptualisations of career success for the future world-of-work, and which cater to differences among disciplines (p.985).
Theoretical frame:
Methodology: The authors review surveys measuring graduate outcomes in Australia, UK, Ireland and the USA.
Findings: Current measures of graduate outcomes have an overreliance on full-time employment as the main indicator of success, which the authors argue should be applied with caution and only as a complement to subjective indicators, such a perceived graduate value, perceived employability and wellbeing among graduates. In addition, the study discusses revising the timing of when data is collected in Australia (4 months post-graduation), suggesting options, including during the course and prior to graduation, and 18 to 24 months after graduation.
Core argument: The authors assert that there is a need to shift away from overreliance on objective measures, such as full-time employment, given (1) the limited control of higher education on influences affecting employment, and (2) the way in which the different motivations of students for undertaking higher education studies can be devalued, as well as their contributions to the economy and society, through the privileging of such objective measures. Consequently, the authors argue for a more nuanced approach to measurement, involving characterisation of a range of objective and subjective indicators including employment outcomes, social and economic value, career satisfaction and well-being (p. 995).

Context: A key feature of the last twenty years in educational research has been the rising emphasis placed on evidence-based practice. One particularly controversial manifestation of this has been what is often referred to as the 'what works' agenda, which reflects a strongly objectivist approach that emphasises quantitative data collected through rigorous sampling, robust analytical techniques and formal inference, subjecting educational activities and innovations to a sharp test of 'impact' and 'success' (p. 3). It has increasingly pervaded thinking over the last ten years, resulting in the UK government routing GBP125 million through the Education Endowment Foundation: a charity established to commission 'what works' style evaluations around educational interventions perceived to increase outcomes for disadvantaged children (Menter, 2013; Gorard, Siddiqui and See, 2015).
Aim: To critique the 'what works' approach from a post-positivist perspective. RQ: 'Do financial bursaries for financially disadvantaged students ameliorate their educational disadvantage relative to other students?' (p. 12)
Theoretical framework: Not specified in study.
Methodology: A qualitative approach is employed, with a case study methodology. The case study focused on means-tested bursaries introduced through the Higher Education Act 2004 and implemented from 2006 onwards (DfES, 2003). The binary logistic regression analysis was selected for this project due to the quasi-experimental nature of the data available. 15 control variables were used alongside four dichotomous measures of outcome:
1. Whether the student had been retained into their second year of study at the same university (not necessarily having progressed);
2. Whether the student completed a degree programme within five years (longer programmes such as medicine were excluded);
3. Whether the student achieved a 'good' degree - a first or upper second class degree;
4. Whether the student was in graduate-level employment six months after graduation, with various exceptions for travelling, parenthood etc.
Findings: Three different types of result were represented - there were no specific patterns by university and most had a mixture of results across the four outcome measures: a) Result 1: Bursary students had significantly worse outcomes than the comparison group b)Result 2: Bursary students had similar outcomes to the comparison group - i.e. there was no statistically significant difference c)Result 3: Bursary students had significantly better outcomes than the comparison group.
Discussion: Possible inferences to be drawn about the effectiveness of bursaries: a) Result 1: Bursaries are either ineffective or insufficient to fully overcome the impacts of financial disadvantage b) Result 2: Bursaries are effective (unless the impact of financial disadvantage on educational outcomes is non-existent) c)Result 3: Bursaries are very effective (and possibly unfairly so in regards to the mid-income student group)
Core argument: It would be 'morally questionable' (p. 17) to remove a provision with positive human impacts due to epistemological challenges with proving impact against relatively crude policy-friendly measures. This tendency to 'privilege the measurable' always needs to be thoroughly problematised.

