Advertisement

Students on the Threshold: Commencing Student Perspectives and Enabling Pedagogy

  • Jennifer Stokes
Chapter

Abstract

Australian Higher Education policy emphasises the role of widening participation to prepare the educated populace required in a knowledge economy (Bradley et al. 2008). As universities strive to engage students from diverse backgrounds, enabling programs have been developed in order to provide a supported transition for traditionally under-represented cohorts. Students from equity groups are attracted to these pathways; however, enabling program retention, completion and success rates are lower than the undergraduate average rates (Hodges et al. 2013; Klinger & Murray 2011, p. 143). To understand student needs better, over 200 commencing students were surveyed during 2015 orientation for a pathway program at an Australian university. Survey responses capture students’ university preparation, expectations, motivations and challenges prior to commencing enabling classes and offer insight into the educational needs of this cohort. This case study employs critical pedagogy and a constructivist approach to analyse survey responses and generate recommendations for pedagogy. Analysis of survey data indicates the needs of diverse students and ways in which these students can be supported through praxis. Pathway programs can actively transform university culture through valuing diverse knowledges, and support a better educated populace, enabling individuals who are committed and capable to access the opportunities university education provides.

Keywords

Enabling pedagogy Australia Enabling program Critical pedagogy 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This research was supported through an Australian Government Research training Program Scholarship. The author wishes to thank Dr. Cally Guerin, Dr. Chad Habel and Dr. Andrew Harvey for their feedback and encouragement regarding this research.

References

  1. ABS. (2013). Socio-economic indexes for areas. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australia, Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved February 10, 2016 from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/seifa
  2. Baker, S., & Irwin, E. (2015). Left, right and centre: The positioning of language and literacies in enabling education programs in Australia. 5th enabling educators symposium. Queensland: University of Southern Queensland.Google Scholar
  3. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.Google Scholar
  4. Brinkworth, D., McCann, B., & McCann, J. (2013). Student and staff expectations and experiences. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching, Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Degener, S. (2001). Making sense of critical pedagogy in adult literacy education. In J. E. Comings, B. E. Garner, & C. E. Smith (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy. Volume 2. The Jossey-Bass higher and adult education series (26–62). San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Digiovanni, L. W., & Liston, D. D. (2005). Feminist pedagogy in the elementary classroom: An agenda for practice. Feminist Teacher, 15(2), 123–131.Google Scholar
  7. Freire, P. (2004). Pedagogy of hope: Reliving pedagogy of the oppressed (R. B. Barr, Trans.) London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  8. Gale, T., & Parker, S. (2013). Widening participation in Australian Higher Education. Report to the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE) and the Office of Fair Access (OFFA). CFE (Research and consulting) Ltd., England, Leicester UK and Edge Hill University.Google Scholar
  9. Gallacher, J., Crossan, B., Field, J., & Merrill, B. (2002). Learning careers and the social space: Exploring the fragile identities of adult returners in the new further education. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 21(6), 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2013). Funds of knowledge. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  11. Habel, C. (2012). “I can do it, and how!” Student experience in access and equity pathways to higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 31(6), 811–825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harvey, A., Burnheim, C., & Brett, M. (2016). Student equity in Australian higher education: Twenty-five years of A Fair Chance for All. Springer: Singapore.CrossRefGoogle 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: Office for Learning and Teaching, Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  14. Jack, A. A. (2014). Culture shock revisited: The social and cultural contingencies to class marginality. Sociological Forum, 29(2), 453–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jerrim, J., & Vignoles, A. (2015). University access for disadvantaged children: A comparison of English speaking countries. Higher Education, 70(6), 903–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keesing-Styles, L. (2003). The relationship between critical pedagogy and assessment in teacher education. Radical Pedagogy, 5(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
  17. Kift, S. M., Nelson, K. J., & Clarke, J. A. (2010). Transition pedagogy: A third generation approach to FYE – A case study of policy and practice for the higher education sector. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 1, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kincheloe, J. (2011). Critical ontology. In K. Hayes, S. R. Steinberg and K. Tobin (Eds.), Key works in critical pedagogy, Sense Publishers, Netherlands, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klinger, C., & Murray, N. (2010). Enabling education: Adding value in an enterprise culture. In M. Cooper (Ed.), From access to success: Closing the knowledge divide, Papers from the 19th Conference of the European Access Network, European Access Network (118–128). London: European Access Network.Google Scholar
  20. Klinger, C., & Murray, N. (2011). Access, aspiration and attainment: Foundation Studies at the University of South Australia. International Perspectives on Higher Education Research, 6, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levy, S., & Earl, C. (2012). Student voices in transition: The experiences of pathways students. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Luzeckyj, A., King, S., Scutter, S., & Brinkworth, R. (2011). The significance of being first: A consideration of cultural capital in relation to “first in family” student’s choices of university and program. A practice report. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 2(2), 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mayo, P. (2012). Echoes from Freire for a critically engaged pedagogy. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Mullen, A. L. (2010). Degrees of inequality. Maryland: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Munro, L. (2011). “Go boldly, dream large!”: The challenges confronting non-traditional students at university. Australian Journal of Education, 55, 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Naylor, R., Baik, C., & James, R. (2013). Developing a critical interventions framework for advancing equity in Australian higher education. Centre for the Study of Higher Education. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  27. Nelson, K. J., Kift, S. M., & Clarke, J. A. (2008). Expectations and realities for first year students at an Australian university. Paper presented at the 11th Pacific Rim First Year in Higher Education Conference 2008, Hobart.Google Scholar
  28. O’Regan, K. (2005). Theorising what we do: Defamiliarise the University. In S. Milnes, G. Craswell, V. Rao, & A. Bartlett (Eds.), Critiquing and reflecting: LAS profession and practice. Refereed proceedings of the Language and Academic Skills in Higher Education Conference 2005, Academic Skills and Learning Centre, Canberra, The Australian National University, 131–139.Google Scholar
  29. Ramsay, E. (2013). Evaluation report: “Enabling retention: Processes and strategies for improving student retention in University-based Enabling Programs”. Sydney: Office for Learning and Teaching, Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  30. Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education, 2nd, edn. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  31. Renshaw, P. (2004). Dialogic learning teaching & instruction. In J. Linden & P. Renshaw (Eds.), Dialogic learning shifting perspectives to learning, instruction, and teaching (1–15). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Rogers, R., Fairclough, N., & Gee, J. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. New Jersey, L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Southgate, E., Douglas, H., Scevak, J., Macqueen, S., Rubin, M., & Lindell, C. (2014). The academic outcomes of first-in-family in an Australian university: An exploratory study. International Studies in Widening Participation, 1(2), 31–45.Google Scholar
  34. Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). What is the ‘‘dialogical method’’ of teaching? The Journal of Education, 169(3), 11–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stokes, J. (2014). Student perspectives on transition to University in South Australia. The International Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 20(4), 1–8.Google Scholar
  36. Tinto, V. (2012). Enhancing student success: Taking the classroom seriously. The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education, 3(1), 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Villacañas de Castro, L. S. (2015). Critical Pedagogy and Marx, Vygotsky and Freire. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Wierenga, A., Landstedt, E., & Wyn, J. (2013). Revisiting disadvantage in higher education. Youth Research Centre: Melbourne.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations