Enabling programs:
A pathway for non-
traditional students
Dr Barry Hodges
PhD BA (Hons) Dip Ed
Lecturer in Philosophy
Open Foundation Program, English Language and Foundation Studies Centre
Team Leader OLT project “Enabling Retention …”
March 2015
3 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Enabling programs have the
capacity to be a powerful
recruitment pathway for non-
traditional students …
But the path is more complex
than it may initially appear
4 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
This presentation
Contents
1. Introduction: Social justice and productivity
2. Enabling programs: A successful pathway for non-traditional
students
… but high levels of drop-out …
3. What we know about student attrition in enabling programs
4. Implications and discussion:
a. Just how big a problem is it?
b. Some implications for practice and policy
5. Conclusion
5 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Introduction
Social justice and productivity
Starting points …
Pathways for non-traditional
students
What are enabling programs?
The OLT project: “Enabling
Retention …”
6 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Non-traditional students do not lack talent ….
Introduction: Social justice & productivity
Starting points …
• Non-traditional students are under-represented in higher
education:
Low SES, indigenous, students from rural and remote areas, students with
a disability
• … for reasons other than lack of native ability
• A waste of talent …
Used to be women …
Not only social justice but also productivity
7 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Some strategies for increasing representation of non-traditional groups
Introduction: Pathways
Aspiration-raising:
• Schools programs
• Community programs
Alternative pathways:
• VET sector
• University-based enabling programs
Direct entry to undergraduate program
All have advantages and disadvantages
• But little hard comparative evidence
• Clarke et al 2000 – never published
8 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
What are enabling programs?
Introduction: Enabling programs
Enabling program:
• Access to higher education without the relevant qualifications
• More formally:
“a course of instruction provided to a person for the purpose of enabling the person
to undertake a course leading to a higher education award.” (DIISRT 2012. p. 26)
• Aka:
“University preparation programs”
“Foundation studies”
“Bridging programs”
Here we will be talking about:
• Enabling programs which are free of tuition fees
• Government funded
9 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Aims and purpose
Introduction: Enabling programs
Aims:
• Enable access to higher education for those without the
relevant qualifications
• Provide preparation for successful tertiary study
• Allow a try-out for university life
Some will decide it is not for them …
Some will like it and go on to higher education …
Some will fly ….
‘Second chance’ learners
• Life-long learning
• Changes of career
• Women returning to work, etc.
10 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
An area of growth and diversity
Introduction: Diversity of enabling programs
Over 35 offered by Australian universities (2013) (Hodges et al,
2013, p. 21)
A very diverse field1:
• Fees: Often very large fees v no fees
• Entry model: Open entry v restrictive entry
• Mode of delivery: Internal/external
• Mode of attendance: Full-time v part-time
• Many others ….
Different challenges
11 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
The OLT project
Introduction: Enabling programs
Recent OLT project:• “Enabling Retention: processes and strategies for improving student
retention in university-based enabling programs”• Barry Hodges (University of Newcastle; Project Leader);
• Tasman Bedford (University of Southern Queensland)
• Jane Hartley (University of Newcastle)
• Chris Klinger (University of South Australia)
• Neil Murray (University of South Australia)
• John O’Rourke (Edith Cowan University)
• Neville Schofield (University of Newcastle)
• Thanks to:• Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching for its support
• My colleagues
12 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
The OLT project
Introduction: Enabling programs
Enabling programs of five Australian universities:• University of Newcastle;
• University of Southern Queensland;
• University of South Australia;
• University of New England;
• Edith Cowan University
• 2011 – 2013
• Complete report:• http://enablingeducators.org/resources/CG10_1697_Hodges_Report_2013.pdf
13 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Study of enabling programs of five Australian universities
The OLT study: “Enabling Retention”
The study:
• Three student questionnaires
Initial Week 2
Exit Survey For those leaving
Concluding Second-last week
• Varying rates of return:
Initial Questionnaire: Good to excellent
Exit Surveys: Poor to zero
Concluding Questionnaire: Poor to good
• Initial Questionnaires returned: 1799
• Variously distributed
14 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
A successful pathway
Enabling programs
Enable access to higher education
Many are non-traditional students