Context: First year experience/ transitions and coping with the first year of undergraduate study for students who enter with low ATARs. Article set against argument about financial cost of attrition for students and institutions. Students entering with low admission scores = result of widening participation agenda; these students are understood to be a particular risk and less likely to complete their studies [without recognitive supports]. Authors argue that there is little known about the transitional/ study experiences of students who enter with low ATARs
Aim: To examine "the perceptions and experiences of first-year students who entered university with a low ATAR" (p.527); "to extend focus beyond statistics around attrition and completion to explore what institutions and university educators could do to better support low ATAR learners in their first years of university study" (p.528)
Methodology: Online survey of first-year (5th wave in 2014); 8 institutions participated (see p.529 for full details of the diversity of participating universities and students). 1739 surveys returned
Findings: Overall, students in 2014 were generally more positive: "Most students were clear about their reasons for going to university, had a strong sense of purpose and identity, and were satisfied with their course experience so far" (p.530):
- Better prepared to choose a course
- Feel that school prepared them for their transition
- More encouraged to go to university
- Clear reasons for why they had chosen university (90%), which "means that students are more likely to be committed and engaged in their studies and persist when the work becomes challenging" (p.530).
- Most knew which profession they were aiming for
- Over a third indicated they found it difficult to be motivated (lower than 42% in 1994), which is concerning when it comes to predicting drop out.
- More students reported asking for help (from 29% in 2009 to 37% in 2014)
- Views of the quality of teaching = increased from 66% in 1994 to 89% in 2014
- Most believed their teachers = enthusiastic about topic, available to help, give useful feedback
- Survey data suggest that students = less connected/ making fewer friends and lower reported sense of belonging to university community: "The groups of students less likely to feel that they belong to their university community were part-time students; mature age students over 25 years, and full-time students in paid work 16 or more hours per week" (p.532).
Experience of low ATAR students (lower than 70)
"Of the 774 school leavers who had entered university with an ATAR score, 134 (17.3%) were in the 'low ATAR group', with 60 students (or 7.7%) entering with ATAR scores under 60" (p.532). Average ATAR in this group = 59
Low ATAR students = more likely to belong to number of equity groups/ categories:
- 9% = students with a disability
- 45% = from rural areas (compared to 19% of high ATAR students)
- More likely to be from low SES backgrounds (57% compared to 30% using parental education as measure)
- More likely to be first in family (45% compared to 22%)
- Students = less prepared; enjoyed their studies less; lower levels of academic engagement; more likely to have difficulties; more likely to consider deferring or withdrawing (26% to 17%).
- Less likely to engage in orientation activities/ feel prepared by orientation
- 40% of low ATAR students had not expected to get an offer, more so for students with an ATAR of less than 60
No significant difference in terms of considering change of course between low and higher ATAR
- Lower ATAR students got lower marks, but outperformed own expectations..
- Lower ATAR students = less academically engaged:
- More likely to find content challenging
- Less likely to feel confident in managing workload/ time/ schedules
- More likely to consider deferring because of a fear of failure.
Core argument: Lower ATAR students = "more likely to be disillusioned with their course and are at greater risk of attrition" (p.535). Need for universities to do more to support these students as a whole-of-curriculum approach, such as considering pre-bachelor/ preparatory courses. Overall, authors argue "it will be essential for institutions to monitor the experience of distinctive student subgroups and develop research-based strategies to ensure that students with diverse educational backgrounds are given fair opportunities and support to achieve academic success" (p.536).

Context: UK higher education and students' transitioning into higher education; use of social networking/ online activities prior to 'on site' formal induction [in disciplines of Geography and English]
Aim: To discuss eight factors identified as appearing to ease anxieties for students pre-transition as a result of using university social networking site ('Ning').
Theoretical frame:
Methodology: "Interpretivist and respondent-led" (p.357). Multi-method: student questionnaire (n=145 joined the pre-induction site, focus groups with students, tutor interviews, online content analysis. Only public messages on Ning = captured and thus = impossible to know how many conversations migrated to Facebook or took place in private messaging
Findings: Geography students/ tutors added more photographs than English (319 to 55) - difference in disciplinary orientation: Geography = more field-work related; English = more text-based interaction (English = 1438 messages compared to 219 Geography).
Academic course = main topic (20% of messages), followed by discussions about accommodation (17%)
Data suggests students found the site relieved anxiety because they could put a name to a face (with both fellow students and tutors) and facilitated meetings between peers.
