Developing Inclusive Learning to Improve the Engagement, Belonging, Retention, and Success of Students from Diverse Groups
Liz Thomas, Faculty of Education, Edge Hill University, UK
This chapter explores the contribution of inclusive learning to the higher education (HE) experience and outcomes of students from diverse groups. More specifically, the chapter begins by providing an overview of outcome indicators for students from diverse groups, compared to the rest of the student population. It then considers the research evidence about how to improve the outcomes of students from equity groups, and pays particular attention to the findings from the What works? Student retention & success programme in the United Kingdom. This study found that student engagement and belonging through their learning are integral to student success. In order to ensure that all students are engaged and feel like they belong, an inclusive learning approach can be employed to improve the experience and outcomes of students from diverse groups. An ongoing program of work involving universities to implement and evaluate change to improve student engagement and belonging is drawn upon to provide some real-world examples of introducing more inclusive learning into specific programs in UK universities. The chapter concludes with emergent lessons about the process of implementing changes to learning and teaching to improve the outcomes of students from diverse groups.
Keywords
Student outcomes for equity groups; student engagement and belonging; inclusive learning; teaching and assessment
Introduction
Widening access to HE for equity groups and others who have traditionally been underrepresented is not sufficient. Attention is increasingly turning to outcomes, including continuation, completion, attainment, and progression beyond graduation (Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2013).
Much of the research exploring differential outcomes in relation to specific target groups compared to the rest of the student population has identified the importance of learning and teaching (e.g., ECU/HEA, 2008; Higbee, 2003; Kift, 2009; Singh, 2011; Stevenson, 2012; Thomas, 2012). More specifically, research has identified the importance of student engagement and belonging to improve the retention and success of all students, including those from nontraditional and equity groups. This requires an inclusive, rather than a targeted, approach to learning, teaching, and assessment. The aim of this chapter therefore is to explore the contribution of inclusive learning to improve the experience and outcomes of students from diverse groups once they have gained access to HE.
This chapter provides an overview of a range of outcome indicators for students from diverse groups, compared to the rest of the student population. It discusses research evidence about effective approaches to improving the outcomes of students from equity groups, drawing on the concepts of student engagement and belonging, and inclusive learning. Informed by current work in the United Kingdom the chapter provides some real-world examples of how inclusive learning is being implemented in specific academic programs to improve the engagement and belonging of students. The chapter concludes by considering the importance of institutional change at all levels to improve the experience and outcomes of students from nontraditional groups; summarizing the types of changes that are required; and offering some reflections on the process and challenges of change.
Differential Outcomes from HE
In the United Kingdom, there has been growing awareness about differential outcomes of particular student groups from HE. The HEFCE (2013) recently identified four types of outcomes of HE: achieving a degree (retention and completion); achieving a first or upper second class degree (attainment); achieving a degree and continuing to employment or further study (employability); and achieving a degree and continuing to graduate employment (as opposed to any employment) or postgraduate study (graduate progression).
Retention, measured by continuation from level 1 to level 2, and successful completion of the program of study, has been measured in relation to key target groups for widening participation for some time. For example, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) has published information about the retention of all students, students from low participation neighborhoods, mature students, and mature students without previous qualifications (see https://www.hesa.ac.uk/pis/noncon). There has been increasing concern about differential attainment, measured by degree classification, in relation to gender to some extent and ethnicity in particular (Broecke & Nicholls, 2007). Progression—to the labor market or to further education—in relation to widening participation at least—has received less attention than earlier stages of the student lifecycle (Thomas et al., 2005, 2010). In particular, progression to further learning in general and postgraduate study has largely been absent until very recently. Since the introduction of higher fees in England the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) has required institutions to take steps not just to widen access, but to improve the retention and success of students from disadvantaged groups too.
HEFCE’s analysis of differential outcomes (HEFCE, 2013) considers the four outcome indicators outlined above in relation to student characteristics, subject, and institutional type. Of particular interest to this chapter is student characteristics, which considered the following: students from areas with different rates of participation based on the POLAR measure (Participation of Local Areas, a geographically based classification the participation of young people in HE; for further details see http://www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/wp/ourresearch/polar/); sex, ethnicity, disability status, school type, and qualifications on entry. The analysis focused on five cohorts of UK-domiciled, young, full-time first degree students starting in academic years 2002–03 to 2006–07. The data demonstrates that for most measures and most target groups the outcomes are less good than for the comparator groups. For example, focusing on the cohort who started on a full-time first degree in 2006–07, HEFCE find that:
The percentage of the cohort who achieved each of the four outcomes increases based on the likelihood of participation in HE in their local area. In other words those who are most likely to participate in HE are also the most likely to achieve positive outcomes (achieving a degree, achieving a “good degree,” achieving a degree and continuing to (graduate) employment or further (postgraduate) study).
