Universities

Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, International Education

University transformation: the wrong research questions are being asked

This article was written by Anné H. Verhoef

“Transformation” is a word regularly in global higher education research. It normally implies deep change in knowledge and curriculum. It often entails questions about inclusion, identity, diversity, power, intellectual traditions and intellectual justice.

In South Africa, the word means something quite different in higher education. Its definition is rooted in the country’s apartheid history. The transition to democracy in 1994 gave impetus to transform the higher education system into one that was open, relevant and non-discriminatory.

The problem is that transformation is often loosely defined. There’s no clear consensus about its scope and aims. This lack of clarity means that research in South Africa about a wide variety of themes under the umbrella term of “transformation” may not actually be asking the right questions.

And asking the wrong questions means getting the wrong and irrelevant answers. It also sets back policy changes. Eventually this may discourage much needed transformation in higher education.

To understand what questions are and are not being asked, two of my colleagues and I analysed 1050 articles published in the South African Journal of Higher Education between 2005 and 2015.

We found four main patterns in how authors engaged with issues of transformation. We also identified a few shortcomings in their engagements. If these are addressed, it could help ensure that this crucial topic is properly understood. This can then be translated into solid, realistic policy and changes.

Research trends in South Africa

Only 30 of the 1050 articles we examined used the words “transformation”, “transformative” or “transforming” in their titles. We then analysed the 30 in more depth. Four quite distinct approaches to understanding transformation emerged.

These were transformation through curriculum; transformation through structures; transformation through redressing equity; and transformation through access.

1. Transformation through curriculum

Twelve articles positioned transformation in the higher education curriculum. They suggested that transformation takes place through what is taught and how it is taught, how results are measured and, for instance, how technology is integrated into teaching.

The articles in this pattern also presented a curriculum as something that’s flexible and constantly evolving. The authors explored the ways that professional development and student feedback could be used to test, critique and apply curricular reforms.

Some of the articles in this pattern presented teacher education as a space in which to start transforming the curriculum.

2. Transformation through structures

Nine articles related transformation to structures in higher education. There were three key aspects in these articles: ideas, practices and the role of structure in nation building; broader national trends such as higher education policy evaluation and reform; and the structures within institutions that influence transformation.

These structures include institutional culture underpinned by hegemonic forces that shape institutional transformation. That is: university education with whom, by whom and for whom. The research in this pattern explored how an institution’s leaders can emerge as sceptics or advocates for transformation. It also looked at transformation emanating from the institutional mergers of the mid 2000s.

3. Transformation through redressing equity

Six of the articles viewed transformation as redressing equity in higher education. In a post-apartheid South African context the expectation – as outlined in the Education White Paper of 1997 – is that

the higher education system must be transformed to redress past inequalities, to serve a new social order, to meet pressing national needs … to overcome the fragmentation, inequality and inefficiency which are the legacy of the past.

These articles viewed equity redress as being embedded in race, gender and class. They took the view that once universities open up access across class, race and gender – for students and staff – they’re on the road to transformation. These researchers referred specifically to the inclusion and exclusion of academic staff within institutions, including through recruitment policies.

So transformation was viewed as occurring through employment equity, the reconfiguration of power structures and alternative ways of conceptualising an institution’s staff diversity profiles.

4. Transformation through access

Three of the articles argued that access is a prerequisite for successful transformation in higher education. These articles contended that access was shaped by contextual and personal forces. In these arguments, specific reference was made to the access of black women academics. The articles also discussed the access to tertiary education of underprepared students.

These students struggled with language barriers or literacy challenges. They often battled to read and write in the language of instruction.

Shortcomings in research

These national research trends give close attention to the structural and ideological dimensions that shape transformation. This focus echoes the issues articulated in national policy.

The research trends we uncovered address some crucial aspects of transformation. But they fall short in three critical ways: internationalisation, interdisciplinary contributions and embracing transformation’s inherent complexity.

In higher education, internationalisation refers to universities crossing borders to attain certain academic, economic, political and cultural aims. It is the process of integrating an international and intercultural dimension into the core activities of higher education – teaching, learning, research and community engagement.

Internationalisation is necessary to broaden the discourse around transformation.

It’s also crucial that research in higher education should look beyond the education discipline alone. It needs to include input from other disciplines. The value of interdisciplinary research and education is that it increases competitiveness: knowledge creation and innovation frequently occur at the interface of disciplines. It also helps to ensure better educational programmes, which then improves students’ ability to work in a problem-oriented way.

Finally, embracing the complexity of transformation – understanding it as as a fluid open-ended construct rather than a static notion that is only focused on demographic changes – would help to bring about profound changes in the higher education domain.

If these approaches are given more attention in future research, South Africa’s policies can be greatly improved. This could make transformation in higher education tangible rather than just a pipe dream.

The Conversation

Anné H. Verhoef, Associate Professor in Philosophy, North-West University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Higher Education, International Education

Making university admissions process more transparent is important, but won’t help improve equity

This article was written by Shane Duggan

Universities are being urged to make their admission process more transparent following the release of a report by the Higher Education Standards Panel, which was set up by the government to help with reforming areas of higher education.

