Indigenous Performance in Western Australia

Indigenous Performance in Western Australia Universities: Reframing Retention and Success

Indigenous Performance in Western Australia Universities Reframing retention and success Roz Walker Curtin Indigenous Research Centre Curtin University of Technology 00/12 August 2000 Evaluations and Investigations Programme Higher Education Division (C) Commonwealth of Australia 2000 ISBN 0 642 44513 3 ISBN 0 642 44514 1 (Online version) DETYA No. 6572.HERC00A This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without permission from Ausinfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, Ausinfo, GPO Box 84, Canberra ACT 2601. The report is funded under the Evaluations and Investigations Programme of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Next | Contents

Foreword This report calls for a reframing of Indigenous progress in higher education so that due emphasis can be placed on the very remarkable achievements of the many Indigenous people who have eagerly grasped the opportunity to experience university studies. The report shows that many of these students have overcome historical education disadvantage, as well as cultural, and in many cases financial and geographic barriers to achieve academically. Others have discovered that university life is not for them, but have left with greater self-confidence and an increased ability to interact positively both in Indigenous and mainstream communities. The findings show that despite government advice about HECS, freely available in institutions, many students fail to appreciate the income contingent nature of the HECS-related loans, that HECS fees are deferrable and what happens to the HECS debt in the event that a student dies. In fact, people on low incomes benefit from deferred HECS repayment arrangements because they either never repay or they may benefit from an interest free loan. In addition, there are specific exemptions from compulsory repayments for people on low family incomes as well as provisions for financial hardship. DETYA's publication Does HECS Deter?, has found no empirical evidence to suggest that low SES groups are more debt adverse than other groups.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/...-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/index.htm[11/09/2013 12:32:50 PM]


The findings also show confusion about matters relating to ABSTUDY. Erroneous understandings about ABSTUDY allowances appear to be common within the Indigenous higher education community and there does not appear to be an appreciation that overall ABSTUDY is more generous than either Youth Allowance or Austudy in recognition of the educational disadvantage of Indigenous students. To date, as the report acknowledges, there is no evidence of a decline in overall student numbers following changes to ABSTUDY. The Department continues to closely monitor outcomes in this regard. Higher Education Division April 2000 Back to top Next Contents

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/...-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/index.htm[11/09/2013 12:32:50 PM]


Contents Previous | Next

Acknowledgments List of acronyms and abbreviations Executive summary Recommendations

Part A: The study and the context 1. Introduction 1.1 Background to the research project 1.2 Institutional consultation and collaboration 1.3 Project management 1.4 Indigenous Advisory Committee 1.5 Ethical considerations and guidelines 1.6 Report structure 2. The policy context of Indigenous higher education in Australia 2.1 Policy Background 2.2 The social and political implications 3. Review of the literature 3.1 Theories of attrition and persistence 3.2 Recent research on student persistence and participation 3.3 Factors influencing indigenous student participation 4. Methodological approaches to the research 4.1 Key elements of the research design 4.2 Policy analysis 4.3 Review of relevant research 4.4 Qualitative and quantitative approaches 4.5 Information collection methods 4.6 Analytical approaches 4.7 Representativeness of the research sample

Part B: Research findings 5. Student academic and demographic profile

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/...b/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/contents.htm[11/09/2013 12:32:52 PM]


5.1 Research sample and WA Indigenous student population 5.2 Student background and demographics 5.3 Socio-Economic Status (SES) and location 5.4 Family situation 5.5 Financial support and employment 5.6 Relationship between work and study 5.7 Educational background 5.8 Culturally specific and mainstream courses 5.9 Academic profile 6. Student reasons for studying 6.1 Reasons for deciding to study at university 6.2 Personal goals and family and community oriented values 6.3 Catching-up, overcoming and challenging 6.4 Student goals as predictors of persistence and success 7. Student perceptions of course experience 7.1 Course experience during 1998 7.2 Student perceptions of course outcomes 7.3 Course type, by course level and mode 7.4 Course factors which influenced student outcomes 7.5 Student perceptions of course curriculum 7.6 Indigenous studies content and processes 7.7 Incorporating culturally appropriate processes into curriculum 8. Student perceptions of academic staff and support 8.1 Student perceptions of academic staff 8.2 ‘I couldn’t have done it without my teacher’ 8.3 ‘It's still "sink or swim" out there’ 8.4 Student perceptions of staff, by course type 8.5 Student perceptions of off campus support and resources 8.6 Student experiences of the university environment 8.7 Racism and discrimination on campus 8.8 Academic/institutional influences on student outcomes 9. Maintaining a balancing act 9.1 Experience at university in 1998



9.2 Factors enhancing student’s university experience 9.3 Negative influences on student’s university experience 9.4 Employment issues on student withdrawal 9.5 Factors affecting the balance 10. Empowerment, self-determination and cultural affirmation 10.1 Framing the research questions 10.2 Guiding principles of indigenous higher education 10.3 As outcomes of indigenous education 10.4 As influences on student persistence 10.5 Student perceptions of courses in WA 10.6 Self-determination as a positive influence on outcomes

Part C: Review of Indigenous education policies and strategies 11. Review of WA institutional strategies and Indigenous outcomes 11.1 Review of Aboriginal education strategies of WA universities 11.2 Access, participation, retention and success outcomes in WA universities 11.3 Comparison of WA and national Indigenous education indicators 11.4 Influences on Indigenous outcomes 11.5 MCEETYA priority areas in Indigenous education 11.6 Are institutions achieving MCEETYA priorities? 11.7 Indigenous higher education best practice principles in WA universities 11.8 Institutional responsibility in achieving positive outcomes 12. Indigenous higher education policy¾current issues and concerns 12.1 Determining, measuring and interpreting indigenous outcomes 12.2 Limitations of the Martin Indicators as measures of Indigenous outcomes 12.3 Policy implications of economic imperatives 13. Future directions¾student and staff perspectives 13.1 Indigenous student and staff perspectives of future directions 13.2 Institutional strategies to benefit Indigenous education 13.3 Working in partnership 13.4 Government role in Indigenous education 14. Conclusion 14.1 Rethinking student progress 14.2 Rethinking policy relevance



14.3 Rethinking policy theories 14.4 Rethinking the role of the academy Appendices Appendix A: Research information sheet (students and staff) Appendix B: Project consent form Appendix C: Student letters Appendix D: Student questionnaire Appendix E: Example of student letters for focus groups Appendix F: Focus group questions Appendix G: Staff interview/discussion group questions Appendix H: Staff questionnaire Appendix I: Staff email questions Appendix J: Staff participant list Appendix K.1: Curtin University statement of reconciliation and commitment Appendix K.2: Edith Cowan University statement of reconciliation Appendix K.3: Murdoch University plaque of reconciliation Bibliography Figures Figure 5.1 Gender and age distribution of students in the sample Figure 5.2 Locality of Indigenous WA university student pop. and sample Figure 5.3 SES profile of Indigenous WA university student pop. and sample Figure 5.4 SES and locality of sample Figure 5.5 Pathways to Indigenous participation at WA Universities Figure 5.6 Student distribution by course modes and home address Figure 8.1 Some staff insensitive to cultural issues Figure 8.2 Staff are good at explaining things Tables Table 5.1 Sample distribution of Indigenous students in WA Universities 9 Table 5.2 Sample distribution by level of course Table 5.3 Indigenous student sample and population, by age and gender Table 5.4 Where living while studying by state (n=266) Table 5.5 Where living while studying by size of town (n=245) Table 5.6 Family situation while studying (n=265)



Table 5.7 Other members of family attended university (n= 262) Table 5.8 English as first language (n= 266) Table 5.9 Main sources of financial support while studying (n=268) Table 5.10 Type of employer while studying (n=151) Table 5.11 Occupation while studying (n=143) Table 5.12 Length of time working (n=130) 4 Table 5.13 Length of time looking for work (n=40) Table 5.14 Education at entry to university (n=254) Table 5.15 Basis of admission to study, by current level of course (n=268) Table 5.16 Students in culturally specific and mainstream courses (n=268) Table 5.17 Student sample study mode and enrolment status 1998 (n=268) Table 5.18 Year of study by course in 1998 (n=254) Table 5.19 Field of study by type of course (1998) (n=268) Table 5.20 Course of study first choice at university (n=258) Table 5.21 Course enrolments and completions in 1998 Table 6.1 Reasons for deciding to study at university (n=259) Table 7.1 Student perceptions of course enrolled in 1998 (n=257) Table 7.2 Student perceptions of course outcomes Table 7.3 Course related influences on student outcomes (n= various) Table 7.4 Content and processes recommended for courses Table 7.5 Indigenous studies content and processes Table 8.1 Student perception of teaching staff (n= 254) Table 8.2 Students responses to institutional factors Table 8.3 Factors influencing consideration of withdrawal from study Table 9.1 Personal, financial and other external factors influencing study Table 9.2 Factors influencing consideration of withdrawal from study Table 9.3 Work related influences on study Table 10.1 Perceptions of Indigenous empowerment and self-determination Table 11. 1 Equity indicators on Indigenous education performance Table 11. 2 Access, participation, success and retention indicators 1996 Table 11. 3 Access, participation, success and retention indicators 1997 Table 11. 4 Access, participation, success and retention indicators 1998 Table 11. 5 WA universities Indigenous student award course completions Table 11. 6 Indigenous planned and actual enrolments (EFTSU) 1997-1998 http://pandora.nla.gov.au/...b/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/contents.htm[11/09/2013 12:32:52 PM]


Table 11. 7 Indigenous education strategies in WA universities 1998-20 Table 11. 8 Indigenous higher education best practice Principles Table 13.2 Indigenous higher education priorities, by area of responsibility Back to top Previous | Next



Acknowledgments Previous | Next | Contents

This project was funded by the Evaluation and Investigations Program of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA). Many people have assisted in the completion of this project. Firstly, I wish to acknowledge the invaluable advice and assistance throughout this project by the steering committee. In particular, I wish to thank Ms Yvette Devlin (DETYA) who provided her expertise and support from the initial stages of the project until her retirement. I would also like to thank Ms Heather McLaren (DETYA) who took over as the DETYA representative and provided very valuable comment and support for the remainder of the project. I am especially indebted to Professor Colin Bourke (Monash University) who provided valuable advice, comment and constructive critique during the project. I wish to thank Mr John Encel for providing statistical information and other staff at DETYA for clarifying various Indigenous education policy aims and changes. I also want to acknowledge the following people involved with the research in various ways. Three Indigenous research assistants worked on different phases of the project. Ms Nytunga Philips assisted in the early stages of refining the questionnaire and other information for students. Ms Karen Hayward and Ms Joylene Koolmatrie played a crucial and valuable role in both the data collection and interpretation phases of the project, ensuring an Indigenous perspective within the research. I also wish to thank Debbie and Lisa Thomas for providing administrative assistance throughout the project. Ms Jenny Lalor, from the Centre for Education Excellence at Curtin University, undertook the immense task of inputting the data into the Statistical Program for Social Science (SPSS). Mr Harry Pickett, Curtin Indigenous Research Centre (CIRC) generously provided advice and assistance with the statistical analysis of the research data. Several staff at regional campuses also assisted in the distribution and collection of questionnaires. I particularly want to thank the Indigenous Advisory Committee, comprising staff from all of the participating universities: Ms Pat Dudgeon, Ms Jeannie Roberts and Ms Joan Winch from Curtin University, Ms Jill Milroy from The University of Western Australia, Mr Graeme Gower of Edith Cowan University, Ms Nellie Green of Murdoch, and Ms Joanne Shiosaki of The University of Notre Dame, Broome. Other senior staff also providing advice and assistance, were Ms Jade Maddox and Mr Wayne Webster, Murdoch University and Sister Pat Rhatigan of The University of Notre Dame, Broome. From the beginning, members of the Indigenous Advisory Committee expressed the crucial need for Indigenous perspectives and priorities to inform the terms of reference of the research. Their deep concerns regarding many of the assumptions underpinning Indigenous education helped to shape the research agenda. I appreciate the time and guidance they provided throughout the project. Finally I would like to thank the many staff and students at all Western Australian universities who participated in this project and generously shared their experience and insights regarding Indigenous education. It is their voices and perceptions that lead to the conclusion regarding the need to reframe the way we think about, measure and act to change Indigenous education performance. I hope I have done them justice. Back to top Previous | Next | Contents

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/...05130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/acknowledgments.htm[11/09/2013 12:32:56 PM]


Acronyms and abbreviations Previous | Next | Contents

ABSTUDY

Aboriginal Student Allowance

AEDP

Aboriginal Economic Development Policy

AEP

Aboriginal Education Policy

AEPIC

Aboriginal Education Policy Implementation Committee

AES

Aboriginal Education Strategies

AETC

Aboriginal Education Training Council

ANU

The Australian National University

ASEEQ

Australian Students’ Evaluations of Educational Quality

ATAS

Aboriginal Tutorial Assistance Scheme

ATR

Aboriginal Terms of Reference

ATSIC

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission

AVCC

Australian Vice Chancellors' Committee

BA

Bachelor of Arts

CAISER

Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies, Education and Research

CAS

Centre for Aboriginal Studies (CUT)