There were more than 21,000 more female students than male students in the cohort, and a greater percentage of the female cohort achieved each of the four outcomes.
A lower percentage of black1 students achieved each of the outcomes than of any other ethnic group, but no single ethnicity held the highest percentage for all four outcomes.
Students in receipt of disabled students’ allowance performed better than those who identify as having a disability but were not in receipt of disabled students’ allowance.
A greater percentage of students who attended an independent school prior to university achieved each of the four outcomes compared with students from state schools.
When looking at the entry qualifications of students, there was an increase in the percentage of the students who achieved each of the outcomes corresponding with an increase in their entry scores from the most common qualifications of school leavers (A-levels, AS-levels, and Scottish Highers).
Of the four outcome indicators retention (continuation and completion) has been researched the most, while progression, particularly into graduate employment and postgraduate study has received the least attention.
At the personal level socioeconomic factors, or family background is an important determinant of completion, as is gender where more females complete their degrees than males (Quinn, 2013). Gender strongly interacts with other individual characteristics like membership in ethnic minorities or socioeconomic status (Reason, 2009, p. 490). Ethnic origin is also a determinant of study success that strongly interacts with other individual student characteristics, in particular with the socioeconomic background and the gender of the student (Reason, 2009; Reisel & Brekke, 2010). Academic preparedness and student motivation contribute to poorer rates of continuation and completion, and may correlate with other personal characteristics.
In the United Kingdom, a great deal of effort has been expended on trying to understand and improve the attainment of students from specific Black and minority ethnic (BME) groups by the Higher Education Academy and by individual institutions. The evidence demonstrates that the issues are complex and multiple factors are involved—structural, organizational, attitudinal, cultural, and financial issues all make a significant contribution (Berry & Loke, 2011; Richardson, 2008; Singh, 2011). Much of the research has pointed to the importance of the curriculum—including contents, pedagogy, assessment, and attitudinal issues on the part of staff and students, such as incorrect assumptions about students’ knowledge and skills, differential expectations of students, and lower quality relations and respect between staff and students from different backgrounds (ECU/HEA, 2008; Disparities in Student Attainment (DiSA) Briefing Paper No. 6; Singh, 2011). Singh (2011) identified problems of segregation, low teacher expectations, undervaluing, or underchallenging of BME students, prejudiced attitudes associated with linguistic competence and discriminatory practice inherent in LTA activities and student support. Further research with students and staff (Stevenson, 2012) found that students experience a range academic issues related to previous educational experiences and academic preparedness, in some instances language issues contributing to poorer academic communication skills, inadequate student support mechanisms, and a lack of understanding of what was expected academically. Other issues impact on the student experience such as poverty, cultural differences, and familial pressures, lack of confidence, racism and/or discrimination, and lack of integration into the institution.
Research studies suggest that barriers to equivalent success in the labor market for graduates of lower socioeconomic status and from other equity groups are due to both direct and indirect barriers (Blasko, Brennan, Little, & Shah, 2003). Indirect effects relate to educational opportunities and choices, such as poor schooling and/or institution attended, which in turn influence a graduate’s experience in the labor market and/or access to postgraduate study. Employers systematically favor graduates with certain educational characteristics such as good A level grades, attending high status HE institution (Brown & Hesketh, 2003; Chevalier & Conlon, 2003), preference for some subjects over others (Pitcher & Purcell, 1998) and a good degree classification, (Purcell & Hogarth, 1999). Each of these employer preferences tends to privilege white, middle class students and disadvantage working class students (e.g., Keep & Mayhew, 2004; Leathwood, 2004; Machin, Murphy, & Soobedar, 2009). Wakeling and Kyriacou (2010) report similar biases in relation to postgraduate research degrees, in particular degree classification, institution attended, and subject studied.