• Especially open entry programs
Conversion into entry into higher
education
Prepare students for success in
higher education
Caveats:• Low levels of research
• Data patchy and hard to get
• Government review imminent
15 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Numbers and access: University of Newcastle snapshot
A successful pathway: Student numbers
Feature Period Data
Enrolments in enabling programs 1974 - 2013 45,246
Number attaining enabling qualification 1974 - 2013 24,142
Progressing to undergraduate within 1 year of graduation 2013 71.9%
Number in First Year intake from an enabling program 2013 1553
Percentage of First Year intake from Open Foundation 2007 - 2013 c. 10%
Percentage of Open Foundation progressing to university overall 90%
UON undergraduate destinations:
Faculty of Education & Arts 2013 513
Faculty of Health & Medicine 2013 405
Faculty of Science & IT 2013 376
Sources: ELFSC, 2014; Kift, 2014
16 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Numbers and access: Edith Cowan University snapshot1
A successful pathway: Student numbers
YearEnrolled in enabling
program
Enrolled in
undergraduate
2006 379 82.3%
2007 418 83.7%
2008 558 83.2%
2009 544 79.2%
2010 477 77.1%
2011 455 82.0%
2012 576 81.9%
1. ECU is not open entry: near-miss ATAR or portfolio of written work (ability and commitment)
17 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Numbers and access: Other programs
A successful pathway: Student numbers
Other programs:
• Over 1,500 students each year:
University of Southern Queensland
Central Queensland University
Charles Darwin University
Others …
• 2014 enabling CSP allocation (Australian universities) (Kift, 2014):
Over 1,000: 1
500-1,000: 5
300-500: 7
More ….
18 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
High proportions of non-traditional students
A successful pathway: Non-traditional students
Source: Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 56-61
1. Not open entry: near-miss ATAR or portfolio of written work (ability and commitment). Note the closer similarity of
ECU cohort to undergraduate for other than FIF.
2. Misleading: fewer than 50% of respondents answered this question. USQ figures have the Tertiary Preparation
Program at 44.16% LSES (Hodges et al, 2013, p. 58).
.
Demographic groups UoN USQ UniSA UNE ECU1
Overall number of valid responses 1932 156 177 107 366
Identifying as ATSI 2.9% 1.9% 2.3% 2.8% 1.4%
LSES 33.7% 96.1%2 45.2% n/a 15.0%
Identifying as first in family 47.4% 51.3% 46.3% 34.6% 44.4%
‘Second-chance’ learners:
Not completed secondary school 22% 32.4% 21.2% 23.4% 10.4%
Over 10 years since last formal study 18% 33.8% n/a 42.5% n/a
19 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Non-traditional students: Commentary
A successful pathway: Non-traditional students
High proportion of non-traditional students in open entry
programs (including FIF, ECU)
• Less so with the restrictive entry program (ECU) (except FIF)
• Very high proportion of ‘second chance’ or returning learners in
open entry
Open entry is successful as a widening participation
strategy
20 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
A successful pathway: Undergraduate success
Successful at preparing their students for success in higher education
Students from UON enabling programs succeed at
roughly the same rate as entrants from other pathways
• Studies by Archer, Cantwell & Burke (mid 1990s) (Archer et al, 1999)
• Internal ELFSC Performance Review 2007-2010
• High achievers, especially Open Foundation (Kift 2014):
• UON 2010-13: 12% Honours students entered via Open Foundation
• UON 2011: 12.7% of University medallists via Open Foundation
21 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
A successful pathway: Undergraduate success
Successful at preparing their students for success in higher education
Other institutions Harder to find …
UniSA Foundation Studies (2006 – 2008):
Slightly better performance (GPA)
Slightly better rates of retention (Klinger & Tranter, 2009, pp. 8-9)
Overall completion rates: 2012 completions by 2005 entry:
Prior enabling: 63%
Worse retention than Not prior enabling: 73%
But better retention than students with ATAR < 60 K(emp & Norton, 2014, p. 75)
Anecdotal evidence supports this
22 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
A successful pathway: Undergraduate success
Successful at preparing their students for success in higher education
Provides the transition to university that non-traditional
students are often missing:• Enculturation
• Academic skills
• Practical knowledge of university processes
• Familiarity with expectations
• Etc.
Removes some potential barriers• Already been surmounted in the enabling program
Facilitates engagement in undergraduate studies
23 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Enabling programs: A successful pathway
Summary
Enabling programs:
• Enable access to higher education for significant numbers
• E.g. UON: 24,142 over 40 years
• Substantial numbers are non-traditional students
• Especially open entry programs
• Convert this access into entry into higher education
• Prepare students for success in higher education
Celebrate it !!
