Search Results

This report details the findings of the 'Enabling programmes for disadvantaged student groups project', which was funded as part of the Australian Government Department of Education and Training National Priorities Pool funding 2014 round with the research undertaken in 2015. The project team conducted a review of current enabling programs and reported on: (1) the extent to which current enabling courses offered by Australian higher education providers are an effective means of increasing access to, participation and success in undergraduate courses for domestic students from disadvantaged groups; (2) the appropriateness of enabling courses as a pathway to university for disadvantaged groups compared to other pathways; (3) the variability in quality between enabling courses that impacts on their effectiveness for disadvantaged student groups; and (4) what, if any, particular practices or means of delivery should be incorporated into enabling courses to enhance their effectiveness for people from disadvantaged groups. For the purposes of this report, 'disadvantaged students' were primarily defined in line with the six officially recognised equity groups of students ('the equity group of students'): low socio-economic status (low SES) students; students from regional and remote areas; Indigenous students; students with a disability; students from a non-English speaking background (NESB); and women in non-traditional areas of study (WINTA).

In relation to their reasons for choosing the pathway they did, both enabling and vocational education and training (VET) students shared similar motivating and driving factors. The distinction between the two was evident in that enabling students were primarily seeking a way to access and prepare for university, while this was a secondary consideration for most VET students who were seeking vocational skills or access to a specific vocation. When asked how their chosen pathway could have been improved, the majority of enabling students were satisfied with the enabling program and how it prepared them for university, while VET students were less satisfied with their pathway and saw room for improvement. By and large, the VET and enabling pathways serve distinct cohorts of students and act in a complementary, not contrasting fashion. It is a case of enabling and VET, not enabling or VET.

Edited excerpts from publication. Show less