Direct effects refer to those where students from certain backgrounds are disadvantaged in the labor market and/or access to postgraduate study compared to contemporaries with similar educational backgrounds and experiences. Thus graduates from nontraditional backgrounds do less well in the labor market and access to postgraduate study, even when other variables such as entry qualifications, institution attended, subject studied, and degree classification are controlled for (see, for example, Hogarth, Purcell, & Wilson, 1997). Working class male graduates in particular experience more disadvantage in the labor market—such as periods of unemployment—and are less likely to be in managerial or professional posts than middle class counterparts. This is in part because the recruitment process is often designed to bring out the personal qualities of graduates and thus the social, cultural, and economic backgrounds of candidates are exposed. According to Brown and Hesketh (2003) it is very difficult for those from disadvantaged backgrounds to demonstrate the “personal” capital required to gain elite employment (personal capital here refers to personal qualities, emanating from their social, cultural, and economic backgrounds). Personal capital may also influence the allocation of research council funding for postgraduate research studentships, as Wakeling (2009) found they were more likely to be awarded to students from higher socioeconomic groups than lower ones.
There is very limited research about access to postgraduate education. The barriers to progression to postgraduate study are likely to include the following (from Thomas, 2011):
Poor early educational choice (e.g., institution or subject) may limit postgraduate progression opportunities as some institutions or courses or funders prefer more selective institutions, and some subjects have more limited progression routes.
Lower degree classification and/or participation in fewer extracurricular activities due to other commitments while studying (e.g., employment and caring) may have an impact on postgraduate progression opportunities.
Selection bias against students from certain social and educational backgrounds who do not have personal capital to be accepted at elite institutions.
Lack of economic capital to pay for postgraduate education.
Limited access to information, advice, and guidance about postgraduate opportunities due to lack of family and/or educational cultural capital2 and social networks.
Lack of confidence to apply to postgraduate study and a belief that “people like me don’t go to postgraduate study,” derived from lower family and/or educational cultural capital or family expectations and/or not knowing people who progression postgraduate study (more limited social capital3).
Improving the Outcomes for Students from Equity Groups
Improving the outcomes for students from equity groups has become a growing policy priority in England. For example, the most recent guidance from the OFFA (2014) for Access Agreements for 2015–16 states:
“A key challenge for OFFA and HEFCE is to ensure that widening participation encompasses the whole student lifecycle, where students are supported not only to prepare for and access higher education, but also on their journey through and beyond their course. We particularly encourage you to give consideration to any differences in outcomes for different groups of students at your institution.
As part of a joined-up whole-lifecycle approach, a growing area of interest for OFFA is focusing on supporting undergraduate students from disadvantaged backgrounds to progress to employment or postgraduate study. Therefore, we invite you to include information on progression in your access agreement for 2015–16, including measures designed to help disadvantaged students progress to employment or postgraduate study.”
Much of the research on improving student completion and success points to the role of the institution (as opposed to changing the student entry cohort or indeed the student). The evidence particularly points to institutional commitment, culture and learning, and teaching. Yorke and Longden (2004) found that a key factor contributing to improve rates of retention and success is that institutions commit themselves to this issue, a finding reflected in Thomas (2012) who also finds that student-centered learning and teaching is at the heart of improving student retention and success. Evidence from across Europe, Australia, and the United States all points to the importance of learning, teaching, and assessment within academic programs (see, for example, Georg, 2009; Kift, 2009; Thomas, 2012). A German study (Ramm, Multrus, & Bargel, 2011) on the views of students who were considering withdrawing or changing their study program found that most of the reasons for this decision were linked to the academic experience. Similarly, Thomas (2012) reports that top three reasons why students think about leaving HE are academic issues; feelings of isolation and/or not fitting in; and concern about achieving future aspirations. As Ulriksen, Madsen, and Holmegaard (2010) report, not only is pedagogy important, but so too is the culture of the institution. Similarly Dutch research (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2009) identified that successful institutions have a strong culture in teaching that is supported and resourced by the leadership, including the professional development of teaching staff, small-group teaching, and sufficient contact between staff and students to provide supervision and advice.
Research with staff and students focusing on improving the retention and attainment of BME students (Stevenson, 2012) finds that an inclusive rather than a targeted approach is more effective—and likely to benefit students from other groups who have lower attainment levels. An analysis of Widening Participation Strategic Assessments (WPSAs) submitted by 129 English HE institutions (Thomas et al., 2010) finds that many are not specifically addressing the progression of students from widening participation target groups, and while interventions are identified by 59% these are diverse, and largely unproven. Over 85% of institutions do not refer to postgraduate access or the postgraduate learning experience in their WPSA (Thomas et al., 2010). Furthermore, issues about targeting and identifying students are embryonic and strategies to engage these students in postgraduate study are thin. There is however an emerging recognition of the need for institutions to engage with the issue of widening access to postgraduate provision, which is currently being addressed by a number of pilot projects. Thomas (2011) suggests that a strategic and integrated approach to progression is required.