Productivity
Fairness
Utilising talents
24 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Enabling programs: But ….
Student retention
BUT … we all know they lose a lot of students
• Student attrition rates around 50%
• NB. open entry programs (no academic entry requirements)
• Restrictive entry programs far higher
Two questions:
• What do we know about this attrition?
• What are implications for practice and policy?
25 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
What we know
Student retention in enabling programs
These are not undergraduate …
• Programs
• Students
Open entry model is the issue …
Standard demographics not
significant overall
Effective retention is higher than it
appears to be
There are some in-program issues
26 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
We know a lot more than five years ago …
What we know: A growing literature
Very limited research into enabling programs
Substantial growth in the last few years:
• OLT study: “Enabling Retention …”
• A range of publications …
• Many conference papers – not easily accessible
27 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
The Programs and the students are very different
What we know: Not undergraduate programs
These are not undergraduate programs:
• Very different in purpose and nature :
Fee-free
No academic entry requirements
Access & preparation
Invitation to try it out
These are not undergraduate students:
• Outside the standard educational pathway:
Lower levels of prior educational achievement
More often a negative educational experience
Often away from formal study for a long period
Often not clear on their goals … and motivations
A successful widening participation strategy …
28 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Student retention is an issue in open entry programs
What we know: The key is open entry
Open entry enabling programs: Around 50% retention (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 24-5)
• Variations around this
• Stable over time (1974 – 1987):
Open Foundation completions: “very consistently” around 50% (Smith, 1987, p.
17)
• Externally delivered programs lower
Restrictive entry programs: much higher retention:• ECU University Preparation Course: c. 85% (Hodges et al, 2013, p. 25)
• On a par with undergraduate commencing retention: 70% - 89%
Further research across restrictive entry programs to replicate
High attrition a systemic feature of open entry …? Further research needed
29 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Demographic factors are not significant overall
What we know: It’s not student demographics
Demographic factors are not generally significant (Hodges
et al, 2013, pp. 62 ff.):• E.g. Low SES, first in family, time since last study, prior educational
achievement
• Tend to be significant in discussion of undergraduate
Some exceptions in some programs
Very surprising, especially “time since last study”• Requires replication
Implications:• Non-traditional nature of students is not the source of attrition
• … Prior identification and special treatment of ‘at-risk’ students won’t
work (in general)
30 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Higher rates of retention of “actual commencers”
What we know: Effective retention
Retention rates of actual commencers are
substantially higher than apparent retention (Hodges et al, 2013, pp.
51 ff.)
• Students attending/engaged by Week 2 are retained at a higher
rate than overall
Measured by retention of students completing Initial Questionnaire
• Highest rate of retention of Week 2 students: 96% (Hodges et al, 2013, p.
52)
Contrast: 63% (that program overall)
31 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Higher rates of retention of “actual commencers”
What we know: Effective retention
Definitions
– “Raw” attrition:
(Commencing students – persisting students) / Commencing students
i.e. “commencements” = enrolled in Week 1
– “Effective” attrition:
(Completing Q1 – persisting students) / Completing Q1
i.e. “commencements” = present or engaged in Week 2
Both differ from official attrition rates
i.e. “commencements” = enrolled HECS census date
32 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Students engaged in Week 2 persist better (open entry programs)
‘Effective’ versus ‘raw’ attrition
Uni Program FT/PT Mode Length AgeRaw
attrition*
Effective
attrition**Diff
UoN OF Callaghan PT Internal Full year 20+ 56% 44% 12%
UoN OF by Distance PT External Full year 20+ 63% 45% 18%
UoN OF CCC PT Internal Full year 20+ 49% 32% 17%
UoN OF Intensive Cal FT Internal Half year 20+ 47% 4% 43%
UoN OF Intensive CCC FT Internal Half year 20+ 40% 3% 37%
UoN Newstep Cal FT Internal Full year 17-20 45% 29% 16%
UoN Newstep CCC FT Internal Full year 17-20 41% 30% 11%
UNE PEC Mix External Varies 17+ 60% 38% 22%
USQ TPP Distance Mix External Varies 18+ 75% 62% 13%
USQ TPP On-campus Mix Internal Varies 18+ 63% 60% 3%
Source: Hodges et al, 2013, p. 52.
33 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Early drop-out: Non-commencing students
What we know: Early drop-out
Who are the early drop-outs?
