“Come One, Come All”: The Question of Open Entry in Enabling Programs

Chapter

Abstract

A major pathway for non-traditional students to access higher education in Australia is via “enabling programs”, tertiary preparation programs which allow students lacking the usual entry qualifications to gain them while preparing for success within higher education. There is an important division within such programs between “open entry” programs which allow enrolment regardless of prior academic qualifications and those which restrict entry on the basis of a range of academic criteria.

Open entry is a widening participation strategy, aiming to attract students who might not otherwise attempt higher education. This strategy has a long and successful history in Australia. However, recent research suggests that the putative benefits of attracting a wider range of non-traditional students via open entry may have a complementary cost in terms of lower student retention with the associated costs for students, institutions and the public purse. Whether open or restrictive entry to enabling programs is the more effective strategy for pursuing widening participation in Australia is an increasingly urgent question that needs to be answered.

This chapter offers a view of the open entry ‘landscape’ at issue in this debate, considering such aspects as the function of program entry requirements, the oft-quoted tension between student achievement and academic standards, the challenges of supporting non-traditional students in what are to them unfamiliar academic environments and the emergence of the need for ‘multiple discourses’ in response to the standard ‘deficit discourse’.

Keywords

Student attrition Widening participation Open entry Open admission Enabling programs Access to education Equity in higher education 

References

  1. Ashby, A. (2004). Monitoring student retention in the Open University. Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 19(1), 65–77.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0268051042000177854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker, S., & Irwin, E. (2015). Enabling typology. NAEEA website. http://enablingeducators.org/enablingtypology/. Viewed 25/11/2015.
  3. Bekhradnia, B. (2005). Presentation. In T. Pilch (Ed.), Widening access to the benefits of higher education: A seminar held on Wednesday 15 May 2002. London: The Smith Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, A., Hodges, B., Kavanagh, K., Fagan, S., Hartley, J., & Schofield, N. (2012). ‘Hard’ and ‘soft’ aspects of learning as investment: Opening up the neo-liberal view of a programme with ‘high’ levels of attrition. Widening Participation & Lifelong Learning, 14(3), 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke, P. J. (2012). The right to higher education: beyond widening participation. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  6. Butcher, J., Corfield, R., & Rose-Adams, J. (2012). Contextualised approaches to widening participation: A comparative case study of two UK universities. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning, 13(SPI), 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cantwell, R., Archer, J., & Bourke, S. (2001). A comparison of the academic experiences and achievement of university students entering by traditional and non-traditional means. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(3), 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. DEETYA. (2011). Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (2000a) “Advice to higher education institutions on counting student load for enabling courses – bridging and supplementary courses for disadvantaged students” Higher Education Division. DETYA, Canberra. Retrieved from http://www.hecs.gov.au/manual/enabling.htm
  10. ELFSC. (2014). ELFSC at a glance. Callaghan: English Language and Foundation Studies Centre, University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
  11. Hoare, A., & Johnston, R. (2011). Widening participation through admissions policy – A British case study of school and university performance. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 21–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903414297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hodges, B., Kavanagh, K. Hartley, J., & Schofield, N. (2011). Student attrition in a university-based enabling program: A study of the University of Newcastle Open Foundation Program. Unpublished report. English Language and Foundation Studies Centre, University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Husen, T. (2012). Open admissions and numerus clausus – Causes and consequences. In G. Roderick & M. Stephens (Eds.), Higher education for all? (pp. 187–196). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Kift, S. (2009). Articulating a transition pedagogy to scaffold and to enhance the first year student learning experience in Australian higher education. Strawberry Hills: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.Google Scholar
  16. Lavin, D. E., & Hyllegard, D. (1996). Changing the odds: Open admissions and the life chances of the disadvantaged. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lawrence, J. (2002). Academics and first-year students: Collaborating to access success in an unfamiliar university culture. In L. Thomas, M. Cooper, & J. Quinn (Eds.), Collaboration to widen participation in higher education (pp. 213–238). Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham.Google Scholar
  18. Layer, G., Stuart, M., & Srivastava, A. (2003). Student success in higher education. Bradford: (Action on Access) University of Bradford.Google Scholar
  19. Lomax-Smith, J., Watson, L., & Webster, B. (2011). Higher education base funding review: Final report.Google Scholar
  20. Mayer, M. (1973, February). Higher Education for all? The case of open admissions. Commentary, pp. 37–47.Google Scholar
  21. Middlehurst, R. (2011). Getting to grips with academic standards, quality, and the student experience: Resources for UK higher education institutions. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and the Committee of University Chairs.Google Scholar
  22. Murphy, M., Morgan-Klein, B., Osborne, M., & Gallacher, J. (2002). Widening participation in higher education: Report to the Scottish Executive. Glasgow: Centre for Research in Lifelong Learning.Google Scholar
  23. NCSEHE. (2016). Pathways to higher education: The efficacy of enabling and sub-bachelor pathways for disadvantaged students. Perth: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education at Curtin University.Google Scholar
  24. Osborne, M. (2003). Policy and practice in widening participation: A six country comparative study of access as flexibility. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(Part 1), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perin, D. (2004). Remediation beyond developmental education: The use of learning assistance centers to increase academic preparedness in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 28(Part 7), 559–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richardson, R. C. J., Fisk, E. C., & Okun, M. A. (1983). Literacy in the open access college. San Francisco/London: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Rose-Adams, J. (2012). Leaving university early. Widening Participation & Lifelong Learning, 15(2), 96–112.  https://doi.org/10.5456/WPLL.15.2.96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shah, M., & Whannell, R. (2016). Open access enabling courses: Risking academic standards or meeting equity aspirations. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13603108.2016.1203370.Google Scholar
  29. Shah, M., Lewis, I., & Fitzgerald, R. (2011). The renewal of quality assurance in Australian higher education: The challenge of balancing academic rigor, equity and quality outcomes. Quality in Higher Education, 17(3), 265–278.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2011.614474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simpson, O. (2003). Student retention in online, open, and distance learning. London/Sterling: Kogan Page.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stuart, M. (2005). What price inclusion? Debates and discussions about learning and teaching to widen participation in higher education. In G. Layer (Ed.), 2005 Closing the equity gap: The impact of widening participation strategies in the UK and USA. National Institute of Adult Continuing Education: Leicester.Google Scholar
  32. Tinto, V., & Engstrom, C. (2008, Jan/Feb). Access without support is not opportunity. Change, pp. 46–50.Google Scholar
  33. Whiteford, G., Shah, M., & Nair, C. S. (2013). Equity and excellence are not mutually exclusive: A discussion of academic standards in an era of widening participation. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(3), 299–310.  https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-Apr-2012-0020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of NewcastleCallaghanAustralia

Personalised recommendations