In summary, much of the work on improving student retention, attainment, and progression identifies the central role of learning, teaching, and assessment, rather than add-on interventions, even when they are targeted at specific groups. Kift, Nelson, and Clarke (2010) explain the rationale for focusing on curriculum and pedagogy:
“…curriculum is what all students have in common, irrespective of their diversity, and is within our institutional control, transition pedagogy can cater for heterogeneous cohorts, a fixture on the contemporary and future higher education scene.” (pp. 14–15)
What Works? Student Retention and Success Program
The What works? Student retention and success programme (2008, p. 12, reported in Thomas, 2012) explored effective approaches to improve student retention and success through seven projects involving 22 HE institutions. Mixed methods were used to explore interventions, combining qualitative and survey research about student experiences with institutional data about retention and progression. The findings showed the importance of student engagement and belonging, but did not prescribe specific interventions. Rather effective interventions were shown to have a set of common characteristics: mainstream, proactive, relevant, well-timed, and using appropriate media, collaborative and monitored. In addition, changes are required at the institutional level to facilitate and support change in academic programs, including the use of institutional data and staff recognition and reward. Thomas (2012) found that:
“At the heart of successful retention and success is a strong sense of belonging in HE for all students. This is most effectively nurtured through mainstream activities that all students participate in… The academic sphere is the most important site for nurturing participation of the type which engenders a sense of belonging.”
The evidence firmly points to the importance of students having a strong sense of belonging in HE, which is the result of engagement, and this is most effectively nurtured through mainstream activities with an overt academic purpose that all students participate in (Thomas, 2012, p. 12). This approach to improving student retention and progression is informed by the concepts of engagement, belonging and inclusive learning, teaching, and assessment.
At the individual level “belonging’ recognizes students” subjective feelings of relatedness or connectedness to the institution. This “involves feeling connected (or feeling that one belongs in a social milieu)” (Vallerand, 1997, p. 300). It may relate “the extent to which students feel personally accepted, respected, included, and supported by others in the [school] social environment” (Goodenow, 1993a, p. 80). Belonging may be characterized by regular contact and the perception that interpersonal relationships have stability, affective concern, and are ongoing (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Thus interpersonal relations are essential for satisfying the need to belong. Goodenow (1993b) described sense of belonging in educational environments as the following:
“Students’ sense of being accepted, valued, included, and encouraged by others (teacher and peers) in the academic classroom setting and of feeling oneself to be an important part of the life and activity of the class. More than simple perceived liking or warmth, it also involves support and respect for personal autonomy and for the student as an individual.”
At the institutional level, Bourdieu looks at how students fit or belong within HE organizations (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). Here the emphasis is less individual, and focuses on the structural elements of HE institutions and of social groups. “Cultural capital” incorporates ways of speaking, behaving, and interacting, which are learned through interactions with family and social institutions such as home and schools (McLaren, 1989; Meadmore, 1999) and is, therefore, class-related. “Habitus” is the disposition to act in certain ways determined by cultural capital and is the embodiment of cultural capital. Educational institutions have an identifiable habitus (Reay, David, & Ball, 2001). Students whose habitus is at odds with that of their HE institution may feel that they do not fit in, that their social and cultural practices are inappropriate and that their tacit knowledge is undervalued, and they may be more inclined to withdraw early (Thomas, 2002).
The What works programme of research found that student belonging is an outcome of:
meaningful interaction between staff and students;
developing knowledge, confidence, and identity as successful HE learners;
an HE experience which is relevant to interests and future goals.
These outcomes are closely aligned with ideas about active student engagement in their learning (see, for example, Osterman, 2000). Academic engagement is related to “effective learning,” and may be synonymous with, or necessary for “deep” (as opposed to surface) learning (Ramsden, 2003, p. 97). Indeed Chickering and Gamson (1987) identified seven principles of effective practices in undergraduate teaching and learning in the US context, which have widespread applicability in the UK context (Gibbs, 2010). These are:
These principles align well with the findings from the What works programme, which found that that the following factors contribute to belonging in the academic sphere. Each aspect listed below is followed by a student comment to illustrate the point from the student perspective.
a. Staff/student relationships: knowing staff and being able to ask for help.
Many students find it difficult to approach academic members of staff, but they value being able to ask for clarification, guidance, and feedback. Students who feel that have a less good relationship with academic members of staff are more likely to think about leaving. Good relationships are based on informal relationships that recognize students as individuals and value their contributions.
“So I think being able to ask them about your subject and being able to talk to them if you’re confused about something rather than just wanting to crack on and power through their lecture.” (Student at Northumbria University).
b. Curricular contents and related opportunities: providing real-world learning opportunities which are interesting and relevant to future aspirations motivate students to engage and be successful in HE.