CAP

Centre for Aboriginal Programs (UWA)

CAEPR

Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research

CDEP

Community Development Employment Program

CIRC

Curtin Indigenous Research Centre

CUT

Curtin University of Technology

DEET

Department of Employment, Education and Training

DEETYA

Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs

DETYA

Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

ECU

Edith Cowan University

EFTSU

Effective Full Time Student Unit

EIP

Evaluations and Investigations Program

HEC

Higher Education Council

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/.../20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/acronyms.htm[11/09/2013 12:32:57 PM]


HECE

Higher Education Contract of Employment Award

HED

Higher Education Division

IESIP

Indigenous Education Strategic Initiatives Program

IAHEA

Indigenous Australian Higher Education Association

IHEA

Indigenous Higher Education Association

ISF

Indigenous Support Funds

KATEC

Kulbardi Aboriginal Tertiary Entrance Course

MCEETYA

Ministerial Committee on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs

NAEP

National Aboriginal Education Policy

NATSIEP

National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy

NBEET

National Board of Employment, Education and Training

NDA (Broome)

University of Notre Dame Australia (Broome)

NESB

Non-English Speaking Background

NHMRC

National Health and Medical Research Council

NLLIA

National Languages and Literacy Institute of Australia

NSW

New South Wales

OECD

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PEPA

Professional Education Program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People

RCIADIC

Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

RPL

Recognition of Prior Learning

SEEQ

Students’ Evaluations of Educational Quality

SES

Socio-Economic Status

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

TAFE

Training and Further Education

TISC

Tertiary Institutions Service Centre

TEE

Tertiary Entrance Examinations

TES

Tertiary Entrance Score

UTS

University of Technology Sydney

UWA

University of Western Australia



WA

Western Australia

WAACHE

Western Australia Aboriginal Council for Higher Education

Back to top Previous | Next | Contents



Executive summary Previous | Next | Contents

Background Between November 1998 and March 1999 a comprehensive study was undertaken in Western Australian universities to identify the reasons for the pervasiveness of lower retention and academic outcomes among Indigenous students. The research findings provide a state-wide snapshot of the effectiveness of government policies, equity initiatives and institutional strategies to increase Indigenous access, participation, retention and success in higher education. Indigenous student outcomes are considered in light of the continuing institutional and structural barriers; and historical, socio-economic and educational disadvantage experienced by many Indigenous Australians. The discussion also takes into account distinctive and diverse Indigenous cultural aspirations and priorities. While it is still critical for all stakeholders to continue to aspire to equitable Indigenous outcomes, when the research reframes Indigenous performance against these broader factors, student achievements are considerable. A total of 268 Indigenous Australian students and 33 staff from Indigenous Centres/Units participated in the research. A student demographic and academic profile was developed to identify the various personal, academic, institutional and external factors influencing their participation in, and progress through, university. Based on age, gender, locality and socio-economic status (SES), the student sample was largely representative of the Indigenous student population in WA. The comprehensive scope of the data collection provides a broad range of findings regarding the various factors which disadvantage students and contribute to their retention and success (as measured by DETYA) within the wider institutional and policy context. The use of qualitative as well as quantitative approaches in the research ensured that students and staff perspectives informed the findings. The combined research approaches and interpretative analysis of the findings suggest that the majority of Indigenous students persist and succeed in their endeavours in spite of personal issues or external challenges which can obstruct their progress and achievements.

Factors positively influencing student retention and success There are a number of personal, cultural, academic and institutional factors which have been shown to positively influence student persistence and success. Indigenous students often find their educational experience inherently assimilationist which in turn often leads to learning resistance. Most students who persisted with their studies held strong personal goals and family and community-oriented motivations for studying. Many of these students were able to move beyond ‘assimilationist or resistive’ options of education to acquire the knowledges and skills to achieve their goals without compromising their cultural values or identity. Most Indigenous staff and students perceived access to university as essential to transform their personal, family and community situations. Students talked about 'playing catch-up', 'coming up equal' and 'being recognised' within a system that has historically excluded Indigenous Australians; many emphasised the importance of university as a site for 'cultural affirmation', 'gaining recognition for Indigenous knowledge' and 'building capacity' for social and political transformation. Staff and students emphasised the importance of providing education for Indigenous people within a framework of empowerment, cultural affirmation and self-determination to increase retention and success. Such a framework needs to recognise Indigenous knowledges, skills, values, perspectives and experience. Staff and student comments confirm that culturally specific/inclusive/relevant courses contribute to Indigenous empowerment and self determination by increasing a student’s knowledge of the system

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/...0010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/exec_summ.htm[11/09/2013 12:32:58 PM]


and sense of identity and control over their own lives. The research shows a positive link between retention, academic outcomes and courses which students perceive as culturally appropriate and relevant to their goals. Other ‘resilience factors’ important for Indigenous retention and achievement, included: support of family and friends (particularly second generation family) to study; financial capacity to study; relevance of curriculum to personal goals and the cultural appropriateness of content; flexibility of study modes and curriculum processes; academic and personal support from Indigenous Centres; a welcoming university environment and orientation; culturally sensitive teacher attitudes and decolonising practices; and access to tutors. The research confirms that resilience must be fostered in the first year of study through appropriate selection, orientation and support processes. Students require comprehensive course information, career advice and skills to deal with academic, personal and financial matters. Institutions need to improve liaison between mainstream university and Indigenous Centres; monitor student progress; and create more flexible study options to assist students to continue or withdraw from their studies as appropriate.

Factors impacting negatively on student retention and success Even when students are highly motivated and have strong family support, other factors (academic, institutional, external/ environmental and personal) can mitigate against their achieving positive outcomes. Although the majority of students experiencing difficulties continued their studies, nearly half had considered withdrawing during 1998. These students identified the following reasons: personal and family issues (82 per cent); worry about failing the course (75 per cent); financial difficulties including ABSTUDY issues and HECS (62 per cent); course difficulties including inflexible structure or mode (57 per cent); work demands (43 per cent); cultural insensitivity by staff (37 per cent); unwelcoming university environment (22 per cent); and racism on campus (18 per cent). Many students identified culturally insensitive staff, unwelcoming environment and racism on campus as reasons for leaving. Importantly, students were more likely to withdraw if their course was culturally inappropriate or irrelevant to their goals. In addition, many students emphasised the difficulties of balancing their study demands with work, family and community commitments. Often the course mode (on campus, block release or external) and lack of course flexibility influenced student retention and progress. Students living in rural and isolated areas identified lack of contact with staff and access to support and resources, isolation from peers, overdue assignments and worry about failure, as the main reasons for ‘dropping out’ or withdrawing. Many students were critical of the lack of institutional support and regular staff contact. Institutional processes, policies and deadlines often appear highly irrelevant to students living a great distance, culturally and geographically, from campus. The findings highlight the importance of providing more flexibility, adequate support, establishing relationships and maintaining regular contact with students in external and block release courses in rural and isolated areas. Back to top

Issues distinctive to Indigenous university experience Approximately 78 per cent of students in the sample entered university via alternative



entry criteria, 48 per cent had only year 10 education or less and some 75 per cent were over 25 years of age. This student profile is very different from that of the general student population where the majority are under 25 years old and have year 12 matriculation. In the broader context, the differences in the demographic and academic profiles of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students are also reflected in different enrolment pathways and academic outcomes. In 1998, there were nearly nine times as many Indigenous students in enabling courses in WA as non-Indigenous students. Government policymakers and Indigenous stakeholders are concerned to see institutions increase enrolments and performance in award courses in order to achieve more equitable outcomes. This research shows that outcomes for Indigenous students with lower prior educational achievement were not different overall from those of other Indigenous students. At the same time, given the historical legacy and contemporary systemic issues still confronting Indigenous Australians, enabling and sub-degree courses provide alternative access and staged recognition and achievement. They also provide students with temporary, but sometimes necessary, exit points enabling them to break their study with periods of employment. Even so at most institutions attrition rates at enabling level are very high, indicating the need to review selection, support and academic strategies to increase students’ chances of success and transfer, where appropriate, to award courses. Universities need to create an environment in which academic staff and curriculum cater for the academic and demographic diversity of Indigenous Australians, foster cultural inclusivity and recognise their distinctive rights and interests.

Impact of socio-economic and systemic disadvantage Three Indigenous Centres identified ‘personal or family issues’ (including financial difficulties) as the main reasons for some 80 per cent of student withdrawals and deferrals. Staff and student comments reveal how the category ‘personal and family issues’ mask the alarming extent to which students experience trauma, illness and loss of close and extended family members. The large number of case studies of ‘financial difficulties’ also hides a stark reality of poverty experienced by many students. These comments illustrate that ultimately the contemporary health and economic reality of Indigenous Australians, conveyed by abstract statistics, has very concrete and often devastating effects on Indigenous students, which in turn impact on Indigenous higher education academic outcomes. One Indigenous postgraduate student whose experience of loss and trauma impacted on her capacity to complete her research, expressed it thus: Over time, however, the increasing difficulties facing us all interrupted our individual lives and my research project. It soon became clear just how closely linked the personal problems associated with individual women's health are with wider economic, social and cultural issues. This research highlights the need for policy makers and education providers to also acknowledge the link between individual student lives and existing ‘third world’ health statistics; morbidity and mortality figures; and widespread socio-economic disadvantage (often magnified, by extended family connections and obligations). Particularly when formulating, funding and evaluating existing and new policies and programs in Indigenous higher education. 1

Reframing retention and success The research examines policy issues regarding existing performance indicators as measures of comparative performance between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. It also examines the effectiveness of institutional and Indigenous Centres/Units initiatives in increasing Indigenous outcomes. It concludes that key stakeholders in Indigenous education need to reframe their assumptions. Institutions need to move beyond assumptions which often focus on increasing access and providing support to encompass more far-reaching strategies, and institutional changes, to improve Indigenous academic



outcomes. Policy makers need to reframe their assumptions that focus on equal outcomes with non-Indigenous Australians, rather than appropriate outcomes, in order to determine and measure Indigenous retention and success. Importantly, these stakeholders need to recognise the distinctive place of Indigenous people in determining new strategies, measures and outcomes. The research asserts that academic discourses and paradigms underpinning university education still require considerable change to ensure Indigenous philosophies, knowledges, values and priorities are given their rightful place within the academy (Anderson 1999; Ham 1996). Universities will need to assume a more proactive commitment to reconciliation to address the many issues raised in the research and achieve social justice and equity in Indigenous education. Importantly, the research findings re-affirm many recommendations and key findings of previous reports which have yet to be fully implemented (Ham 1996; MCEETYA 1995; NBEET 1997; RCIADIC 1991). In conclusion, this research confirms the importance of maintaining culturally affirming and self-determining Indigenous options alongside mainstream opportunities; grounding policy processes in peoples’ everyday realities and ensuring the relevance to Indigenous people of institutional polices and practices for Indigenous higher education. The research has implications for: staffing issues (including appointing more Indigenous staff); establishing benchmarks and measurable outcomes within and between universities and education providers which take into account Indigenous student backgrounds; reviewing university-wide curricula and pedagogy; and formulating, implementing, funding and evaluating programs which support Indigenous higher education policy (particularly ABSTUDY allowances, away-frombase funding and ATAS). While this project focused primarily on Indigenous Australian students and universities in Western Australia it addresses many concerns raised by Indigenous staff and students and other stakeholders throughout Australia (Anderson et al. 1998; Bourke et al 1996; Ham 1996), and therefore should have national significance. 1 A recent study by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, reveals that death rates for Indigenous Australians between the ages of 35 to 54 years old (which is the largest age group studying at university) are six to eight times higher than for non-Indigenous people. The report shows that health figures are related to socio-economic factors such as poverty, unemployment and inadequate housing. Reported by Nicolas Rothwell, in ‘Dying Shame: report reveals disturbing truth on Aboriginal Health’, in The Australian, August 11, 1998. Back to top Previous | Next | Contents



Recommendations Previous | Next | Contents

Recommendation 1 That all universities establish high level Indigenous education policy implementation committees to ensure that all institutional operations are implemented in accordance with the principles/framework of Indigenous self-determination. Recommendation 2 That all universities support Indigenous Faculties/Centres/Units to develop, implement and monitor strategies in staffing, teaching, support and culturally affirming/inclusive curriculum development to more effectively address the particular academic needs, priorities and aspirations of Indigenous students. Recommendation 3 That Indigenous Centres/Units and Schools improve selection, orientation and support processes, including bridging and orientation programs and develop strategies to assist Indigenous students to operate more effectively within the sector. Recommendation 4 That universities accept responsibility to overcome the enduring levels of cultural insensitivity and racial discrimination experienced by Indigenous Australians by extending and monitoring the effectiveness of cultural awareness workshops and professional development opportunities to enhance the cross-cultural competence of all academic and general staff. Recommendation 5 That universities and Indigenous Centres improve the academic, pastoral support and resources available off campus to students in external and block release courses, particularly by providing specified staff to maintain regular telephone contact and onsite support and supervision; faster assessment response; supplementary literacy support; and, where feasible, access to email and tutorials via teleconferencing. Recommendation 6 That universities, in recognition of the particular socio-economic, cultural and historical circumstances of many Indigenous Australians, encourage Schools/Faculties to nominate an academic staff member to take specific responsibility to support and monitor Indigenous student progress, liaise with Indigenous Centre/Unit staff, and act as an advocate on behalf of students. Recommendation 7 That universities work together, and with TAFE, to increase literacy levels and establish articulation arrangements and the sharing of facilities to meet Indigenous community needs and priorities to increase academic outcomes in Indigenous communities, particularly in rural and isolated areas. Recommendation 8 That the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs encourage/require universities to adopt the ‘best practice’ standards developed by the Higher Education Council (1997) to promote academic recognition and autonomy and achieve cultural inclusivity, affirmation and equal partnership with Indigenous Australians in all core

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/...05130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/recommendations.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:00 PM]


institutional operations, and to report to DETYA on the implementation of these principles against ‘best practice indicators’ developed by the Council which are identified in Chapter 10 of this report. Recommendation 9 That DETYA require universities to differentiate between enabling and award level progress rates to provide more meaningful indicators for performance monitoring. This would acknowledge the diverse education backgrounds and academic goals and difficulties experienced by students entering university via enabling courses. Recommendation 10 That in recognition of distinctive Indigenous academic priorities and interests the government require universities to incorporate qualitative indicators into existing Course Experience Questionnaires (CEQ) and include these in their annual reporting to DETYA on their institutional effectiveness in achieving Indigenous education outcomes. These outcomes could include Indigenous student perceptions of course contributions to: employment attainment or promotion; increased capacity to improve own family/community futures; increased understanding of, and confidence to interact within the wider society, and the perceptions of all students of increased cross-cultural awareness and competence. Recommendation 11 That the government make a commitment to maintain the ATAS (Aboriginal Tutor Assistance Scheme) program in recognition of its critical importance in assisting all Indigenous students to develop the academic skills and capacity to deal with dominant paradigms and structural factors which can adversely impact on their continuation and success. Recommendation 12 That, as part of the government’s commitment to social justice and equity in Indigenous education adjustments be made to the income threshold and repayment levels for HECS for Indigenous students to accommodate the socio-economic disparity and cultural differences between Indigenous people and the general population. Back to top Previous | Next | Contents

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/...05130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/recommendations.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:00 PM]


1. Introduction Previous | Next | Contents

1.1 Background to the research project This comprehensive study of Indigenous university students in Western Australia aims to identify the various reasons for the lower retention and success of Indigenous Australian students compared with non-Indigenous students in the State. This report looks at several interrelated issues. Firstly, the demographic and academic profile highlights the diversity within the Indigenous population which proceeds to university and how this diversity is reflected in the study and career goals, future aspirations and different courses chosen by Indigenous students. Secondly, it identifies the different ways in which Indigenous Centres/Units and Universities attempt to meet the different needs of Indigenous students. Thirdly, it revisits the existing policies pertaining to Indigenous higher education. In doing so, it raises a number of questions: What factors increase the likelihood of students successfully completing their studies? What motives, attitudes, student-centred strategies and external factors increase their likely success? How are Universities responding to these diverse needs and aspirations? Are existing strategies adequate? What strategies can be put in place to improve student experience, retention and outcomes? Key issues and factors influencing Indigenous education identified in the literature formed the basis of the student questionnaire and scope of the research.

1.2 Institutional consultation and collaboration The research was undertaken with Indigenous Centres/Units in all Western Australian higher education institutions, including some of the main outlying campuses and the independent University of Notre Dame.2 Key participants from all of the universities supported the need for research into issues influencing Indigenous student participation and expressed their willingness to participate in this study as a collaborative process providing their primary concerns were adequately reflected throughout the research process. Extensive Indigenous input was sought for both the terms of reference of the research and the methodology employed. Preliminary discussions were held with Indigenous managers and relevant academic and support staff at each of the participating institutions to ensure their issues and concerns determined the purpose and scope of the research. Discussions with these staff members indicated a high degree of consensus regarding the urgent need for research into the factors influencing students’ participation in higher education. In addition, project participants consistently raised concerns regarding the appropriateness of existing DETYA measures of student progress and success.

1.3 Project management A project advisory team and an Indigenous Advisory Committee were established for this project. The project advisory team initially comprised Ms Yvette Devlin, DETYA, Emeritus Professor Colin Bourke, formerly of the University of South Australia, and Ms Roz Walker, the Project Director. Following the retirement of Ms Yvette Devlin, Ms Heather McLaren became the DETYA representative. An Indigenous Advisory Committee comprising representatives from each of the participating institutions was established prior to the proposal being developed. The Advisory Committee was initially chaired by Ms Patricia Dudgeon, Head, Centre for Aboriginal Studies, but the position was subsequently taken up by Ms Jeannie Roberts, Director, Curtin Indigenous Research Centre in December 1998 when Ms Pat Dudgeon took

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/...0010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/introduction.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:01 PM]


study leave. Indigenous representatives from each of the Universities were involved throughout the planning and implementation of the research project. In addition, Sister Pat Rhatighan, Dean of the University of Notre Dame Campus, Broome, also provided valuable support and advice to ensure the specific issues of Indigenous students in Catholic education in the Kimberley were included in the research. Other important support and contributions from Murdoch University were provided by Wayne Webster who was appointed Director of the Kulbardi Aboriginal Tertiary Entrance Course (KATEC) early 1999, and before that, Ms Jade Maddox the student support coordinator. The Project Director, with advice and support from the project advisory team and Indigenous Advisory Committee, was responsible for the overall coordination of the project, development of the methodology, analysis of each institutions’ Aboriginal Education Strategies, 1998¾2001, and writing the final report. An Indigenous research assistant, Nytunga Phillips, assisted in the initial project phase. In December two part-time Indigenous research assistants, Ms Karen Hayward and Ms Joylene Koolmatrie, were appointed to assist in the distribution of questionnaires; the collation and analysis of data from focus groups; the development of themes from the qualitative data from the questionnaires, and other aspects of project administration. Indigenous Research Assistants were employed at each university to assist in collecting on site data with the Project Director and research assistants.

1.4 Indigenous Advisory Committee Key Indigenous staff members from each of the universities were involved in the project, both in their capacity as senior staff from the five WA universities, and as representatives of the Western Australian Aboriginal Council for Higher Education (WAACHE). As the Indigenous Advisory Committee they provided specific advice and direction to the project with respect to methodology and implementation, report findings and recommendations. Ms Jeannie Roberts

Director, CIRC

Ms Pat Dudgeon

Head, Centre for Aboriginal Studies (up until December 1998)

Dr Joan Winch

Head, Centre for Aboriginal Studies (from January, 1999)

Ms Jill Milroy

Director, Aboriginal Studies Unit, University of Western Australia

Mr Graeme Gower

Head of School, Kurongkurl Katitjin, Edith Cowan University

Ms Nellie Green

A/Coordinator, Kulbardi Aboriginal Centre, Murdoch University

Ms Joanne Shiosaki

The University of Notre Dame (NDA), Broome Campus

Two meetings were held with representatives of the Western Australian Aboriginal Council for Higher Education (WAACHE) and discussions regarding the research focus, survey design and the findings were undertaken on a regular basis by telephone and email contact with all members. Although the research was undertaken primarily at a state level, informal discussions took place at a research forum at the University of Newcastle in March 1998 to inform Indigenous leaders from other states of the project’s progress.

1.5 Ethical considerations and guidelines The primary concern for all WA universities participating in this research was to determine the issues affecting Indigenous students in their university studies. All institutions, and



Indigenous Centres wanted to identify those strategies that are working well to ensure their continued support, as well as to identify future strategies. For ethical reasons, this research seeks primarily to identify areas of best practice through national benchmarking, rather than to compare outcomes between participating institutions. The project has the approval of Curtin University's Human Research Ethics Committee (Approval number HR 142¾99). The research was undertaken in accordance with ethical guidelines of the University which adhere to the National Health and Medical Research Committee (NHMRC). Guidelines were followed to ensure Indigenous dimensions and perspectives were included in the research (Bourke 1997). These guidelines are consistent with the Indigenous Research Policy protocols formulated by the Curtin Indigenous Research Centre and the Centre for Aboriginal Studies for conducting research in Indigenous contexts. This policy been presented to the University Academic Board for final endorsement.

1.6 Report structure There are three sections in this report: Part One comprises the study and policy context and literature review; Part Two discusses the demographic findings and student perspectives of their university experience; and Part Three consists of a review of existing policies, issues and assumptions, institutional practices and strategies, student and staff perspectives of what changes need to occur to improve Indigenous education in the future and a summary of their implications. 2 While the University of Notre Dame does not have a specific Indigenous Centre, several staff work primarily with Indigenous students and some courses have been developed for Indigenous students at the Broome campus. The research involved those staff and students. Back to top Previous | Next | Contents



2. The policy context of Indigenous higher education in Australia Previous | Next | Contents

2.1 Policy background Since the introduction of ABSTUDY assistance in 1968 there have been significant gains in access and participation in higher education for Indigenous Australians. Equitable outcomes, however, have been more difficult to achieve. Reviews have been undertaken at various intervals¾1975, 1988 and 1995¾to gauge the effectiveness of Indigenous education and make recommendations for improvements. In 1988 the Aboriginal Education Policy Task Force, chaired by Dr Paul Hughes, was established to develop a comprehensive, long-term approach to Aboriginal education policy. The Taskforce found that Aboriginal people remained ‘the most educationally disadvantaged group in Australia’ and recommended the development of a national Aboriginal Education Policy to achieve 'broad equity between Aboriginal people and other Australians in access, participation and outcomes in all forms of education by the turn of the century.' (Hughes 1988:2) The Aboriginal Education Policy (AEP) was formulated in 1989, and came into effect as the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education Policy (NATSIEP) at the beginning of 1990. It was designed to achieve four main objectives: to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander involvement in educational decision making; to provide equality of access for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to education services; to achieve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation rates in higher education commensurate with all Australians; and to achieve equitable and appropriate outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Importantly, the AEP was also intended to complement the Aboriginal Economic Development Policy (AEDP) to ensure education and skills development appropriate to enabling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to pursue their own goals in community development, cultural maintenance, self-management and economic independence (DEET 1993a:5). It was followed by the acceptance of the broad principles for a more equitable and socially just education system in Australia as outlined in A Fair Chance for All (DEET & NBEET 1990). In 1994, the Indigenous Australian Higher Education Association (IAHEA) was formed to monitor policy implementation in higher education, provide policy advice on the future direction of Aboriginal higher education and ensure that universities create a positive learning environment for Indigenous students. In the same year Mr Mandawuy Yunupingu chaired the National Review of Education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. This Review was undertaken to examine the effectiveness of the first five years of AEP. The National Review of Education for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples: Final Report (1995), includes 44 recommendations listed under the following headings: involvement and self-determination; information as a pre-requisite for decision making; equitable access; raising participation; equitable and appropriate outcomes; reporting, monitoring and evaluation; and resources and needs.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/1_1.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:02 PM]