Core argument: Authors identify 8 key characteristics for staff to develop effective social networks:
1) High tutor membership and participation
2) Show your face
3) Give a little
4) Prompt responses
5) Encouragement and facilitation of discussions
6) Regular refreshing of content
7) Opportunity for program-specific information/ interactions
8) Prompt invitations to all potential participants (p.363)

Context: UK higher education; widening participation; proposal to increase student fees to 9000GBP per year in 2012. Mature age students, perceptions of impact of increased student fee contribution on part-time learners, who had been largely ignored in debates about increasing fees/ student loans in the run up to the change in 2012. Author critiques the premise for passing financial responsibility onto individual student (that a graduate will earn on average 100k more than non-graduate) because of dilution effect of massification/ credential creep.
Author notes how WP strategies have opened pathways for part-time (PT) students, who are mostly (93% in 2007/8) mature age and have caring/ work responsibilities.
The changes to student fees meant that PT students were able to access student loan packages, which the author notes is ironic given that fees increased so dramatically, but still not maintenance grants like FT students: "or mature students, choices related to paying full fees and accruing the concomitant student loan debt are very different prospects than for their younger full-time undergraduate peers" (p.842), thus setting up the prospect of long-term debt.
Aims: To examine "the problems which part-time mature learners may face with the advent of student loans and subsequent debt, given that they are usually combining complex lives with their studies, with less time to repay any loan in their working lifetime" (abstract)
Methodology: Qualitative focus groups with PT mature age students (n=212) studying in a foundation degree at five centres: one university and four FE colleges. Asynchronous discussion board also used to collect data. Focus groups = focused on tuition fees and access to student loans/ perceptions of debt. Author notes limitation about cohort: they did not have to pay the increased fees so their perceptions = hypothetical.
Findings: Several key themes: relief at dodging increased fees, fear of financial strife/ families suffering as a result of taking on more expensive education, anxiety about graduate employability/ worthiness of taking on debt for limited reward, perception that the increase would generate profit for universities, and a distrust in the government to maintain the repayment terms.
Students also noted benefits of being able to access student loan program.
None made reference to maintenance grants scheme (and lack of access for PT students)
Students noted the potential for differential results for students on basis of gender, with perception that women would be more burdened by changes than men (see p.845).
Older participants expressed concern that they wouldn't be able to pay back the loan/ gain benefits of being more qualified in the job market (although some respondents saw this as benefit)
Core argument: Confusion about fees, debt aversion and the lack of concern for PT learners (and the perceived additional barriers created for PT students) = inhibit government's rhetoric and push for lifelong learning. Gendered differences = of concern: "so many of the female respondents [compared with none of the male participants] showed in considering higher education for themselves in a situation where they would be inflicting, in their view, a burden of debt on their whole family, and possibly jeopardising their children's opportunities to go to college or university" (p.848-9).

Context: Developments in HE have often resulted in 'a tension between widening participation and maintaining academic standards' (p. 209) (Riddell et al., 2007). Ways to safeguard academic standards while ensuring inclusion has often been debated among both policy makers and researchers (Quality Assurance Agency, 2006; Bloxham, 2009).
Aim: This article aims to explore the impact of staff values regarding WP on marking by drawing on developing theory regarding assessment ((Shay 2005; O'Donovan, Price, and Rust 2008; Sadler 2009). It reports on an 'innovative creative arts module delivered for students with complex disabilities' (abstract), which aimed to contribute towards inclusion by adjusting curriculum and assessment design for students with complex disabilities.
Theoretical framework: Not specified in study.
Methodology: A qualitative, ethnographic approach was employed, with a case study methodology. Data collection methods employed include: 1)a review of the literature and other documents relevant to the study; 2) observation of the programme in action; 3) interviews with academic staff, students and support staff; 4) recordings of two academic team discussions (university and college tutors); 5)a questionnaire on moderation issues for the two university tutors. Participants: Students (n=6) with multiple disabilities caused by cerebral palsy, causing severe impact on speech, mobility and motor skills. Module employed: Designed particularly for six students from college with no formal qualifications, but possessed experience in creative work; delivered alternately at college & university campus; students were accompanied to campus by individual key workers.