“I think the best things have been the programme, the contents of the programme and the approach to teaching, [this] is very engaging [for] students.” (A student who had thought about withdrawing from Nottingham Trent University).
“Sense of belonging has been increased and you can develop a better relationship with teachers as well as other students. It also shows that we generally care about children and that is why we do the Childhood Studies course.” (Student on the BA (Hons) Childhood Studies, Faculty of Education and Society, University of Sunderland, involved in fund raising for children’s charities)
c. Learning and teaching: group based learning and teaching that allows students to interact with each other, share their own experiences and learn by doing. A variety of learning experiences, including work placements, and delivered by enthusiastic lectures were found to be important too.
“In the first hour… you were sat in the introductory lecture thinking ‘I don’t know anyone’, ‘how am I going to make friends?’ and they said ‘we are going to put you in these teams’ and instantly there was… straight away there was like 10 or 11 other people you knew straight away.” (Student from an engineering team, School of Mechanical & Systems Engineering, Newcastle University)
“Lecturers are very inspiring, they try to make every lecture as memorable and interesting as they can. They use different activities and show various topic-related videos which help to understand the material better and maintain the interest in the subject.” (Student from University of Bradford)
d. Assessment and feedback: clear guidelines about assessment processes and transparency about criteria and feedback to assist students to perform better in the future. Students who have a clear understanding about the assessment process and expectations have higher confidence levels and are less likely to think about leaving early. An understanding of assessment should be developed early, and students need to have positive relationships with staff so that they can ask for clarification. Feedback on assessment needs to be helpful to students, and they need to be guided how to use it to inform future assessment tasks.
“Lack of support with assignments—not being explained properly and not much help if you do need it.” (Student who had thought about withdrawing, Anglia Ruskin University)
“At the beginning of the course I was a bit overwhelmed by the amount of people who were clearly very smart and I found myself questioning my own academic abilities. After completing my first few assignments I convinced myself I hadn’t done very well but I got good marks throughout the year as well as very detailed feedback so I was able to improve my work.” (Student, Nottingham Trent University)
e. Personal tutoring: as a means of developing a close relationship with a member of staff who oversees individual progress and takes action if necessary, including direct students to appropriate academic development and pastoral support services.
“My tutor is available for any kind of support or advice and if he is unable to help; he either finds the information out or informs me of the relevant person to contact.” (Student at Anglia Ruskin University)
“We were allocated a personal tutor in the first week and they emailed us and arranged a meeting…he basically said it was there to check up, to make sure that everyone’s doing okay…Yeah I think that was really good.” (Student at the University of Reading)
f. Peer relations and cohort identity: having friends to discuss academic and nonacademic issues with, both during teaching time and outside of it, and a strong sense cohort identity. Friends and peer relations can have a range of positive impacts on student experience, but this is only recognized by some students and staff. Facilitating social integration in the academic sphere is particularly important as it develops cohort identify and belonging to the program; some students do not have opportunities to develop friendships in other spheres. Academic staff can promote social integration through induction activities, collaborative learning and teaching, field trips, opt-out peer mentoring, and staff-organized social events.
“After the [field] trip everyone seems more friendly. I feel more part of the group than before which makes my course easier because I can ask anyone in my course if I’ve got any difficulties.” (Student talking about a field trip during induction week, Department of Tourism, Hospitality and Events, University of Sunderland)
“They had a little social gathering after the first day so we all got to meet each other and the lecturers in a less formal setting, which was really nice. I think it’s a format that works. It was great as there were 70 of us on the course so it was still quite a big course but I think that it really helped and everyone could be themselves. It was just relaxed and a good environment.” (Student with a disability, from the University of Leicester)
g. A sense of belonging to particular place: within the university, most usually a departmental building or a small campus, or a hall of residence. Belonging often has a physical manifestation, and therefore academic programs can play an important role in offering a physical space—learning or otherwise—that students can engage with others and feel like they belong.