In 1995 the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), chaired by Dr Paul Hughes, presented A National Strategy for the Education of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples 1996-2002. This report endorsed the NATSIEP, outlined a strategy for its effective implementation in all education sectors and combined the 21 NATSIEP goals into eight priority areas: to establish effective arrangements for Indigenous involvement in decision-making; to increase the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples employed in education and training; to ensure equitable access of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in education and training; to ensure participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to education and training; to ensure equitable and appropriate educational achievements for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students; to promote, maintain and support the teaching of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander studies, cultures and languages to all Indigenous and non-Indigenous students; to provide community development training services including proficiency in English literacy and numeracy for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults; and to improve the NATSIEP implementation, evaluation and resourcing arrangements. (MCEETYA 1995) The NATSIEP and other policies have influenced many initiatives to support national goals such as triennium funding, longer term planning and supplementary program funds which have had profound and positive implications for universities’ senior management, Indigenous centres and Indigenous student participation. Australian Government policymakers and universities have made a distinctive commitment to increasing Indigenous participation in higher education. Institutions are now required to develop Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander education plans which outline strategies to increase Indigenous access, participation, retention and success. Most institutions in Australia have developed strategies to increase Indigenous access to ‘mainstream’ courses including flexible admission policies and processes. Many have also introduced culturally specific and culturally inclusive courses to increase the educational choices available to Indigenous students and enhance their university experience. Many also offer Indigenous studies programs to all students and cultural awareness workshops to academic and administrative staff at all levels within the university. Often institutional strategies are packaged and promoted as contributing to Indigenous cultural affirmation and empowerment and increasing Indigenous people’s education and employment opportunities. According to recent DETYA statistics Indigenous student access to higher education is growing at a faster rate than for other Australian students. At the same time other reports (DEET 1995; West 1998) point out that despite growing institutional commitment and increased Indigenous student enrolments, retention and success rates have remained much lower than those of their non-Indigenous counterparts. Some policy analysis suggests that the original focus on equity of access, rather than success, was inadequate to achieve Indigenous education goals (Schwab 1997). A study by Bourke, Burden and Moore (1996), Factors affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Students at Australian Universities also raised concerns regarding low retention and success among students in South Australia. According to Bourke et al. (1996:87) DETYA officers have identified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander attrition rates as a major issue in higher education; senior management of some universities has also expressed concern regarding low Indigenous retention and success. Recently the Final Report of the Review of Higher Education Financing and Policy (West 1998:112) stated that while the percentage of Indigenous students participating in university is 'largely comparable to mainstream students' the outcomes, in terms of success, (approximately 65 per cent compared with 85 per cent for other students), are 'disappointing'. This statement is supported by DETYA statistics. A report, Equity in Higher Education states that ‘the apparent retention rate of Indigenous Australians nationally is 0.78 against a



reference value of 1. This means that Indigenous students are retained within institutions at 78 per cent of the rate for non-Indigenous students.’ (DETYA 1999b:23) In addition, a recent study, Completions, Undergraduate academic outcomes for 1992 commencing students shows that completion rates for Indigenous Australians are approximately 32 per cent in contrast to 60 per cent for non-Indigenous students for the same period (Urban et al. 1999:20). While Government and other policymakers are concerned with participation and graduation rates because of their equity implications, the measurable indicators are derived from effectiveness and efficiency models which have overlooked Indigenous indicators of success. As Carpenter, Hayden and Long (1998:400) point out, low graduation rates are viewed as an 'inefficiency within the system and the federal government uses various means to exert pressure on universities to increase their graduation rates.' This statement applies equally to Indigenous education both in terms of expectation of outcomes (which are generally compared to non-Indigenous outcomes) and the mechanisms to place responsibility on universities to achieve continuous improvements in those outcomes. At present only minimal pressure is exerted on institutions to make a stronger commitment to Indigenous retention, participation and success at university. While Indigenous stakeholders generally agree that institutions need to be held more accountable and encouraged to demonstrate their commitment in all core operations, some expressed concern that any economically punitive measures would negatively affect students.

2.2 The social and political implications Shifts in the policy context generally mirror changes in the broader social and political climate and in turn, policy change often influences social and political change. The political and social context in which universities currently operate in Australia has experienced quite substantial and rapid change. Since the late 'eighties there has been a greater focus on equity and access, while at the same time there has been an increasing focus on internationalisation in higher education. The primary goal of higher education has evolved and crystallised to produce graduates with attitudes, skills and abilities to engage in lifelong learning in order to enhance the potential of their lives and contribute positively to a complex and dynamic society. Most universities, including all WA universities in the research, encourage graduates to acquire such attributes as 'an international outlook', an 'informed respect for Indigenous peoples' and 'cross-cultural competence'. At the same time, universities now have to cater for a much greater diversity between and within the various groups which have been traditionally underrepresented in higher education. Indigenous Australians are one of these groups. Increasingly, universities are expected to demonstrate their commitment to Indigenous higher education in their strategic plans and university vision. The growing success of strategies to increase access for equity groups and overseas students, has created new issues which universities need to consider if they are to retain these students and make university a meaningful experience for all. Several writers have emphasised the fact that if these students are to succeed, universities will need to adapt to meet the changing needs and expectations of these different groups within the student population, (McInnis et al. 1995; Western et al. 1998). Most of these groups, including Indigenous students, have different family and educational backgrounds and different expectations regarding the purpose of their tertiary education from those groups traditionally represented on campus. Universities need to have a greater understanding of how different socio-economic, geographic and cultural characteristics influence student's motives, interests and academic abilities in order to initiate more appropriate responses to increase student outcomes within this highly dynamic and complex cross-cultural context. These responses need to extend beyond initiatives to increase access, to devising curriculum, teaching and support that is meaningful and relevant to the aspirations of people of different cultural backgrounds living in Australia. The primary purpose of this project is to identify factors impacting on Indigenous student participation and progress in university studies within this highly dynamic and complex http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/1_1.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:02 PM]


social and political context. Back to top Previous | Next | Contents



3. Review of the literature Previous | Next | Contents

A review of the relevant literature was undertaken at the commencement of the project to help determine the parameters of the research and to assist in the questionnaire design. The literature review encompassed a range of issues related to Indigenous student participation and outcomes in higher education including culturally appropriate curriculum and pedagogy, equity policies and more general theories of attrition and persistence. Research literature on Indigenous students from New Zealand and Canada, who share similar historical experiences with Australian Indigenous people, was also reviewed. Because Indigenous student' outcomes are usually compared with the non-Indigenous university student population and other equity groups, current studies of all groups have been reviewed. It is important, however, that comparisons with these groups are treated with caution. Some equity groups have participated in parallel programs and experienced similar policy constraints, but no other group has experienced the same historical and social influences as Indigenous Australians. Discriminatory treatment experienced by Indigenous students, coupled with the lack of recognition of Indigenous knowledges, values and perspectives within the university (Anderson et al. 1998; Bin-Sallik 1991; Watson 1988; Western et al. 1998), is unique to Indigenous Australians.

3.1 Theories of attrition and persistence A study undertaken by Bean and Metzner (1985) of non-traditional student attrition in the United States provides a useful conceptual model which formed the basis for the data collection and analysis for this research. They identified four major variable groupings of reasons influencing student withdrawal. These include: background and demographics (i.e. age, gender, location, education and employment background and socio-economic status and a range of other variables); psychological (e.g. student motivation, level of satisfaction, goal commitment and coping strategies); academic and institutional (eg teaching, learning and support; institutional policies and practices, course availability and course information); and environmental/external (eg family responsibilities, family support, financial situation and employment). Recent Australian research on Indigenous student participation is discussed in this chapter under the four dimensions outlined in Bean and Metzner’s attrition and persistence model: background and demographics; psychological; academic and institutional; and environmental. Another theorist influential in studies on attrition and persistence is Tinto (Tinto 1975; 1987; 1989; Tinto & Goodsell 1993; Tinto 1997). Tinto's 'Student Integration Model' emphasises the need for compatibility between student goals, motivation, ability and institutional characteristics. In his most recent studies Tinto (1997) has turned his attention to the classroom as integral to student persistence. His research builds on a number of studies which confirm that the greater the involvement of students in academic life, the greater their acquisition of knowledge and skills development and their likelihood of persistence. Tinto's research suggests that the establishment of learning communities and use of collaborative learning strategies enhance students’ learning and persistence. Specifically, using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, Tinto identified several underlying forces that link classroom experience to persistence which arguably have relevance in cross-cultural contexts. He describes these forces as: building supportive peer groups; shared learning: bridging the academic-social divide; and



gaining a voice in the construction of knowledge (Tinto 1997).

3.2 Recent research on student persistence and participation A number of studies have been undertaken in Australia on student persistence, particularly among equity groups (Anderson & Vervoorn 1983; Western et al. 1998; Williams et al. 1993). The majority of studies on socio-economically disadvantaged non-Indigenous students who do not complete their studies have found that some 75 per cent tend to withdraw for reasons such as: employment and/or financial difficulties; change in career goals; and, difficulties in completing the level of work required while 25 per cent of students leave because they have failed and been excluded (Carpenter 1998: 401). This situation gives rise to concern within the mainstream sphere 'that financial support systems do not provide sufficient incentive and opportunity to overcome the negative effect on higher education participation of social and economic disadvantage', (Op.cit:401). Another recent Australian study by Promnitz and Germain (1996) which examined the extent to which student support services assist student retention, found similar results. Students are more likely to withdraw because of personal issues, family responsibilities, health issues and obtaining employment to alleviate financial difficulties rather than for academic reasons. Similarly, findings from a study by Ramsay, Tranter, Sumner and Barrett (1996) suggest that Indigenous Australian and non-English Speaking Background (NESB) students are more likely to experience difficulty with their study because of family responsibilities and financial difficulties than their mainstream counterparts. Indigenous students are more likely to withdraw from university to maintain or commence employment than other groups. Such an outcome is not necessarily regarded negatively by Indigenous students. Other studies have focused on Indigenous student participation (Bourke et al. 1996; BinSallik 1991; Christensen & Lilley 1997; Ramsay et al. 1996; Whatman 1995). Many of these studies confirm and contextualise the same factors related to attrition and persistence as those outlined in the conceptual model by Bean and Metzer above. For example, according to Bin-Sallik (1991) there are a wide range of factors that affect Indigenous student involvement in higher education, particularly in mainstream university. These factors are related to: individual factors (e.g. motivation, self concept, career goals, academic skills, family problems); and social or external factors (e.g. culture, discrimination, socio-economic status, peer group pressure). Studies on Indigenous Australian students vary in their emphasis of their research into the inter-relationship between different groups of factors influencing student attrition and persistence. Most, however, attempt to identify whether differences emerge in study patterns and outcomes between males and females, between school leavers and mature age students, between part-time and full-time students. There is a strong assumption that the identification of particular patterns will provide some predictive value of the type of students likely to succeed, and the type of institutional support that is likely to increase student persistence. While there are some trends, most studies suggest that no one factor influences attrition or persistence over all others and often there are several variables operating at an individual level (Bourke et al. 1996; Western et al. 1998). Back to top

3.3 Factors influencing indigenous student participation 3.3.1 Background demographics Considerable research has been undertaken to identify the extent to which age, gender http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/1_2.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:04 PM]


and socio-economic background influence student's expectations of, and adaptation to, university, and how these factors in turn contribute to their learning experience, performance and overall satisfaction with university life. Some of these studies suggest the attitudes of students towards study and their overall performance at university are related to their gender, educational background, employment experience, family support of study and geographic location. Bourke et al. (1996:xiii), for example, found that the 'most useful predictors were gender, enjoyment of university, mode of study, family situation and whether students had been studying the year before commencing their course.' Bourke also found that students most likely to withdraw were male, lived alone, did not enjoy their studies and had not studied in the twelve months prior to commencing university. McInnis et al (1995) identified a similar pattern in a recent study with mainstream first year students. They found that: females have a stronger academic orientation and application towards their studies, a stronger sense of purpose and were more likely to be satisfied with their courses than males; students’ attitudes and perceptions towards teaching and courses was influenced by the type of secondary school attended; and students whose parents had not been to university showed a stronger sense of purpose and application than those where one or both parents had undertaken higher education.

3.3.2 Psychological dimensions Other studies undertaken in Australia have focused more on psychological dimensions and their influence on student participation. Some studies have attempted to ascertain whether there is a link between the reasons students choose to study in the first place and their motivation to continue and successfully complete their study. McInerney and Sinclair (1992) suggest there is a positive relationship between individual motivation and successful participation and completion of courses in higher education. Their findings of a cross-cultural sample revealed a positive correlation between level of confidence and selfassuredness (self-efficacy) and continuation of study. In the South Australian case study Bourke et al.(1996) identified three main reasons students chose to study, including: to get a better job, please their family and meet community expectations. He concluded, however, that students’ desire to meet community expectations 'was evidently insufficient to enable them to overcome their sudden exposure to the reality of university life and the discouragement many of them experienced in their studies at university.' (Bourke et al. 1996:xiii)

3.3.3 Academic and institutional factors A range of academic and institutional factors are generally recognised as influencing Indigenous student retention, participation and success. These include teaching and learning, institutional policies and practices, and the institutional environment. Some of the literature suggests there is a cultural dimension which overlays each of these factors. Encompassing recognition of cultural autonomy extends beyond issues of cultural awareness and appropriateness (which can be accommodated within an assimilationist paradigm) and the existence of racism or cultural insensitivity (Sonn et al. 1997). Generally Australian studies tend to focus on the links between negative aspects of these academic and institutional factors and student withdrawal. Issues such as isolation and cultural marginalisation adversely influence student participation at university (Bourke 1996; Sonn 1997). However, a few studies have posited a link between positive cultural aspects and student persistence (Bourke 1996).

3.3.4 Cultural affirmation and persistence



Bourke et al. (1996: 6) refer to a study on Native American student participation which suggests that persistence may be linked to several factors including the use of language, positive regard towards Native cultures, good school-community relations and an emphasis on self-determination rather than assimilation (Hampton 1993: 269). As Bourke suggests, universities need to determine 'what institutional changes need to be instituted in order to improve tertiary educational persistence among Indigenous students.' (op.cit:xx) A study by Lukabyo (1995) of Indigenous university students in NSW focused mainly on academic and institutional influences on student attrition. He concluded that 'something is significantly wrong with the education system' which demands the immediate development of strategies to redress the situation (1995:12). Lukabyo (1995:13) identified ten main causes for high 'drop out' rates in the Australian literature. These are: inappropriateness of curriculum-students have to study in various degree programs; racism heavily entrenched in tertiary institutions and perpetuated through lectures and other university programs; hostile environment in the university not conducive to study and culturally foreign to students; lack of effective mechanisms for enhancement of participation of Aboriginal students and community members in decision making regarding the planning, delivery and evaluation of the institutional education programs; lack of an institutional-wide Aboriginal employment strategy in administration, teaching, research and student services areas; poor support structures for student's academic as well as socio-economic life; culturally inappropriate academic counselling system; rigid institutional structures that do not accommodate cultural divergence in course delivery and course requirements; lack of implementation of non-academic Indigenous programs for enhancement of cultural identity, cultural pride and self-esteem, and strategies for operating outside of one's culture; and, poor relationship between students and ATAS tutors that does not enhance learning. Lukabyo's research shows that higher retention rates have been achieved for Indigenous students at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) where institutional programs have been put in place to address the identified cause of high drop out rates. Institutional programs were initiated through Jumbunna Centre for Australian Indigenous Studies, Education and Research (CAISER).