• “Non-commencers”: About 10–20% no-shows (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 53-
5)
UON 20%+ left before program commencement (Exit Surveys) (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 70-1)
Caveat: Low return rate
Supported by:
Anecdotal evidence across programs
Analysis of VLE activity
Wide-spread phenomenon: “No-shows”, “phantoms”, “ghosts”, etc. (Hodges et
al, 2013, pp. 53-4)
In 2000, Clarke et al noted that, once non-participants are removed, retention rates in enabling
programs tend to be similar to undergraduate. (Clarke et al, p. 221)
• Enabling students are very unlikely to formally withdraw:
Still enrolled at HECS census date
Are counted among “commencements”
34 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Non-commencers
What we know: Early drop-out
Why do they leave before commencing? (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 72 ff.)
• “Positive” attrition:
Entering a university with existing qualifications
Getting a job
• Fee-free: “easy in, easy out”
Unlikely to formally withdraw (no cost penalty)
• No academic entry requirements: “easy in, easy out”
Trying it out …
Aspiration-raising … “Maybe not for me …?”
• Early program issues …?
Requires investigation and action
Requires replication: Low evidence base
35 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Early drop-out: “Uncertain engagers”
What we know: Early drop-out
Who are the early drop-outs?
• “Uncertain engagers” (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 54-5):
Relatively high numbers are wavering in early weeks
Sporadic lecture attendance / online activity
Greater likelihood of not completing Initial Questionnaire
No submission of assignments: c. 17% (Hodges et al, 2013, p. 54)
Across four institutions
• Why?
Mixed motivations
Giving it a go …
Some problem issues …?
36 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Major self-attributed causes are adverse life-events, “time pressures”
What we know (?): In-program drop-out
Most drop-out beyond Week 2 caused by (Hodges et al, 2013, pp. 72-
82):
• “Time pressures”:
Complex … code for a variety of experiences ?
Lack of time … steepness of learning curve ??
• Life-events:
Employment
Health issues (self and family)
Relationship issues … etc.
• Low levels of take-up of student support
• Some display low levels of engagement with program and peers
Caution: Source is Exit Surveys:• Self-ascription of motives – not always reliable
• Low return rate: Requires replication
37 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Implications & discussion
What are the appropriate responses?
Just how big a problem is student
retention?
Improving student retention
• Early drop-out
• In-program issues
Wider policy implications
• Open entry or restrictive entry?
• Specialist area
• Questions we need answered
38 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
The significance of the problem is often over-stated
Discussion: How big is the problem?
The issue is open entry rather than enabling:
• Does not appear to be an issue for restrictive entry programs
The size of the problem is over-stated
• Inappropriate benchmarking: Not undergraduate programs:
Different purpose, structure, student cohorts
• Given the aims, some attrition is:
• Inevitable: changing goals, priorities, etc.
• Desirable: students not suited to / wanting to pursue tertiary study
• Inflation of attrition by false measure of “commencements”
• Retention rate is 15% - 20% better than it appears
The “problem” looks a lot smaller …
39 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
But action is required …
Discussion: Responses
The ethical obligation to students is greater in enabling:
• Invitation to try it out
• Aspiration raising:
• Expression of latent demand
• Some creation of demand ?
Action to address student attrition is required
• … and possible
40 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Non-commencers
Improving retention: Non-commencers
Develop procedures …
• To prevent non-commencers falsely
counting as “commencing”
• To encourage a positive exit
experience
• To check for early negative program
experience:
Not easy to do
41 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Uncertain engagement in early weeks of the program …
Improving retention: Uncertain engagers
Develop procedures …
• To engage or
• To encourage a positive exit experience
• Ethical obligation arising from the invitation
Note: Challenging teaching and learning environment
• ‘Mixed’ classroom characteristic of open entry programs
Range of prior educational experience
Range of motivations
Range of academic preparedness
• The very same material may challenge some students and bore
others
• Makes early engagement a challenge
42 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Improve awareness and take-up of student support
Improving retention: Student support
Pastoral care is crucial
• Committed but challenged by learning issues (“time pressures”)
• Suffering impact of adverse life events
BUT … How do we improve low take-up of support?
Embedded support model: E.g. UoN:
Make it comfortable and easy
• Location near central ‘home’ area – in student comfort zone
• Support staff visit lectures, work closely with lecturers
• Easy contact process & positive first experience
• Dramatic improvement in take-up
43 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Open entry model has advantages and disadvantages
Policy implications: Open entry or not?