“The Sandbox is really good for interaction and it does feel really homely rather than a place of study, which I think you do need rather than just some set place where you have to go and you feel as if you have to study.” (The Sandbox Studio: A course-specific social space, Department of Psychology, University of Sunderland)
“In our block of flats we got some really good friends … then moved in together in the second year … It was a really supportive house …we all had essays due in at the same time we would make each other cups of tea, we’d have discussions. …on a Wednesday we’d buy the Guardian we’d sit over cups of tea all afternoon discussing the things in it that were really important for the courses that we were studying…” (Student at Northumbria University)
This suggests that responsibility for improving retention and success does not just lie with students, but institutions and their teaching and support staff have an obligation to provide the necessary conditions, opportunities, and expectations for such engagement to occur (Coates, 2005; Thomas 2012; Tinto, 2009). Thus institutions can create engaging opportunities (Reason, Terenzini, & Domingo, 2005, 2007; Thomas, 2012). Thomas (2012) found that some learning and teaching interventions improved retention rates by up to ten percentage points (Thomas, 2012, see also Braxton, Milem, and Sullivan (2000 and Rhodes and Nevill, 2004). While the What works programme did not recommend one specific intervention, it did find that effective interventions enabled students to form supportive peer relations, have meaningful interaction with staff and develop the capacity to be successful HE learners through an HE experience which is relevant to current interests and future goals. Examples of effective interventions can be seen in Andrews, Clark, and Thomas (2012) and Clark, Andrews, Thomas, and Aggarwal (2013).
More student-centered and active learning approaches give priority to the role of students in their own learning, coupled with more explicit assessment practices which are formative rather than merely summative. However, it is necessary to find effective ways to engage all students, especially those who may find it more challenging to engage. For example:
international students (Anderson, Carmichael, Harper, & Huang, 2009);
students with disabilities (Nichols & Quaye, 2009);
LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning) students (Schueler, Hoffman, & Peterson, 2009);
students from minority religious groups (Mahaffey & Smith, 2009).
Inclusive Learning
An inclusive approach to learning, teaching, and assessment is designed to enable full participation by all students. In summary, an inclusive approach:
“… necessitates a shift away from supporting specific student groups through a discrete set of policies or time-bound interventions, towards equity considerations being embedded within all functions of the institution and treated as an ongoing process of quality enhancement. Making a shift of such magnitude requires cultural and systemic change at both the policy and practice levels.”
Such an approach does not focus on specific target groups, but rather strives toward making HE accessible, relevant and engaging to all students. This is informed by the simple yet challenging maxim that “students don’t want to stand out as different yet want to be recognized as individuals” (Hockings, 2010, cf Bowl, Cooke, & Hockings, 2008; Read, Archer, & Leathwood, 2003; Reay, Crozier, & Clayton, 2009). When teachers see students as individuals, and respond to their interests, strengths, and challenges, students tend to become and stay engaged in what they are studying (Hockings, Cooke, Yamashita, McGinty, & Bowl, 2009). An inclusive approach is engaging, and this in turn has positive outcomes for students and institutions in relation to student belonging, retention, achievement, and progression success (Thomas, 2012). In a similar vein in the Australian context, and looking particularly at the first year in HE, Kift et al. (2010) posit a “transition pedagogy”:
“A transition pedagogy intentionally and proactively takes account of and seeks to mediate the reality of commencing cohorts diverse in preparedness and cultural capital. The concern is that, if we do not harness and centralise the curriculum in the student experience, student take-up of our otherwise disparate and piecemeal efforts to support their FYE (first year experience) is left to chance. In the face of increasing diversity, equal opportunity for success delivered through the curriculum is within our institutional control and, quite simply, is our legal and moral responsibility.”
An inclusive approach needs to therefore take into account: curriculum design and content; delivery and pedagogy; student assessment and feedback; and institutional commitment to and management of inclusive learning and teaching. These aspects are explored in more detail below:
Curriculum Design
Curriculum design is central to a curriculum for diverse students. Student engagement—and success—is the result of an intentional, structured, and proactive set of strategies that are coherent and systematic in nature and carefully aligned to the same goal (Tinto, 2009, p. 10). Thus the way the curriculum is conceptualized and designed is crucial. Reflecting on their experience at Queensland University of Technology Kift et al. (op. cit.) note:
“…what was required was an articulation of the favourable pedagogical—conditions, opportunities and expectations to enable equitable learning engagement to occur in the first year, via the mechanism of curricular and co-curricular.” (p. 7)
For example, learning and teaching should enable all students to participate fully by making use of a range of approaches, and being aware of other factors that exclude students from participating fully; providing suitable opportunities for engagement that are relevant and feasible; and having expectations that all students should engage equally within the mainstream curriculum offer. Because students can be disengaged or disadvantaged by their diversity (Bowl, 2005), it is necessary to tailor the curriculum for relevance. This should involve embedding the development of academic skills and competences into the core discipline curriculum, learning, and assessment (Warren, 2002). Such embedding should be in place from the start of the course. The curriculum should also provide space for less-well-prepared students to develop their skills, and provide opportunities for assistance with discipline-specific issues through the core learning experience (Waterfield & West, 2006). Where possible provision should be made to allow students to draw on their own experiences, for example, by asking for relevant examples or via use case studies, etc. In these ways diversity can be built into materials and teaching methods (Crosling, Thomas, & Heagney, 2008). It should also be noted here that by following universal design principles (Higbee, 2003) students should not be obliged to disclose hidden differences.