Findings: Findings show a generally positive attitude regarding the module outcomes; a recurring theme among individual students was 'the thrill of HE' (p. 215); students appreciated 'being part of the 'real world', working in an institution with a professional purpose' with matching facilities; the findings also highlight the 'inseparable dilemma' (p. 216) of course tutors in categorising achievement under conventional marking standards within the specialised context; support workers felt unprepared to be learning facilitators on a HE course; tutors also faced difficulties in capturing the evidence of learning for students whom standard learning communication methods are highly inappropriate. The difficulty the students faced in providing oral or written expressions resulted in the staff using 'subtle and ephemeral' forms of expression as evidence of prominent thinking. The perceived difference in students' perspective compared to their non-disabled peers led tutors to recast student achievement as 'different' instead of 'inferior' (p. 218). Tutors' view of students being disadvantaged in the context of the module criteria also led to narrowed expectations of what was considered 'fair' (p. 218). In terms of the coursework's reflective element, tutors directed their assessment towards the students' ability to choose resources, and the application of their thought processes to work in relation to the theme. Nevertheless, despite the reasonable adjustments incorporated, tutors believed that there were 'undeniable limits' to the achievement of students with disability within the criteria and standards of the module implemented.
Discussion: The study indicates that the notion of 'reasonable adjustments' to teaching and assessment oversimplifies the barriers presented by the complex disabilities for students in learning. However, academic staff in this study appeared to interpret 'semantically 'loose' learning outcomes and grade descriptors in the light of a new shared 'standards framework' for interpreting the existing criteria (p. 220). This framework appears to combine the 'need to maintain 'standards' with positive values regarding inclusion, a willingness to change expectations in the light of students' disabilities, and an openness to recognising learning however it reveals itself' (p. 220).
Core argument: Assessment in practice is neither 'objectivist [n]or relativist. It is contextual, experiential, and, perhaps most importantly, value based' (Shay, 2004, p. 325). While values are transparent relation to the assessment of students with complex disabilities, this case serves to highlight the role of values in many marking judgements in HE.

Context: Australian widening participation (UK term used, not sure why)
Aim: To ask critical questions about neo-liberal forms of social justice
Theoretical frame: Uses Foucauldian discourse analysis on policy documents (2008-2013)/ 'feeling-rules' = modes of emotional existence: "techniques of the self that are inherent in neo-liberal ideologies where each person is considered to be their own entrepreneur responsible for the cultivation of their own personal human capital" (p.26)
Methodology: Bacchi's 'What's the Problem Represented to be?' (WPR) = 'digging tool' comprising 6 questions:
1. What's the problem represented to be in specific policy/ policy proposal?
2. What presuppositions/ assumptions underpin this representation?
3. How has this 'representation' come to be?
4. What is left as unproblematic in this representation? Where are there silences?
5. What effects are produced by this representation?
6. How/where has this representation been produced, disseminated and defended?
Findings: Identifies two subject positions and 'feeling-rules' within Australian WP policy: the cap(able) individual and the proper aspirant.
The cap(able) individual: a "quintessential neo-liberal subject who possesses 'natural ability', hope for social mobility and highly individualised and entrepreneurial disposition". 'Capability' = "a floating signifier" (p.29) - left as commonsensical but it is informed by a suite of tacit assumptions about structural, sociocultural and environmental factors that are lacking in WP documents. Links with biological essentialist views (Cartesian views of identity?) = 'natural ability'
The proper aspirant: "must display an ability to rationally calculate pathways to and through higher education... for maximum benefit" (p.35). This subject position is based on a normative hierarchy (e.g. university is better than TAFE) which privileges middle-class ideals (p.34). This subject position "diminishes the feeling-rules that permeate governmental power relations" and allows some ways of being/doing/knowing to be valued more than others. Here, 'working-class' subjectivity is positioned as 'unknowing' with 'deficits on quality'.