3.3.5 Cultural awareness and sensitivity in curriculum and pedagogy Several studies have established a negative relationship between culturally incompatible curriculum and pedagogy and educational outcomes for Indigenous students. A study by Whatman (1995) suggested 'that culturally inappropriate and insensitive course content continues to be a factor that negatively impacts on students' successful participation in tertiary education.' This observation was confirmed by Sonn et al. (1997) in research undertaken with Indigenous students in mainstream courses at Curtin. The study of first year students’ experience by McInnis et al. (1995) found that more than 70 per cent of university academics believe students have become more demanding of their time, and most feel students are lacking purpose and application. According to McInnis et al. (1995) many academics operate their classes on a 'sink or swim' notion of education, adhering to a set of assumptions about the knowledge and skills possessed by first year students which may conflict with the reality of the ‘contemporary mass higher education system’. This view by many university academics that students should not be there 'if they can't hack it', has serious implications for Indigenous students studying in mainstream university courses. Sonn et al. (1997) found that 44 per cent of students (n= 90) at Curtin expressed concern about the lack of sensitivity and cultural awareness on campus, with schools within the social sciences perceived as the most insensitive and ethnocentric. Anderson et al. (1998) have indicated that sensitivity and awareness about Indigenous issues, history and culture, http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/1_2.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:04 PM]


varies widely across schools and departments within universities. Research on Indigenous Australian Perspectives, by Lampert and Lilley (1996) at the University of Queensland, indicated a greater level of cultural awareness by staff than some of these studies. However, their research revealed a high level of uncertainty among staff regarding appropriate teaching strategies and levels of support for Indigenous students. Several studies and reports have emphasised the continuing need for cultural awareness training for academic and administrative staff (Malone 1999; Pickett & Collard 1998, Walker & Humphries 1999). Several reports undertaken locally and nationally have identified racism and discrimination as very real issues still confronting Indigenous students. (Anderson et al 1998; Roberts 1999, Sonn et al. 1997) There is a need for long term strategies to overcome institutional racism and increase cross-cultural competence in all graduates and professional disciplines. Many reports have also stressed the need to incorporate Indigenous studies in mainstream university curricula (as discipline-integrated or discrete elective units, minors, or degree majors) to enable students to gain a greater understanding of Indigenous history and contemporary culture.

3.3.6 Roles and functions of Indigenous Centres A number of studies undertaken from different perspectives acknowledge the important role and functions of Indigenous Centres, (Jordan 1985; Ham 1996; Sonn et al. 1997). Sonn et al. (1997:8-9) suggest that Indigenous Centres ‘provide tangible, emotional and informational support’ for students and fulfil a range of important functions which have also been identified in other studies. These include: coming together to validate and share experiences with others who have had a similar history; providing opportunities for members to experience a sense of selfworth, dignity, and a sense of belonging; providing a protective haven from a harsh external environment; sharing resources and support; and validating norms, providing a sense of solidarity and providing opportunities for, and facilitating, social integration. At the same time Sonn et al. cautioned that an over reliance by students on Indigenous Centres can hamper the development of networks within the wider university. Taking a different perspective, Whatman (1995) claims that most Indigenous Centres have a role which extends beyond an ‘enclave model’ functioning primarily to support Indigenous students within mainstream institutions. She emphasises the importance of Indigenous Centres having much greater control over their budget and the decisions and processes which affect students’ success or failure within the university. The 1997 Higher Education Council Review of Institutional Use of Commonwealth Higher Education Funding for Indigenous Australian Students also looked at the different roles played by Indigenous Centres, pointing to the differing perspectives between the wider university and Indigenous Australians regarding their role. The Council states: Their purpose is generally to enable students to take advantage of opportunities within the institution. They are also seen by Indigenous Australian staff and students in all institutions, and senior management in some institutions, to be the voice for Indigenous Australian staff and a focus for cultural students political change within the institution. Units are seen by Indigenous Australian staff and students to be the key focal points within the institutions for the advocacy of Indigenous Australians values and the development of a presence within the university. (NBEET, 1997:17)



This summary is in accordance with the argument put forward by Morgan (1992) on the importance for the future of Indigenous higher education of being able to operate within a framework of Indigenous self-determination.

3.3.7 The importance of Indigenous student support Research by Dennis Foley (1996) 'Perspectives on effective student support for indigenous students in a tertiary institution' was undertaken at seven universities on the east coast of Australia. He compared facilities and attributes of staff, and interviewed Indigenous students who had withdrawn from their studies. He found that academic, administrative and support staff concepts about student support needs differ quite substantially from student identified support needs. Foley argues that there is an over emphasis on academic or tutorial support. His study indicates that 85 per cent of discontinuing students claimed personal or situational problems affected their grades and subsequent withdrawal and not their academic ability. Students identified three distinct areas outside the usual concept of academic support as important: housekeeping skills; life skills; and, financial skills. Consistent with these findings, in 1997 Indigenous students in three WA universities identified organisational, time management and budgeting skills and techniques as important aspects of support in independent bridging course reviews. Foley (1996) concludes that it is important for support services to focus attention on: the concept and nature of support given, who gives it and how it is given; recruitment methods that are not driven by enrolment quotas, together with mechanisms to redirect some people to TAFE for preparation to university; the staffing of Indigenous student support centres; the development and use of exit surveys to obtain empirical data; and practices used to mask actual withdrawal figures. Several studies have stressed the importance of tutorial support to assist students. The data from research by the Centre for Aboriginal Studies (CAS) at Curtin University in 1997 shows a positive relationship between tutor usage and academic success. Most institutions maintain tutorial support as an important component in the overall student support structure.

3.3.8 Environment/external factors Many of the studies on students attrition and persistence examine the extent to which external and environmental factors influence Indigenous students’ participation at university. A range of factors has been identified as having a significant influence on some students. These include issues of relocation and adaptation, (Sonn et al. 1997), transport and accommodation, homesickness and difficulty in adapting to university life (Bourke et al. 1996), and racism and discrimination operating outside the institution (RCIADIC, 1989). Back to top Previous | Next | Contents



4. Methodological approaches to the research Previous | Next | Contents

This comprehensive study was undertaken to identify the various factors (personal, academic, institutional and external) influencing student participation in Western Australian universities. It aims to understand what factors are likely to enhance student persistence and achievement including institutional strategies which embrace ‘best practice principles’; and identify where improvements in administration, curriculum and teaching can be made. It also aims to explore the extent to which programs and strategies in WA universities are effective in increasing student participation and achievement. This chapter discusses the rationale for incorporating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to achieve these project aims. It also outlines the key elements of the research design employed to collect and analyse the quantitative and qualitative information for this study. Extensive consultation took place with key staff from each of the Indigenous Units/Centres and regional campuses in the preliminary phase of the research to ensure the concerns of each of the universities were included. Discussion topics at these meetings included methodological and ethical issues and concerns, the scope and purpose of the research and the questionnaire content and design. The methodological approaches in this research take these concerns and issues into account.

4.1 Key elements of the research design Drawing on both qualitative and quantitative approaches, the key elements to meet the aims of the project include: a review of existing policy context of Indigenous higher education; a review of relevant research related to attrition, persistence, curriculum and teaching practices; an information collection strategy (qualitative and quantitative) with the Indigenous student population and management, academic and support staff working with Indigenous students; an analysis of Indigenous students’ outcomes at WA institutions at state and national levels; and a review of Aboriginal Education Strategies within existing institutional contexts and their implications for policy and practice.

4.2 Policy analysis 4.2.1 Review of existing policy goals, assumptions and strategies Consistent with the project aims, an analysis of Indigenous higher education policies was undertaken to gain a better understanding of current issues identified by students and staff during in the research. In addition, the analysis was intended to give a better understanding of the reasons for continued disadvantage of Indigenous students, as reflected in existing outcomes, and their implications for policy changes at an institutional level. Rist (1994:555) outlines the importance of analysing different phases of the policy process including policy formulation, implementation and accountability in assessing policy effectiveness in achieving stated goals. He contends there are a number of ways in which qualitative research can be used to assist the information needs of policymakers. He



identifies four key areas of policy which both fit with the aims of this research and are amenable to qualitative research. These are: resource intensiveness; targeting; constraints on institutional capacity; and political risks. The areas of particular relevance to this research include the assumptions underpinning the use of policy tools such as targeting and institutional capacity.

4.2.2 Review of Aboriginal education strategies Since 1991 all universities have been required to develop Aboriginal education strategies to increase Indigenous participation. A list of the various strategies and performance indicators (qualitative and quantitative) for each of the universities have been compiled to identify effective strategies and outcomes contributing to student retention and success.

4.3 Review of relevant research The material reviewed for this study was undertaken at two stages in the research and covered three main content areas: firstly, similar studies on students attrition and persistence in higher education; secondly, policy documents, taskforce reports and reviews related to Indigenous higher education policies; and thirdly, a broad range of publications on curriculum and pedagogy in cross-cultural and Indigenous contexts. At the commencement of the project, the team undertook an extensive review of relevant studies in order to determine the research questions and the most appropriate approach for this project. The key references for this phase of the research include: Bean and Metzner 1985; Bourke, Burden and Moore 1996; McInnes, James & McNaught 1995; Lukabayo 1995; Foley 1996; Sonn, Bishop and Humphries 1997, and Tinto 1979, 1989. In addition several other studies were used to inform the analysis phase of the research including: Anderson, Singh, Stehbens and Ryerson 1998; and Ramsay, Tranter, Sumner and Barrett 1996. Findings from three previous research projects undertaken by two of the participating universities were particularly relevant at both the design and analysis stages. These included: a comprehensive study of Indigenous student participation in their bridging courses undertaken by staff from Edith Cowan University (Moe 1999) and a research project undertaken on behalf of the Centre for Aboriginal Studies (CAS) to identify factors influencing retention and success in Centre courses (Walker 1998a; Walker 1998b); and, Indigenous student participation in mainstream courses at Curtin (Walker & Humphries 1999).

4.4 Qualitative and quantitative approaches Qualitative and quantitative approaches were incorporated in both the data collection and data analysis phases of this study. Several previous studies have emphasised the importance of undertaking qualitative research in order to gain a better understanding of the factors influencing Indigenous student participation in higher education (Ham 1996, DEET 1995). Qualitative approaches were highly appropriate for this research because they encompass the everyday realities of students’ family and community lives, the institutional context of their study and the interplay between these. For many students, their everyday reality also involves the added demands of their professional and voluntary community work. A qualitative approach was especially appropriate because of the complexity of historic, geographic, demographic and cultural diversity among Indigenous students, and the differences in institutions and courses they attend. In addition, qualitative research gives student perspectives a central place in the research, provides a richer description of the issues, and also places importance on the processes employed in the research as well as the outcomes.


Indigenous Performance in Western Australia Universities: Reframing Retention and Success Back to top

4.5 Information collection methods A range of information collection methods were employed to obtain student, staff and stakeholder perspectives to identify the personal, academic and contextual factors which contribute to patterns of Indigenous student participation, retention and success in higher education.

4.5.1 Students 4.5.1.1 Questionnaires The research questionnaire was designed to collect and verify information about a wide range of individual and external factors that contribute positively and negatively to Indigenous student participation in higher education (Sonn, et al. 1997; Bourke et al. 1996; Foley 1996). A preliminary study, undertaken by the Project Director at Curtin in December 1997, served as pilot study for this research project. It was informed by a previous study at Curtin (Sonn et al. 1997) and incorporated questions from the South Australian study on factors influencing Indigenous student participation (Bourke et al. 1996). The research questionnaire was developed with considerable input from Indigenous students and staff during the pilot study. They were concerned that the complexity of issues influencing students needed to be incorporated in this research. On the basis of their suggestions, some questions were substantially extended. In particular, questions related to reasons for studying (Question 19) and difficulties experienced at university (Question 24) were amended from the pilot study questionnaire. The revised version of the questionnaire was circulated to the project advisory committee at all universities which in turn consulted with relevant staff, and suggested further changes. As a result, a generic questionnaire was developed and then 'customised' for each of the universities. 3 The small differences in questions were subsequently taken into account and accommodated in the data collation and analysis. Between December 1998 and March 1999 the resulting questionnaires were administered to Indigenous students who were enrolled at Western Australian universities during Semester One and/or Two in 1998. Students were asked to identify the reasons they withdrew, or deferred from their studies; or did not successfully complete units. In addition, students continuing their studies were asked about any difficulties they experienced at university during 1998 and strategies they employed to overcome these. (Appendix 4) Although the project team held concerns about the length of the questionnaire and the depth of detail it asked of students, it is apparent that the involvement of students in the construction of the survey questionnaire brought their voices and perspectives into the data collection and enriched the research findings. The changes made to the questionnaire resulted in further insights to research findings previously identified by Bourke et al. (1996) and Sonn et al. (1997). 4.5.1.2 Telephone interviews and focus groups In some cases telephone follow-up was undertaken with students to gain more understanding of issues affecting their studies. Indigenous research assistants undertook these telephone interviews in accordance with techniques outlined in How to conduct interviews by telephone and in person, (Frey & Oishi 1995). Three sets of focus groups informed this research. They were held to pilot the questionnaire and to seek students’ input into the questions. Three focus groups were held at Curtin with students from bridging, block release and mainstream degree courses. These http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/1_3.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:05 PM]


discussion groups included students who had failed units or withdrawn from some units or their courses. The second set of focus group discussions were held during December 1998, also with students still studying at Curtin. These discussions identified the type of difficulties experienced, whether students had considered leaving, the resources they needed and the strategies they employed to overcome difficulties. A third set of focus groups were held between February and March 1999 at UWA, Notre Dame, and Edith Cowan campuses at Katanning and Bunbury to discuss the same issues and give students an opportunity to complete the questionnaire.