Learning and Teaching Delivery
If learning and teaching delivery is central to inclusive learning and teaching, staff should avoid making assumptions about students. A more effective approach will require gaining knowledge of them, and the employment of a variety of teaching and learning styles. Preconceived notions about students’ lives, lifestyles, and cultural backgrounds etc. can hinder this process (Hounsell et al., 2004), and may create a climate of disengagement (Hockings, Cooke, Yamashita, McGinty, & Bowl, 2008).
While it may be challenging, or even unrealistic (Haggis, 2006, p. 521) for teaching staff to get to know and respond to the diversity of students, certain teaching methods can help make it more achievable. These tend to be pedagogical approaches that provide opportunities for students to be led by their past experiences, current interests, and future aspirations. By bringing their own knowledge, experiences and backgrounds to bear on the topic, opportunities for students to make material more relevant increase.
We may thus talk of student-centered pedagogies. Often there is an emphasis on collaborative learning, which allows students to apply what they are learning to their past experience, and their aspirations (Hockings et al., 2009). Such approaches can be effective in encouraging students from different backgrounds to engage in their learning (Bamber & Tett, 2001; Haggis, 2006; Haggis & Pouget, 2002; Thomas, 2002, 2012), and, in turn, improve retention and success (Thomas, 2012 and forthcoming studies). Hockings et al. (2008) advocate a strategy that involves creating opportunities in class for sharing and developing the knowledge and skills within the group. Here it must be noted, however, that not all students are comfortable with such learning strategies—for example, international students (De Vita, 2001) and students with Asperger’s syndrome or other forms of autism (Martin, 2006; Madriaga, Goodley, Hodge, & Martin, 2007; Taylor, 2005).
Pedagogical styles and approaches can thus affect who participates: Bowl (2005) suggests that teacher identity, teaching approaches, and methods of questioning, facilitating, and chairing discussions are key factors influencing who speaks and who remains silent in teaching sessions, and thus who is included and who is excluded. Some staff avoid discussions, but this reduces opportunities to engage, and it follows that teaching staff may benefit from being given the skills to facilitate discussion and handle potentially sensitive issues.
Assessment
Inclusive assessment refers to the design and use of fair and effective assessment methods and practices that enable all students to demonstrate what they know, understand, and can do. Some research questions whether traditional forms of assessment are fair for students from nontraditional backgrounds, or whether they privilege certain types of knowledge and ways of communicating, and disadvantage those with certain dispositions and previous educational experiences (Leathwood, 2005; Hatt and Baxter (2003). In addition, some researchers have questioned the prized principles of objectivity, clarity, and transparency that underpin assessment; criticisms include whether marking can really be objective (Orr, 2007; Sadler 2009) and whether there is really clarity and transparency when marking criteria are only tacitly understood (Bloxham, 2007, 2009).
Regarding assessment, a range of assessments at the program level can benefit all students and minimize the need for alternatives for particular individuals or student groups (e.g., disabled students). The assessment “menu” should include formative assessment to provide students with feedback that can assist their learning and development. A mainstream approach can offer variety to allow all students, whether disabled or not, to have the opportunity to choose the form of assessment that enables them to demonstrate their learning most effectively (Chan & Mok, 2006; Quinn, 2005). Alternatively each program of study can utilize a range of methods that recognize and incorporate different intelligences and diverse cognitive and stylistic profiles (Hounsell, 2007), rather than privileging one or two modes of assessment and thereby disadvantaging some students.
Institutional Commitment
Yorke and Longden (2008) identified several broad areas of institutional activity that contribute to improving student success (p. 4); these include institutional commitment to student learning (and student engagement), and proactive management of the learning experience. Similarly, Thomas (2011) identified eight factors that support institutional change to engage a diverse student body. These include institutional commitment to change and an institutional strategy for change, including senior leadership, policy alignment, a facilitative academic infrastructure and the coordination of change. The latter point is central to Kift et al.’s (2010) work to move from a more individual piecemeal approach to a more whole-institution approach to enhance the first year experience at Queensland University of Technology.