Core argument: Aspiration is a 'neo-liberal form of hope' (p.38)

Context: Examines 'UniReady for Multicultural Groups' at UniSA (in Whyalla) - aim is to attract 'immigrant families' to university. Pilot study = introduced participants to [idea of?] university study, degrees available and future planning for university. Set in context of widening participation. According to ABS data, in 2010, 719,600 migrants (unclear how they arrived; presumably economic migrants??) - 76% = born in LBOTE countries; 91% 15-41 years of age on arrival. 477,800 = temporary visas [457 visas??]. Describes educational backgrounds (e.g. 65% had 'non-school qualification; 31% had received non-school qualifications since arriving in Australia; 46% of whom = BA or higher) - but unclear if these numbers include NES (UK/CAN/US etc.)
Theoretical frame: None
Methodology: 15/18 (83%) community members participated in pilot program = paper draws on experiences of participants and 4 staff members. Survey tool used = quantitative and qualitative data collected. Program advertised via flyers [unclear if these were translated]. Program consisted of 5 hours = intro to program, intro to pathways to study, discipline information sessions for Foundation studies, Engineering, Business, Social Work and Nursing.
Findings: Potential students: Most important information = 'how to get started' and clarity of information given.
Staff: "reported the need to encourage people to consider studying in the area of Business" (p.76) and 'opportunity to spread the word'

Context: Australian HE post-Bradley review (widening participation in Australia as a response to a futures-crisis of skilled/graduate workers which could damage Australia's potential "to secure for Australia a more competitive position in the global knowledge economy" (p.670)
Aim: To propose three propositions for student equity: 1) new relations between demand and supply - demand will struggle to match intended supply (20/40 targets); 2) government and universities will need to develop new way of thinking about the students they want to attract; 3) more attention to nature of HE/its appeal will be needed.
Theoretical frame:
Methodology: Essay
Findings: Proposition 1: changing relationship between demand and supply.
There has been no net gain in academics (54% of Australian academics are over the age of 45) and more academics are needed (as well as students) in order to meet the 20/40 targets (220,000 more student places needed by 2025 to meet targets: expansion = 4-5x size of Monash). Also considers financial resources needed for infrastructure investments/developments needed to sustain increased student numbers. Universities don't have enough surplus funds to fund these. Low SES student numbers have increased but proportional representation has remained steady and there are similar trends in TAFE (Cert IV/ diploma courses) meaning that VET cannot fill shortfall in numbers.
Proposition 2: Aspiration and design of outreach: Gale et al. (2010) argued that three equity perspectives inform high quality university outreach programs: 1) they unsettle deficit views of disadvantaged students and communities; 2) they research local knowledges and negotiate local interventions; 3) they build capacity in communities, schools and universities. Gale et al.'s work identified 10 characteristics (DEMO) - listed on p.675 - which feed into a matrix. Optimum performance/ outreach has all 10 characteristics; effective programs need a combination of at least 5 characteristics. Sellar & Gale (?) identify 3 levels of aspiration: individual (economic/ sociocultural); institutional (economic/ symbolic); national (economic/ sociocultural). Positioning of low SES with 'low' aspirations = incongruent with national economic ambitions. Similarly, the national ambition to encourage fairer distribution of educational goods = in conflict with hierarchical/elite system and competition between students/ places/ universities.
Proposition 3: teaching for equity: retention rates are similar between low /medium/high SES students (aka = low SES students do as well as their peers at staying with their courses; see Bradley Review 2008). New understanding needed that all students bring "assets" to university (p.679) requires new ways of thinking about teaching and learning and current practices create the image of a homogenous HE system that may prevent some students from aspiring to belong/join. Identifies 3 narratives from UK/ AUS/ US (common themes) that guide principles for teaching and learning (see p.680): diversity of learners to be considered in curriculum and pedagogy, active engagement (pedagogy), assessment should be linked to pedagogy (needs revisiting). Gale identifies possible equity principle in each: 1) consider student-faculty contact (familiarity/distance); 2) valuing of informal learning; 3) research for teaching - informing teachers. Suggests taking 'funds of knowledge' approach (Moll et al. 1992) to recognise that all students come to learning environment with knowledges which positions them differently (as experts of their own domains). Zipin (2009) suggests funds of pedagogy; Gonzales et al. (2005) suggest a hybrid of these two ideas, involving "lightly framed, open curricula and pedagogy that allow for student contributions without these being predetermined" (p.681). Refers to TLRP 'connectionist pedagogies' (Hockings, Cooke & Bowl, 2010) to create collaborative and inclusive spaces, student-centred strategies, connecting with students' lives, being culturally aware.