Success as widening participation strategy:
• Attracts substantial numbers of non-traditional students
Role in aspiration-raising
• Enables access for many non-traditional students
• The most unlikely successes …!
Downside:
• Substantial student drop-out
• Highly challenging teaching and learning environment
• Specialist area for teaching and student support
“Transition pedagogy” but more so
… “Enabling pedagogy”
44 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Is open entry worth it?
Policy implications: Open entry or not?
Are the widening participation benefits of open entry
programs worth the associated costs?
• Institutional
• Personal costs to student
Another failure …?
• A central strategic institutional decision:
Open entry or restrictive entry?
“Yes …” ?
Requires detailed cost/benefit analysis …
• An urgent task
45 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
The student attrition assumption
Policy implications: Accept some attrition
Underlying assumption on student retention:
• Students enter the program with:
(relatively) clear goals, and
(relatively) settled motivations to success in higher education, and
within a (relatively narrowly specifiable) range of academic preparedness
• Used to be true of undergraduate programs
• Less applicable now even in undergraduate
• Similarly applicable in restrictive entry enabling programs
• Not all applicable for open entry enabling programs
Each difference contributes to lower retention …
46 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Open entry model inevitably increases attrition
Policy implications: Accept some attrition
Some attrition is inevitable as a consequence of open
entry:
• “Easy-in, easy out”
• Mixed motivations
• Mixed ability classes Too hard / easy
Some attrition is desirable
• Students deciding higher education is not the right goal
• … Sorting function of enabling programs
• Attrition as a rational response …? (Quinn et al 2005, p. 67)
• … in undergraduate …
• More so in enabling programs
47 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
Open entry enabling programs: Specialist area with specialist needs
Policy implications: Specialist area
‘Mixed’ classroom
• Reassurance and challenge in one learning space
• Engaging one student is boring / frightening another
• Especially in early weeks of program …
• Requires a very skilled teacher
Specialist staff
• Very challenging for typical undergraduate lecturer
• Finding the right people
• Professional development
• Costs …
48 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
A strategic decision
Conclusion
Enabling programs:• A good pathway for non-traditional students
• A successful widening participation strategy
… especially open entry programs
• Student attrition is a problem …
• … especially open entry programs
• Student attrition can be addressed
Not a simple recruitment pathway• A strategic decision …
• … to develop a specialised area …
• ... requiring appropriate resourcing.
49 | The University of Newcastle www.newcastle.edu.au
References
Archer, J., Cantwell, R., & Burke, S. (1999). Coping at University: an examination of achievement, motivation, self-regulation,
confidence, and method of entry, Higher Education Research & Development, 18(1), 31-54.
Clarke, J., Bull, D., Neil, C., Turner, L., & Birney, D. (2000). The Cost and Effectiveness of Enabling and Related Programs in
Australian Tertiary Education. Unpublished report.
DIISRT( 2012).. Other grant guidelines (Education). Retrieved from
http://www.commlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012L00281/Html/Text#_Toc314566242
ELFSC (2014). ELFSC at a glance. English Language and Foundation Studies Centre, University of Newcastle.
Hodges, B., Bedford, T., Hartley, J., Klinger, C., Murray, N., O’Rourke, J., & Schofield, N. (2013). Enabling retention: Processes
and strategies for improving student retention in University-based Enabling Programs. Sydney: Australian Government Office for
Learning and Teaching.
Kemp, D. & Norton, A. (2014). Review of the Demand Driven Funding System. Australian Government Dept of Education and
Training. Downloaded 25/02/2015 from http://education.gov.au/report-review-demand-driven-funding-system
Kift, Sally (2014). Enabling equitable access, participation and success: Leveraging the Lessons of 40 years. Brian Smith
Inaugural Lecture, University of Newcastle, 10 November 2014.
Klinger, C.M., & Tranter, D. (2009). Firm foundations for the future. In Bedford, T. Huijser, H. and Muller, S. (eds) 2009, Enabling
Pathways: Proceedings of the 3rd National Conference for Enabling Education, University of Southern Queensland,
Toowoomba, 25-27 November 2009 (CD). Toowoomba: University of Southern Queensland
Quinn, J., Thomas, L., Slack, K., Casey, L., Thexton, W., & Noble, J. (Eds.). (2005). From life crisis to lifelong learning:
rethinking working-class 'drop out' from higher education. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Top Related