An institution’s commitment and management of inclusive learning and teaching should be reflected in its policies, procedures, structures, and systems, and the interrelationship between them. Senior managers should lead inclusive learning and teaching and play a key role in promoting the consistency of quality and performance in teaching. Where inclusive principles are embedded, inclusive learning and teaching is more readily recognized as core activity. It is important to take a strategic approach to embed equality and diversity within policy and practice, from design to delivery, as part of an ongoing process of enhancement.
Real-World Examples
In 2012/13 the What works? Student retention & success change programme was launched by the Higher Education Academy, in partnership with Action on Access and funded by the Paul Hamlyn Foundation. This program, which extends over three years, is working with HE institutions to implement change to improve student engagement, belonging, retention, and success. The intention is to learn from the research phase, and use this learning to bring about change within three discipline areas in each university, underpinned by an institutional and senior management commitment to the findings from the What works programme (Thomas, 2012). This is accompanied by a mixed methods action research evaluation, combining a student survey on confidence, engagement, and belonging; institutional data; student feedback and qualitative evidence on the process of change. In this section some examples are given of how institutions are using an inclusive learning approach, informed by learning from the first phase of the What works programme (Thomas, 2012).
Engineering
An engineering department introduced a new common engineering skills course for all first year students. This included small-group learning to allow students to develop working relationships with peers, and to have more interaction with staff; and the integrated development of more specific engineering skills, effective learning skills, and use of library resources. This was underpinned by an extended induction and will include embedded careers input in the following year to enable students to recognize the career skills they ought to develop during their degree programs. The course leader reported that a very high proportion of students who completed the activities of the course completed the year of study. Furthermore, students who were more involved within groups were more engaged with their studies, which contributed to enhanced completion of the course. It is expected that the continuation figures for the year—when they are available—will substantiate these positive benefits.
Art and Design
An art and design team wanted to explore students’ understanding of their assessment briefs and collect feedback, with the aim of improving students’ understanding of what they are required to do to be successful in assessment activities. Staff ran sessions to explore student comprehension of the briefs and to collect their views on them; and collected anonymous feedback from students via a questionnaire. Initial findings indicate that students felt confused and anxious about the briefs; they felt the assignment briefs were too long and complex (including language usage) rendering requirements unclear; and they tended to focus on the deadline, rather than the requirements. Staff concluded that the assignment briefs needed to be improved. A more immediate benefit for the students was that the sessions offered a space for them to talk through their understanding of what is required, and together with peers and staff “translate” the assignment brief. It is anticipated that this process will improve assessment outcomes, and enhance students’ engagement and belonging by improving their interaction and relationships with peers and staff.
Business
One business school has attempted to engage students early in understanding the graduate attributes they are developing as part of their program of study. This should help students develop a more in-depth appreciation of how their current learning is relevant to future career goals. The approach taken included a session during Welcome Week on the institutional graduate attributes and how they are embedded in the Business Management awards. This is underpinned by raising staff awareness of the project through the staff learning and teaching conference, and using the module monitoring forms to provide information about how the institutional graduate attributes have been integrated into the delivery of each module. Survey evidence shows that almost all of the responding first year undergraduates had heard of the institutional graduate attributes (up from about three quarters of students the previous year). In addition there was an increase in the number of students who felt that their university is committed to helping them increase their employability, and that their employability skills have developed. Furthermore, the continuation figures have improved by more than six percentage points in the first year.
Conclusions
This chapter has demonstrated that, in England at least, access to HE is insufficient to bring about social mobility and a change in the outcomes of students’ lives. Students need to be enabled to be successful in HE and beyond. The data from England demonstrates that equity groups, particularly those from low participation areas and certain ethnic minority groups, have poorer outcomes from HE in terms of completion, attainment, employability, and progression into graduate level opportunities. One approach is to improve students’ engagement, belonging, retention, and success (Thomas, 2012). Belonging is shown to be an outcome of: supportive peer relations; meaningful interaction between staff and students; having the capacity to be a successful HE learner; and an HE experience which is relevant to current interests and future goals (particularly employability). This requires active learning in which all students can engage, and is informed by the concept of inclusive learning, particularly the work of Hockings (2010) and Thomas (2012). The brief vignettes of real-world examples have hopefully helped to illustrate how academic teams are attempting to put the findings into practice. Inevitably, however, there are practical challenges associated with implementation including time and other capacity issues of participating teams. This may also include obtaining wider engagement by academic colleagues, and the meaningful evaluation and attribution of impact. Suffice to say, teams require a supportive institutional context, with explicit support from senior managers and a centrally located core team assisting with the process of change.