Core argument: Australian universities need to work together, rather than in competition, to meet the 20/40 targets. Need to consider role of teaching and learning to tackle equity issues.

Context: English higher education; social class, expectations and experiences of transitioning into higher education. Starts by scoping the notion of 'the gap' and its take up in the literature (mind the gap, bridging the gap, the achievement gap), and the idea of prior attainment/ predictor of attainment. Transition gaps = exist in ways that universities perceive/receive students, in motivation, cultural assimilation. Literature suggests that universities' awareness of students prior experiences = scant (p.2). Outcome gaps = attainment/ students' backgrounds. University = site of research does not distinguish WP students/ offer targeted supports.
Aim: To explore "(in)congruence between students' expectations of higher education and their experience
while at university, tracking how recalled pre-arrival expectations correlate with socio-economic status and school type" or access program for WP students (abstract)
Theoretical frame:
Methodology: Exploratory and mixed methods - transition gaps = qualitatively explored; outcome gaps = quantitatively explored; one-to-one interviews with young university students (n=85), categorised into four types: intervention/ non-intervention WP students; state school/ independent school students. All WP = f-in-f and from low-income households (not mature). Intervention = pre-arrival access program. Questions included 'is the content of your course what you expected it to be like (if not, why not?)', 'how does the way you're assessed at university differ from the way you were assessed at school/college?' and 'are the social aspects of being a student what you expected?' (p.4). Data = thematically analysed.
Findings: Quantitative analysis: non-intervention school students = most satisfied with support and teaching (non-intervention WP = least). Qualitative analysis suggests 4 codes:
(a) Being Helped: transitioning from fear of academics to co-production of knowledge;
(b) Being Taught: transitioning from explicit instruction to implicit assumption;
(c) Being Assessed: transitioning from 'not knowing the jump' to embracing assessment practices;
(d) Being Confident: transitioning from 'not knowing the language' to fluency in university-speak. (p.5)
Being helped: school students = more positive; WP students = recurring theme of under-confidence to approach academics/ ask for help and they found the independence/ larger class sizes challenging. Independent school students = knew how to ask for help (and some used this to 'game the assessment system') but data suggest that some felt there was not enough help. Author speculates that the non-WP students had expectations that aligned most closely with the experiences of university, helping them to 'close their gaps' better than WP students.
Being taught: data suggests that students' expectations of teaching = incongruent with reality and the academic demands were higher than expected. Experiences of teaching appeared to be characterised as separation, disorientation and disaffection: "Many found it challenging to be in an environment regarded
as less learner-focused ('getting the information you need is definitely harder') and more austere ('some
of the rooms / they don't seem much like they were made for students')" (p.8). It was markedly (seemingly) easier for independent school students. The intervention appeared to make a positive difference for the WP students who attended - offering a kind of insider knowledge and self-reliance. Notion of preparedness = key: "Students from non-WP backgrounds benefited from a more accurate and nuanced understanding of how universities operate; they were forewarned about the different and new academic environment that they would encounter. In many cases, this was not 'unspoken' cultural capital so much as the end product of systematic coaching in how to succeed at university" (p.8).
Being assessed: students generally experienced a 'jump' in assessment. WP students = highest level of satisfaction; independent school students = lowest satisfaction (adjusting to academic conventions/ level of feedback/ assessment practices).
Being confident: system = particularly challenging (disorienting) for WP students + technical challenges + academic terminology
Core argument: "Those who transition successfully report greater confidence, a stronger sense of academic fit, and better professional relationships with university staff. Those who transition unsuccessfully report having to play 'catch-up' and a creeping sense of academic disaffection" (p.10).