4.5.2 Staff 4.5.2.1 Interviews and small group discussions, Email surveys and questionnaires The Project Director and research assistants completed interviews and small group discussions using a semi-structured interview schedule with staff at Indigenous Centres at all metropolitan campuses as well as at Edith Cowan and Notre Dame in Broome and Edith Cowan at Bunbury and Katanning. (Appendix 7). Staff were asked to identify what they considered to be the main reasons for students withdrawing from, or not successfully completing their study, as well as to identify the factors which enhanced student persistence. This process provided a form of triangulation to support student data. Field notes were maintained from these discussions. Interviewer interpretations of staff comments were clarified at the point of discussion and verified with participants. Support staff from all universities attended a workshop at Curtin University in February 1999 and participated in a discussion regarding the research. Eight support staff also completed questionnaires (Appendix 8) regarding the main issues affecting students from their perspective. These issues were the same as those outlined in the student questionnaire. In total, 26 management, academic and support staff participated in small group discussions or individual interviews. A further six academic staff completed an Email survey, which was based on the same questions used in the semi-structured interview (Appendix 9). The staff participant list (Appendix 10) provides details of the 33 staff who participated in the research. There were 21 Indigenous and 12 non-Indigenous staff. Two thirds of the staff were female and one third male. Fourteen held senior academic or management positions and 85 per cent of these were Indigenous. The remaining 19 held academic and support positions.

4.5.3 Stakeholder meetings Other information was collected from relevant meetings by invitation of Indigenous stakeholders in the research. The first was the student support workshop already mentioned above. In addition to Indigenous students from each of the universities, this workshop was also attended by support staff, equity officers and representatives from government departments and non-government agencies. This workshop covered a range of issues critical to student success including accommodation, finances, childcare and tutoring support. All of the universities shared information about the effectiveness of their existing strategies and identified institutional level strategies. The second meeting was held at the University of Western Australia in April 1999 to discuss changes to ABSTUDY. This meeting also involved students and staff as well as state and federal government representatives. Two meetings were also held with members of the WA Indigenous Higher Education Association (WAIHEA) in May and November 1998. As with the institutional level consultation, these meetings covered methodological and ethical issues and concerns and the scope and purpose of the research. Concerns about existing DETYA measures of student outcomes and issues related to ABSTUDY changes



were also raised. Back to top

4.6 Analytical approaches Two analytical approaches were adopted to reflect the different types of quantitative and qualitative data collected.

4.6.1 Quantitative analysis An analysis of quantitative data was undertaken to identify whether statistically significant relationships could be established between course outcomes and the factors identified by students as influencing their participation. An analysis of the student data was undertaken to ascertain if any correlation exists between course completion levels, success and attrition rates and student demographic data and modes of study. The use of the research questionnaire enabled the project team to quantify students’ subjective responses to questions regarding personal and external factors influencing their motivation and persistence to study. Student views on the appropriateness of support, quality of teaching, the relevance of the curriculum in meeting their goals and aspirations, their reasons for studying in the first place and their future study intentions were also obtained and quantified. Responses to many of these questions were cross-tabulated with demographic data and student outcomes to identify whether any statistically significant relationships existed between any of these dependent and independent variables. DETYA annual statistics of Indigenous student access, participation, retention and success outcomes at WA institutions over the past three years were compared with the national annual statistics to identify any specific trends and/or anomalies in student participation patterns. In addition, these statistical outcomes are discussed in relation to the effectiveness of institutional strategies.

4.6.2 Qualitative analysis An interpretative approach was adopted for the analysis of student focus group discussions, staff interviews and student responses to the open-ended questions in the student questionnaires. This approach recognises the importance of obtaining information grounded in student’s experiences and understanding of the issues, interactions and events influencing their study. Eight questions in the student questionnaires (Questions 34 to 41) requested open-ended responses. These questions were included to obtain student perspectives as to whether they felt their courses contributed to their individual and/or collective empowerment and self-determination and, where relevant, adequately covered Indigenous studies content and processes. Previous studies indicate that students are more likely to withdraw if their course is culturally irrelevant or inappropriate, and conversely, are more likely to persist if they believe their course contributes positively to Indigenous self-determination, empowerment and cultural affirmation. (Baumgart et al. 1995; Bourke et al.1996; Morgan 1992). The majority of students completed these questions, with at least two thirds of the responses being detailed. The data was analysed using a process, recommended by Patton (1987) and Stringer (1996), which entails becoming familiar with all of the material collected, identifying key themes or topics, organising the data and summarising and ordering different topics together under broad themes. Two Indigenous research assistants worked extensively to identify key topics and themes. Differences in interpretation were discussed with the Project Director to develop a shared understanding and agreement on the meaning of information to ensure internal validity and reduce possible misinterpretation of student responses.



4.7 Representativeness of the research sample 4.7.1 Sampling of student population Initially it was intended to use a random sample and ensure population representativeness and non-bias. This would have required obtaining student identification lists by course level across all universities and establishing samples in proportion to different course types and institutions as well as attempting to include geographic representation. Because of various difficulties inherent in this approach, the final decision, was to send letters to all Indigenous students enrolled in Semester One and Two in WA universities in 1998, inviting them complete the enclosed questionnaire or, if they preferred, participate in a telephone interview (Appendices 1, 2 and 4). The response rate was quite high; 1470 questionnaires were sent out and 276 questionnaires returned. Because eight of the returned questionnaires were insufficiently completed, data from only 268 questionnaires were included in the research. A total of 55 questionnaires were returned because of incorrect addresses, and as predicted, many of these were for students who had withdrawn or stopped attending.

4.7.2 Institutional representativeness All Western Australian universities participated in the research. These institutions are sufficiently diverse in their provision of courses, support programs and modes of delivery to identify patterns of student performance in relation to these differences. The Stanley report (1997) Review of Institutional Use of Commonwealth Higher Education Funding for Indigenous Australian Students, cites six broad university classifications based on history and regionality. These different groups are well represented on a state-wide basis, as they are in this study, to ensure the useful application of the data covering a broad range of issues in similar settings across Australia. 3 For example, for Notre Dame, Question 9 on language, included categories of Broome English and Creole in addition to standard Australian and traditional language, and for UWA, Question 26 was modified so that one questionnaire could be used for students regardless of their enrolment status. (Appendix 4)

Back to top Previous | Next | Contents



5. Student academic and demographic profiles Previous | Next | Contents

This chapter develops an academic and demographic profile of Indigenous students in the sample population as a basis for the analysis. It outlines student background and demographic factors including age, gender, geographic location, educational achievement, socio-economic status and language spoken at home. It also describes enrolment numbers, modes of study, types and levels of courses, year of study and discipline.

5.1 Research sample and WA Indigenous student population The research sample consisted of Indigenous Australian students who had been studying in one of the five Western Australian universities in Semester One or Two 1998. The academic profiles of the sample group were compared with the Indigenous student population in WA universities for the same period to establish their representativeness and the generalisability of the findings. These comparisons show that the sample was representative of the Indigenous student population in WA universities by gender, age, socio-economic status (SES) and geographic distribution. This research explores how different types and levels of courses influence student participation and outcomes. This means the unequal distribution of institutions or course levels outlined in Tables 5.1 and 5.2 within the sample needs to be held in mind when considering the research findings.4 Table 5.1 Sample distribution of Indigenous students in WA universities

Universities

Student sample responses no. (%)

Total WA Indigenous students no. (%)

% of variance

Curtin

105 (39.2)

422 (28.7)

+10.5

ECU

105 (39.2)

774 (52.7)

-13.5

Murdoch

18 (6.7)

99 (6.7)

0.0

UWA

26 (9.7)

139 (9.5)

+0.2

NDA (Broome)

14 (5.2)

36 (2.4)

+2.8

268 (100.0)

1470 (100.0)

TOTAL

A total of 268 students responded to the questionnaire, representing 18 per cent of the Indigenous student population in 1998. Table 4.1 indicates the questionnaire returns for the sample group were not in proportion to the total Indigenous student population at 5



some of the universities in the sample based on 1998 Indigenous student enrolments for Western Australia, (DETYA 1998).6 Specifically, Indigenous students at Edith Cowan University (ECU) were under-represented in the sample and Curtin and Notre Dame students were over-represented. These variations in the sample reflect differences in circumstances and courses in each of the universities which in turn resulted in different information collection methods and responses. The under-representation of ECU student responses was because a high percentage of 1998 bridging course enrolments were external, part-time and widely dispersed through the State, which generally results in low returns. In contrast, the overrepresentation of Curtin student responses was due to fortuitous timing, and a high percentage of students in block release courses being on campus during the data collection period. Similarly, Indigenous students studying by block release at Notre Dame university, Broome, also participated in the research while on campus which resulted in a higher than expected response. Table 5.2 Sample distribution by level of course

Course Level

WA Indigenous student sample n. (%)

WA Indigenous student population n. (%)

% of variance

Bridging

73 (27.5)

785 (53.4)

- 25.9

Diploma & Associate Degree

70 (26.4)

205 (13.9)

+ 12.5

102 (38.5)

420 (28.6)

+ 9.9

20 ( 7.5)

60 ( 4.1)

+ 3.4

265* (100.0)

1470**(100.0)

Undergraduate Degree Postgraduate

TOTAL

*3 students did not complete this question. ** Population is total WA Indigenous Australian university students including NDA (Broome). Table 5.2 shows student enrolments by course level for the research sample compared with all Indigenous university students in Western Australia based on DETYA annual statistics (DETYA 1998). For the reasons outlined above, there were significant differences in response rates of the sample, by course enrolment, and those of the Western Australian Indigenous student population. 7

5.2 Student background and demographics The influence of gender, age and social and economic background factors on student participation, retention and success are fundamental dimensions in the model applied in this research.

5.2.1 Age and gender Table 5.3 below compares the sample data with Indigenous university students population http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/2_4.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:07 PM]


statistics by age and gender. It shows similarities and differences between and within these groups, for males and females under and over 25 years. Table 5.3 Indigenous student sample and population, by age and gender

WA Indigenous student sample n. (%)

Age

Males (%)

Females (%)

WA Indigenous student population n. (%)

Total (%)

Males (%)

Females (%)

Total (%)

Under 25 years

29 (31.5)

33 (19.4)

62 (23.1)

168 (33.0)

279 (29.0)

447 (30.4)

25 years and over

63 (68.5)

137 (80.6)

200/3*

341 (67.0)

682 (71.0)

1023 (69.6)

TOTAL

(76.9)

92 (100.0)

170 (100.0)

262/5 (100.0)

509 (100.0)

961 (100.0)

1470** (100.0)

(35.0)

(65.0)

(100.0)

(35.0)

(65.0)

(100.0)

* The totals for age and gender vary because 265 students responded to Question 1 (age) ,and 262 students responded to Question 2 (gender). ** Figures for Indigenous student population contain both DETYA 1998 statistics and data obtained from Notre Dame (Broome). 5.2.1.1 Gender As Table 5.3 shows, the gender distribution for the sample is the same as for the total population of Indigenous students at WA universities in 1998, when both are rounded (65 per cent females cf. 35 per cent males). Further, the gender distribution for both the sample and the State Indigenous student population is almost the same as the national Indigenous student (males: 36 per cent cf. females: 64 per cent DETYA, 1998:139). However, it differs substantially to the non-Indigenous student population (44 per cent males cf. 56 per cent females, DETYA, 1998:21). 5.2.1.2 Age Statistically the age distribution in the sample under and over 25 years is significantly different (although only marginally higher) from that of the Indigenous student population in WA in 1998. Table 4.3 also shows that some 77 per cent of students in sample were 25 years and over, while approximately 70 per cent of all Indigenous students in WA universities were over 25 years. 8 Both the Indigenous student sample over 25 years and WA population are much higher than the national non-Indigenous university student population for the same period (DETYA, 1998) (>70 per cent over 25 years cf. 40 per cent were over 25 years). 5.2.1.3 Age by gender