The rapid expansion of the university sector has led to a disparity of admissions practices, with equivalent courses at different institutions potentially having wildly different admissions requirements.

Earlier this year, a Fairfax media investigation revealed up to 63.5% of students at some universities were being admitted to courses of study below the advertised Australian Tertiary Admission Rank (ATAR) “cut off” scores.

However, subsequent disclosure by a number of prestigious universities has illustrated that this practice tends to be isolated to particular institutions, and courses of study.

The review was careful to point out that offers to students with an ATAR of “50 or less” made up slightly over 2% of all offers in 2016 – and more than half of these students rejected their offer.

Across the sector, universities have been accused of being non-transparent about how they deploy “bonus point” schemes. The review found that almost all providers offer bonus points of some kind. These points are commonly allocated for:

  • high academic achievement in particular subjects;
  • participation in elite sport or arts;
  • students facing social, geographic, or economic disadvantage.

The review suggests that the opacity is at least in part the result of successive waves of expansion and diversification of the sector that have gone relatively unchecked since the 2008 Review of Australian Higher Education (the Bradley Review).

Report recommendations

The review highlights five key issues around the use of ATARs for admissions that it sought to address:

  • a lack of common language used between universities
  • unable to compare course admissions criteria between states and territories
  • availability of information from admissions centres
  • overemphasis on the ATAR as an admission requirement
  • potential inflation of “cut-offs”.

In response, the panel makes fourteen recommendations focusing on four priorities: transparency, accessibility, comparability, and accountability.

Combined, the recommendations seek to improve clarity of information for young people and their families in the selection of courses of study, as well as for providers in assessing prospective student applications.

As was anticipated, a number of recommendations concern the publication of accurate minimum ATARs and clearer articulation of non-ATAR requirements.

The review calls also for the adoption of a common language around admissions processes across all higher education providers.

In a diverse system of relatively autonomous providers and discrete state and territory admissions centres (TACs), this will be difficult.

Third, the review calls for the development of a national higher education admissions information platform.

This aligns broadly with the Turnbull government’s advocacy of the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT) website and was a key feature of the terms of reference for the panel to consider.

However, substantial research has shown that simply making information available does not necessarily address the challenges many young people face in completing secondary education and choosing higher education courses.

Too often, students from disadvantaged backgrounds are unaware of the options available to them. Commonly, they come from backgrounds with no history of higher education.

These students tend to have lower completion rates and report a poorer experience of higher education. Many do not feel that higher education is for “people like them”.

Is the ATAR still useful?

Four in ten students admitted to a course with an ATAR lower than 60 do not complete. from www.shutterstock.com

For many senior leaders, the ATAR remains an efficient and convenient tool for allocating Commonwealth supported higher education places.

However, researchers have suggested that the current policies contribute to “gaming” practices at some of the country’s most elite schools.

Research has shown how academic success concentrates in elite public and independent schools through subject and curriculum selection, intensive test preparation, and academic tutoring.

While debate continues regarding the effectiveness of the ATAR for predicting success for young people once they enter university, data does support the predictive power of the ATAR at a group level.

Data shows that four in ten students admitted to a course with an ATAR lower than 60 do not complete it.

Scholars have been at pains to point out, however, that ATAR performance and retention rates both correlate strongly with factors of disadvantage such as Indigenous, remote, part-time, and socio-economic status.

Transparency won’t necessarily help to improve equity

Equity of access to higher education remains an area of broad agreement between political parties.

Diversity schemes such as the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) are currently being reviewed in line with the government’s intended shake up of the higher education sector.

Over the next three years, HEPPP is marked for a A$152 million cut. Along with the shift to a demand-driven system, targeted HEPPP programs are thought to be partly responsible for the over 50% growth in low-SES participation in higher education since 2010.

More information needed for school leavers

The panel’s recommendations represent an opportunity to ensure young people have accurate information for making decisions about their intended courses of study.

They will not, however, address continued concerns about Year 12 completion rates. It is too late to begin the careers counselling process at the point of applying for courses, no matter how clear and accurate the information provided.

Helping students make an informed choice about higher education is critical. However, information about the admissions process itself is not enough.

Greater attention must also be given to ensuring that students are provided with the skills to navigate higher education.

It is increasingly likely that for the majority of young people, this engagement will be a lifelong activity.

Beyond this, helping students to develop a sense of belonging is key for boosting engagement and retention.

A successful reform must also include a more comprehensive approach to working with young people to identify a diversity of pathways and opportunities.

It must actively challenge and seek to redress the prioritising of university over technical and trade options.

It must be inclusive of broader questions of the benefits of having young people engage in education beyond school without reducing that discussion to one of “budget constraints”.

Despite recent concerns about the economic value of degrees, post-school qualifications are more important than ever.

These reforms must enshrine principles of student equity both in how young people are supported to access higher education, and in their experiences in those institutions once they arrive.

 

Shane Duggan, Lecturer in Youth Studies and Education Policy, University of Melbourne

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

  • no reactions
0
Share