There is a significant difference between the sample and population on age by gender. 9 Considered separately, there is a significant age and gender difference in the sample population, 10 but not in the total population of Indigenous university students in Western Australia (1998). 11 Specifically although males in the sample were in much the same proportion as males in the population for both age groups, 12 there was a difference for females under and over 25. 13 These differences need to be taken into account in making generalisations concerning age or gender. 5.2.1.4 Sample age by gender A detailed distribution by gender and age of Indigenous students in the research sample is graphically represented in Figure 5.1 below. Figure 5.1 Gender and age distribution of students in the sample

As Figure 5.1 illustrates, the numbers of male and female students to 25 years is quite similar. However, the difference between males and females over 25 years was generally quite substantial, increasing dramatically in the over 40 year age group. According to staff this gender difference by age, and the particular patterns for females, is related to family roles. Back to top

5.3 Socio-Economic Status (SES) and location A number of indicators are used in social policy research in Australia to determine SES, including place of living, parent's occupation, family wealth and education. Because Indigenous students are largely a mature-age population, most with their own families, parental variables are less relevant than for the non-Indigenous student population, the majority of which is under 25 years, still living with parents, or newly independent (McInnis 1995; Ramsay 1998). These issues must be borne in mind when comparing Indigenous and non-Indigenous student populations (particularly in relation to discussions of outcomes). The discussion in this section begins with locality, using postcodes of students place of living while studying. Lin Martin (1994) identified the home address postcode as the most reliable and least intrusive indicator to measure students' socio-economic status. Martin defined students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds (low SES) as those whose postcodes 'fall within the lowest quartile of the population of a given catchment region based on the ABS Index of Education and Occupation' (Martin 1994:135). These indicators are used by DETYA as existing measures of socio-economic status. However, because of wide geographic and socio-economic variations within postcode areas, especially in rural and isolated areas, Martin was cautious about the statistical validity of analysis using these indictors if the sample size was less than 200 (Martin 1994:132). For this research project SES has been determined by postcode for two reasons: firstly, to distinguish between urban, rural and isolated students; and, secondly, to discriminate variations in low, medium and high SES within each location.



Other studies have also recognised that locality is a determinant of socio-economic status, both of which affect student access to and participation at university (Carpenter et al. 1998; Ramsay et al. 1998). Cultural and structural barriers also prevent access for low SES students. SES is also related to education resources available in prior study, and parental and cultural support and expectations (Tinto 1979). Geographic and cultural factors influence students' study and career goals and aspirations. Locality has important consequences for Indigenous student access and retention at university, in addition to SES. Depending on their SES and locality, students are affected differently by changes to ABSTUDY policy, particularly away-from-base funds; they also have differential access to resources, communications and other facilities provided to assist students’ studies. Comparisons by locality and SES by students' home address postcodes were made between the sample group and Indigenous population on the basis of the DETYA indicators as illustrated in figures 5.2 and 5.3 below.

5.3.1 Locality The geographic locations of the research sample, as indicated by their home address postcodes, were compared with DETYA 1999 statistics for the Indigenous university student population of Western Australia in 1998. Figure 5.2 Locality of Indigenous WA university student population and sample (n=213)

As Figure 5.2 illustrates, the sample and population distributions appear reasonably uniform. Approximately 53 per cent of sample respondents were from urban postcode areas where 'urban' is defined as a population centre of 100,000 or more people. The remaining 47 per cent of students were almost equally divided between rural and isolated areas, (24 per cent cf. 23 per cent). At the 1996 census approximately 73 per cent of Indigenous people lived in urban areas throughout Australia compared with 86 per cent of the non-Indigenous population. Approximately 26 per cent of the Indigenous population live in Western Australia. 14

5.3.2 Socio-economic status The socio-economic status (SES) of the research sample, based on postcodes, was compared with the Indigenous university student population for Western Australia (DETYA, 1998).15 Figure 5.3 SES profile of Indigenous WA university student population and sample, (n =213)



As Figure 5.3 illustrates, the majority of students in both population and sample groups live in low or medium SES areas. It indicates a close correlation between the research sample and the Indigenous student population, although there is a slight underrepresentation of students in medium SES and high SES and over-representation of students in low SES. Of the 213 Indigenous students in the sample, 38 per cent were from the low SES compared to 13 per cent in the non-Indigenous population. 16 Conversely, the majority of non-Indigenous university students were from high SES compared with Indigenous students (60 per cent cf. 10 per cent.). 17

5.3.3 Sample SES by locality Students in the sample were categorised as living in high, medium and low SES and urban, rural or isolated areas on the basis of the postcodes of where they were living while studying which, in the majority of cases, was also the home address. Figure 5.4 SES and locality of sample

It is important to note that indicators of SES based on postcodes are calculated on the mean score of income and wealth for each postcode area. They do not necessarily reflect the actual circumstances and economic position of individual Indigenous students living in those areas. Figure 5.4 shows there are considerable SES differences within and between urban, rural and isolated geographic areas. The results reflect some interesting variations and anomalies. Most low SES students live in small country towns in rural areas which are economically depressed. In contrast, some students in isolated areas live in cattle country or close to mining sites classified high SES and these classifications may not necessarily reflect the true circumstances of individual students. In another anomalous situation students on low income are living in colleges close to two universities in urban areas classified medium or high SES. Many Indigenous students living in medium or high SES would be more realistically placed in low SES categories. These examples highlight the limitations of the existing indicators in accurately representing low SES for the total Indigenous student population. 18

5.3.4 Locality while studying http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/2_4.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:07 PM]


In Questions 4.i) and ii) and iii) students were asked to identify their place of living while studying. The number of students who moved to the city while studying is not clear, although a small number of students identified relocation issues as a factor affecting their study in 1998. Table 5.4 Where living while studying by state

State

n

WA Interstate TOTAL

% 233

87.6

33

12.4

266*

100.0

* Note 2 respondents did not answer this question. In response to Question 4.i), 88 per cent of students indicated they lived in Western Australia while studying and the remaining 12 per cent indicated various states in Australia. Data collected from one Indigenous Centre shows that approximately 41 per cent of students (n=200) enrolled in two block release courses lived interstate in 1998. Staff and students expressed concern that these courses will be seriously affected by changes to ABSTUDY away-from-base funding. Table 5.5 Where living while studying by size of town

Size of town city

n

% 148

60.4

large town

28

11.4

small town

53

21.6

isolated community

16

6.6

245*

100.0

TOTAL

* Note 23 students did not answer this question. More than 60 per cent of students stated they lived in the city, while 11 per cent of students living in rural and isolated areas stated they lived in large towns, 22 per cent in small towns and 7 per cent in isolated communities. Back to top

5.4 Family situation Family pressures, including financial difficulties, childcare and other issues have been shown to have a significant impact on student retention and progress (Ellis 1999; Roberts 1999). The categories in Table 5.6 show Indigenous students' extended family



responsibilities. Table 5.6 Family situation while studying

Family situation

n

%

partner

30

11.2

partner & children

84

31.3

parents or guardians

33

12.3

extended family

26

9.7

with children

35

13.1

alone

33

12.3

shared house

24

9.0

3

1.1

268

100.0

university residential TOTAL

Students' responses indicated that almost 78 per cent were living in family situations, and most of these were living with children'. A total of 22 per cent of students lived 'alone', or in shared house or university residential situation noted they had partners and/or dependant children 'back home'. Indigenous support staff stated that many students had already left their studies because of their family responsibilities and the difficulties of obtaining adequate childcare or support. Only 12 per cent of students were living with parents or guardians, the majority were mature age with their own children or extended family responsibilities. This is very different from non-Indigenous university students population where the majority of students are under 25 years and living with parents.

5.4.1 Family members at university In Question 11 students were asked to indicate whether any member of their family had attended or graduated from a university course. Other studies have shown that first member to attend university can influence student persistence. Table 5.7 Other members of family attended university

Student Responses

n

%

Yes

135

51.5

No

127

48.5

262*

100.0

TOTAL

* 6 students did not answer this question.



Approximately 49 per cent of students in the sample stated that they were the first member of their family to attend university.

5.4.2 Language In 1996, some 13 per cent of Indigenous Australians reported speaking an Indigenous language at home (ABS Census). Indigenous language use was highest amongst older Indigenous people and those living outside urban areas in the more isolated northern and western regions of Australia. Universities with students from those regions were interested to know how many students have 'English as a second language'. Table 5.8 English as first language

Student Responses

n

Yes No TOTAL

% 258

97.0

8

3.0

266*

100.0

* 2 students did not answer Question 9. Only 3 per cent of students in the sample indicated that they mostly used a language other than English as their first language. Staff indicated that students experiencing language difficulties had left and would not have completed the questionnaire for the same reason.

5.5 Financial support and employment Information regarding the number of people receiving ABSTUDY, on scholarships, or working on a full time or part time basis is also useful to understand the financial situation of students studying and how many were balancing work and study loads. In Question 6 students were asked to indicate all sources of financial support which were then grouped in categories as listed in Table 5.9. Table 5.9 Main sources of financial support while studying

Sources of income and financial support

n

%

ABSTUDY

96

35.8

Full time work

58

21.4

ABSTUDY+ Part time work

20

7.4

ABSTUDY+ Gov't Benefit

19

7.1

ABSTUDY+ CDEP

22

8.2

Award/Scholarship Cadetship

6

2.1

Part time work + CDEP or Govt Benefit

8

2.8

14

5.2

Other Government Benefit



Scholarship Cadetship (40 % P/Time Work) Own Business/Partnership TOTAL

20

7.8

5

1.8

268*

100.0

Approximately 36 per cent of students reported ABSTUDY as their sole source of income. A further 23 per cent received an ABSTUDY allowance to supplement other forms of income including other government benefits. The remaining 41 per cent identified cadetships, CDEP or full time or part time work as their main source of income. Some of these students also received limited financial support to supplement low income. Most students on awards and scholarships received supplementary assistance or worked part-time for additional support. Table 5.10 Type of employer while studying

Type of employer

n

%

Government

55

36.4

Private Sector

22

14.5

Aboriginal /Torres Strait Island Org'n

43

28.5

Community Incorporation

17

11.3

3

2.0

11

7.3

151*

100.0

Self-employed Other TOTAL

*Only students working full or part time (including cadetships) were asked this question. Approximately 16.5 per cent of students indicated that they were self-employed or working in the private sector. Fifty-six per cent the students in sample were working while studying and 65 per cent of these (or 37 per cent of the student sample) worked in state and federal Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations or government agencies. (Table 5.10) Most students indicated that they worked in sectors which provide specific programs and services for Indigenous Australians including social services, health and education. Approximately 17 per cent of employed students indicated that they are self-employed or work in the private sector. The major block release programs are competency-based and require students to be working in paid or unpaid work to demonstrate competence. This accounts for the high percentage of students working and studying full time. Table 5.11 Occupational area while studying

Occupational area

n

%

Professional academic, medical, legal

13

9.2

Education

22

15.6

9

6.4

Heath



Project and Community Workers

28

19.9

Administration & Management

41

29.0

Trade

11

7.8

Any part time available

8

5.7

Other

9

6.4

141*

100.0

TOTAL

* Ten students who indicated that they were employed (Table 4.10) did not answer this question. As Table 5.11 above indicates the majority of Indigenous university students are working in education, health, social services and community work, leadership and management. A few students, 3 per cent stated that they were working in 'any part time work available' while studying and a few students also stated they were doing volunteer work to 'fulfil study requirements'. Based on professional, managerial, white collar occupational classifications used in the ABS census data 80 per cent of students appear to be working in high or medium SES. However, Indigenous students in undergraduate and enabling courses were generally working at the lowest levels in their particular categories. For example: community health workers; teacher aides: and legal officers. Overall this pattern of employment while studying differs considerably to employment types and patterns for both equity and mainstream non-Indigenous groups (McInnis et al. 1995, Ramsay et al. 1998).

5.6 Relationship between work and study Students were also asked if they had worked previously (Question 7.ii) and the length of time they had worked (Question 7.iii) to identify any relationship between work experience, student persistence and academic success in university study. Table 5.12 Length of time working

Length of time

n

%

12 months or less

44

33.3

2 years or less

21

15.9

between 2 to 5 years

20

15.2

between 5 to 10 years

14

10.6

over 10 years

33

25.0

132*

100.0

TOTAL

* Nineteen students who indicated that they were employed (Table 5.10) did not answer this question. Forty-nine per cent of students in the sample indicated they were working or had worked http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/2_4.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:07 PM]


previously. Of these, some 49 per cent stated that they had worked two years or less. A further 26 per cent had worked between two to ten years and 25 per cent had worked for over 10 years prior to studying.

5.6.1 Looking for work Students who were unemployed were asked whether they had been looking for work while studying (Question 8.i) and how long they had been looking for work (Question 8.ii). Other studies (Ramsay et al. 1998, for example) have shown that students experiencing financial hardship are more likely to leave to obtain employment than continue their studies. Table 5.13 Length of time looking for work

Length of time

n

%

less than 12 months

21

52.5

12 months to 2 years

10

25.0

9

22.5

40*

100.0

over 2 years TOTAL

*Only includes students looking for work. About half the students in the sample were unemployed (n=123). Approximately one third of these students (n=40) stated that they had been looking for work, and of those, 71 percent had been looking for work for over 12 months. Although the numbers were too small to verify statistically, 67 per cent of the students who had been looking for work for less than 12 months withdrew from their studies, suggesting they may have left because they obtained work. Back to top

5.7 Educational background All Western Australian universities have some form of flexible entry policy to promote Indigenous student access. The data obtained from questions regarding students’ educational background were used in determining whether these admission policies and procedures are effective in increasing student access to a broad range of disciplines or fields of study; and whether there are adequate mechanisms in place to support students when they enter university. Students were also asked about education prior to university, the criteria for admission, and the level of course in which they were enrolled. Table 5.14 Education at entry to university

Level of education TAFE or other Bridging

Number

Percent

38

14.9

7

2.7

Year 12

60

23.6

Year 11

28

11.0

Year 12 TEE



Year 10

114

41.0

11

4.3

254*

100.0

Primary School TOTAL

* 14 students did not answer the question. Table 5.14 indicates that only three per cent of students had matriculated and 26 per cent had reached Year 12. In addition 76 per cent of the total sample had not studied to Year 12 level and 45 percent of these had studied to Year 10. All the students in the sample with only primary schooling were over 40 years of age highlighting the continuing legacy of education disadvantage experienced under previous government policies. Table 5.15 Basis of admission to study, by current level of course

Basis of admission

current level of course

Bridging

Year 12 or TEE

Sub degree

Degree

Post grad

n. %

3

7

10

1

21 (8.0)

TAFE Cert/Diploma

12

8

19

1

31 (11.0)

Mature age, work exp.

26

33

36

9

104 (41.0)

Bridging Course***

28**

6

29

4

69 (27.2)

Direct Entry testing

2

14

10

-

26 (20.4)

University Award

-

-

11#

6

26 (9.8)

69

68

21

268(100.0)

TOTAL

116

* Some respondents ticked more than one category, these were combined and counted only once. ** This figure includes Stage 1 of a 2 stage bridging program. Completed Bridging Certificate is basis for admission # This includes Associate Degree. The data in Table 5.15, illustrates an integrated system of pathways into university. These pathways cater for students who wish to follow mainstream or culturally specific education and employment opportunities, or a combination of these. An analysis of the links between students’ education level (Table 5.14), criteria for admission and current course level (Table 5.15), highlights some important access and participation patterns among the student group. These patterns are illustrated in the pathways in Figure 5.5. The main implications are as follows: One third of Year 12 students in the sample (n=21) were admitted to university on the basis of matriculation or direct entry testing. The remaining two thirds were admitted directly into associate degree or degree course on the basis of alternative



criteria including interviews, mature age or work experience. Some 27 per cent of students in bridging courses and 16 per cent of students in associate degree or degree courses had completed bridging courses previously. Successful completion of culturally specific enabling courses including associate degrees provide a stepping stone and credit towards undergraduate degrees. Attempts to rationalise these courses or to remove bridging courses from the university sector could only have a negative effect on the current student participation rates and outcomes. Figure 5.5 Pathways to Indigenous Participation at WA Universities

* Some Culturally Specific Degree and Associate Degree courses are offered jointly by Schools and Indigenous Centres.



** These include discipline-specific pre-tertiary courses in specialised areas e.g. Medicine, Law.

5.8 Culturally specific and mainstream courses All WA universities provide culturally specific bridging or enabling courses for entry into both mainstream and culturally specific undergraduate courses. In addition three universities offer a range of culturally specific courses including block release and on campus courses at associate degree, degree and postgraduate levels. All of these culturally specific courses, including enabling courses, are underpinned by principles of Indigenous empowerment and cultural affirmation and are generally only available for Indigenous Australians. However Bridging or enabling courses have a dual role. Most bridging courses include an Indigenous Australian Studies component and place an emphasis on affirming and strengthening students’ cultural identity. They are also designed to prepare Indigenous people for mainstream studies in either general or specific discipline areas and include some tertiary level units. Some bridging courses also provide Indigenous students with skills which increase their employment opportunities. For example students who wish to obtain a cadetship in government departments and private sectors are encouraged to sit a public service entrance test. Culturally specific undergraduate courses are designed to meet the individual and collective needs and priorities of the Indigenous community. Most are offered through Indigenous Centres, with priority areas including: Indigenous leadership, community management and development, community health, Indigenous teacher training and visual arts. A recurrent theme throughout this research is whether cultural dimensions including recognition of Indigenous knowledges, culturally appropriate curricula and teaching processes, and cultural affirmation, influence student participation. Some of the analysis differentiates between culturally specific and mainstream courses in order to determine any differences in their impact on student perceptions of their university experience and or academic outcomes. Table 5.16 Students in culturally specific and mainstream courses

Type of course

n

%

culturally specific

153

57.1

mainstream

115

42.9

TOTAL

268

100.0

57 per cent of the sample group are enrolled in culturally specific courses and 43 per cent in mainstream courses.

5.9 Academic profile 5.9.1 Mode of study and enrolment status Information was collected from students to ascertain whether the type of enrolment, study load (full-time or part time) and study mode influence participation and persistence in their studies. Table 5.17 Student sample study mode and enrolment status 1998 http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/2_4.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:07 PM]


Study Mode

on campus

Full time

Part time

127

20

external

45

block release

65

TOTAL

237(88.4)

Total Students (%) 147 (54.9)

9

54 (20.1)

2

67 (25.0)

31(11.6)

268 (100.0)

Some 55 per cent of students in the sample were enrolled in on campus courses. Of the remaining students, 20 per cent were enrolled in external courses and 25 per cent in block release courses. Approximately 88 per cent of students were studying full time and 12 per cent part time. Figure 5.6 Student distribution by course modes and home address

Figure 5.6 shows the distribution of students in courses on the basis of their urban, rural and isolated location using postcode classifications of their home address (Martin 1995).19 Figure 5.6 also illustrates that students from different locations chose different modes of study.20 Sixty-three per cent of students in the sample from isolated areas accessed university through block release courses, compared to 18 per cent of students from rural areas, and 14 per cent from urban areas. Approximately 42 per cent of students from rural areas were enrolled in on campus courses, the majority at Bunbury or Broome. Despite this, students from rural and isolated areas comprised the majority of enrolments in external course. Of the students in urban areas 87 per cent were enrolled in full time courses on campus. In addition some students from rural and isolated areas relocated to metropolitan campuses to attend specific courses only available internally, such as medicine or law. The emergent access and participation patterns of block release courses confirms their suitability for Indigenous students who have previously, for reasons of geography, community, family or employment, been unable to access university. For example, 81 per cent of students in block release programs lived in rural or isolated areas where there are no university campuses. 21 Almost all students from urban areas enrolled in block release programs were working full time. The majority of students from rural and urban areas were working and studying full time.

5.9.2 Year of study at university http://pandora.nla.gov.au/nph-wb/20010405130000/http://www.detya.gov.au/archive/highered/eippubs/eip00_12/2_4.htm[11/09/2013 12:33:07 PM]


Previous studies, such as McInnis et al. (1995), have shown that students are more likely to withdraw in the first year of their study than in subsequent years. Student retention and success may improve as students become more familiar with the university environment and academic procedures. However, other variables, such as changes in academic expectations of learners and lecturers can also impact on students, particularly the transition from bridging or enabling courses into mainstream courses. Table 5.18 Year of study by course in 1998

Year of study

Bridging n (%)

First

51 (69.9)

33 (49.3)

43 (44.8)

6 (33.3)

133 (52.4)

Other

22 (30.1)

34 (50.7)

53 (55.2)

12 (66.7)

121 (47.6)

73 (100.0)

67 (100.0)

96 (100.0)

18 (100.0)

254*(100.0)

TOTAL

Assoc Deg n (%)

Degree n (%)

Post Grad n (%)

Total n (%)

* Note 14 students did not answer this question. Fifty-two per cent of respondents were in their first year of study at university (Table 5.18). This closely matches the overall 55 per cent of first year or commencing students for the Indigenous university population in Western Australia (DETYA, 1998:134.

5.9.3 Field of study by course type Information about field of study is part of a composite picture of whether students were able to enrol in the course of their first choice, and if not, whether they were held back because of academic requirements or lack of course availability appropriate to their personal circumstances and geographic location. The fields of study listed in Table 5.19 differ slightly to DETYA classifications to reflect the different culturally specific and mainstream enrolments. However the distribution of the sample in fields of study are broadly consistent with DETYA statistics for WA in 1998. Table 5.19 Field of study by type of course (1998)

Field of Study

M/stream

Culturally Specific

n

Health & Medical Science

6

26

32

Vet Science

2

0

19

0

8

0

49

87

8

31

Education Law & Legal Studies Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences Leadership/Community Management

(%)

(12.0)

2

(0.7)

19

(7.1)

8

(3.0)

136

(50.7)

(14.6)

39



Business, Administration & Commerce Science & Technology & Engineering TOTAL

17

0

17

(6.3)

6

9

15

(5.6)

115

153

268

100.0

Bridging and enabling courses are included in relevant fields of study. Seventy-two per cent of students were enrolled within the Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, 21 per cent in Leadership, Community Management or Business, Administration or Commerce. Student numbers for other areas including Health, Education, and Science and Technology, were not as high in the sample group as DETYA statistics for 1998 (DETYA 1998:138).

5.9.4 Course of study first choice Other studies including McInnis (1995) have shown that students are more likely to persist if they are enrolled in a course of their first choice. Table 5.20 Course of study first choice at university

Student responses

n.

%

Yes

221

85.7

No

37

14.3

100.0

TOTAL

258*

* 10 students did not answer this question. Table 5.20 shows that 86 per cent of students were studying in the course of their first choice. This was a very similar result as that found by Bourke et al. (1996) where 84 per cent of Indigenous and 80 per cent of non-Indigenous students had gained entry into the course of their first choice. As Bourke et al. (1996:22) pointed out, the selection process for Indigenous students generally involves a high degree of course counselling which lessens the possibility of students making an inappropriate choice. Staff in most Indigenous Centres also negotiate provisional places in mainstream degree courses which assists students to gain entry into the course of their first choice. The practice of studying in one or two first year university units in the bridging year or attending intensive preentry courses also assists this process and the ensuing success. Table 5.21 Course enrolments and completions in 1998

Questions 15.1 to 15.4 Q 15.1- enrolled in units completed all units failed some units

Semester 1 1998 n

Semester 2 1998

%

n

%

156

84.3

133

77.3

9

4.9

5

2.9



did not complete all course work withdrew TOTAL

9

4.9

14

8.1

11

5.9

20

11.6

100.0

172

100.0

185

Table 5.21 shows the students in the sample in 1998 who completed all units, failed some units, or withdrew, during each semester.22 The proportion of students in the sample who had 'completed all units' was higher than for the total WA Indigenous university student population shown in official statistics (DETYA 1999). Because the research was focused on students' study experience and outcomes the qualitative data proved very useful. However, the small number of responses from students who had withdrawn, limits the ability to make claims regarding student outcomes with any degree of confidence. Of the students still enrolled in Semester I, 1998, 16 per cent indicated that they had stopped attending, failed some units or did not complete all units. These students identified financial difficulties, fear of failure and family issues (including illness and loss of a family member) as the most important reasons influencing their performance. 4

Values for the whole sample will generally be between +-5.4 of those actually present in the population, about 95 per cent of the time. Confidence intervals for values within universities will be somewhat broader. See Asher, J. W. (1976), and Vockell E.L. & Asher, J.W. (1995).

5

Chi-Square = 27.815; df= 4; p 0.01

9

Chi Square= 9.701; df = 1; 0.01>p> 0.01

10 Chi Square= 4.529; df = 1; 0.05>p>0.001 11 Chi Square= 2.399; df = 1; 0.20>p>0.10 12 Chi Square= 0.049; df = 1; 0.90>p>0.80 13 Chi Square= 7.340; df = 1; 0.01>p>0.001 14 Australian Bureau of Statistics Year Book Australia, 1994/99 (ABS Catalogue No.1301.0). 15 The national SES ranking developed by Martin (1994) has been used for all statistical analyses

because some universities have significant numbers of interstate students. 16 DETYA (1999a:8), Equity in Higher Education 17 See Ramsay et al. (1998) and Western et al. (1998). 18 Western et al. (1998) have put forward several recommendations to overcome many of the

difficulties in existing SES measures. However, these new measures for SES, if adopted, may still prove inappropriate for Indigenous students based on profile data. 19 Lin Martin equity indicators determine urban, rural and isolated areas as well as socio-economic

status which are used by DETYA to measure performance outcomes of all six equity groups. 20 Chi Square = 75.472; df= 4; p