Dr Nadine Zacharias (Deakin University-based NCSEHE Equity Fellow) and Dr Juliana Ryan (Deakin University Manager, Communications and Engagement) presented on behalf of their research team work funded by the NCSEHE examining effective scholarships for equity students at the recent 2016 Equity Scholarships Forum held at the University of Technology, Sydney on Monday 29 February. More information on the underlying research is available on the NCSEHE's website: https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/effective-scholarships-equity-students/
Moving Beyond "Acts of Faith": Effective Scholarships for Equity Students
1. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
MOVING BEYOND “ACTS OF
FAITH”: EFFECTIVE SCHOLARSHIPS
FOR EQUITY STUDENTS
Dr Nadine Zacharias, Deakin
University (Chief Investigator)
Dr Juliana Ryan, Deakin University
(Research Manager)
An equity research project funded by
the National Centre for Student Equity
in Higher Education (NCSEHE)
2. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
THE TEAM
Deakin University:
Dr Nadine Zacharias, Director Equity and Diversity (Chief Investigator),
Professor Brenda Cherednichenko, Pro Vice-Chancellor (Arts and Education) (Investigator)
Dr Juliana Ryan, Deakin University (Research Manager),
Dr Kelly George (Data reporting and quantitative analysis)
Ms Linda Gasparini (Data extraction)
QUT:
Ms Mary Kelly, Equity Director, QUT (Investigator)
Ms Smitha Mandre-Jackson (Data extraction and analysis)
The University of Sydney:
Ms Annette Cairnduff, Director, Social Inclusion, University of Sydney (Investigator)
Mr Danny Sun (Data management)
3. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
OVERVIEW
• Background and context
• Scope and purpose
• Methodology
• Overall findings
• Recommendations
• Further research
4. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Background:
• Lack of evidence on effectiveness and good practice in
equity scholarships
Context:
• Proposed HE reform: fee deregulation, ‘Commonwealth
Scholarships Program’, Start-up scholarship status change
(from grant to loan)
5. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
Research question:
• Which types of equity scholarships have a positive influence on the success and retention of
students from equity groups, particularly regional and remote, low SES, Indigenous students and
students with disability?
Participating universities:
• Selected for geographic and institutional differences:
o Deakin University (Victoria; unaligned)
o QUT (Queensland; Australian Technology Network)
o The University of Sydney (NSW; Group of Eight).
Purpose:
• To inform the future design of equity scholarship programs at institutional and
sectoral levels.
6. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
METHODOLOGY
Institutional case studies
Triangulation of 2 data sets:
1. Quantitative data snapshot: 2013 Institutional data on
retention and success of recipients of selected equity
scholarship schemes
2. Qualitative data: Scholarships impact survey of 2013
scholarship recipients
7. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
QUANTITATIVE DATA PROTOCOLS
• Protocols agreed to guide institutional data extraction and analysis by
specifying and defining:
o‘Equity’ and ‘equity-merit’ scholarships
oStudent demographics
oAdministrative categories
oData fields
8. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
SELECTED SCHOLARSHIP SCHEMES
• Deakin University (UG and PG students):
1. Deakin University Retention and Support Grants
2. Deakin Access Scholarships
• QUT (UG and PG students):
1. Equity Scholarships
2. Indigenous Commonwealth Scholarships
3. Equity Starter Bursary
• The University of Sydney (UG students only):
1. Sydney Scholar
2. University of Sydney Bursaries
9. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
SCHOLARSHIPS IMPACT SURVEY
• Designed by QUT to assess influence of equity scholarships and gain
feedback, and implemented since 2005.
• 2013 survey implemented 7 November-6 December 2013 at QUT.
• Survey implemented retrospectively in 2015 with 2013 equity
scholarship recipients at Deakin University (1-24 July) and University
of Sydney (1-28 July 2015).
Institution Invited population No of survey
respondents
Response rate
Deakin University 1073 254 24.0%
QUT 2191 553 25.5%
University of Sydney 728 119 16.0%
10. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
OVERALL FINDINGS
1. Equity scholarships are effective in retaining
students across 3 participating universities,
demographic groups and scholarship products.
2. Success rates were variable but scholarships
reduced stress and boosted recipients’ morale
(survey data).
11. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
OVERALL FINDINGS
3. Differences in scholarship design mattered, including value, duration and
selection criteria
4. Selection criteria are an important variable in the relationships between
scholarship type and student outcomes, reflecting institutional priority
groups, especially ATAR/prior academic achievement
5. Scholarships help overcome financial disadvantage but not life complexity
6. The value of scholarships goes beyond the financial and includes time to
focus on study, psychological lift, realisation of previously latent potential
7. Targeted scholarships are strategic support mechanisms, not ‘acts of faith’
12. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
RECOMMENDATIONS (PRACTITIONERS)
1. Design simple scholarship programs with high
volume products for effective support, process
efficiency and meaningful data.
2. A multi-factor assessment for scholarship
eligibility is better than single-factor (e.g. include
Centrelink status, existing financial support,
first in family, parent/carer).
13. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
RECOMMENDATIONS (POLICY MAKERS)
1. Institutional income support should be part
of a holistic support system to attract, retain
and graduate ‘equity’ students.
2. Consistent, predictable and appropriate
Commonwealth income support is needed.
3. Financial support should be grant-based, not
loans.
14. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
FURTHER RESEARCH?
1. Longitudinal study of trends identified in this study.
2. Statistical modelling of observed relationships
between scholarships and equity student retention
and success.
3. Relationship between recipient characteristics and
student outcomes.
4. Recruitment effect of equity scholarships (not strong
in this study’s data).
15. Deakin University CRICOS Provider Code: 00113B
LAST WORDS …
Deakin: “I’m so thankful to have been given this opportunity, if I did not receive
this scholarship I truly believe I wouldn’t be where I am today, it motivated me
to work my hardest as well as allowed me to be less focused on finances, and
my GPA has improved trimester by trimester ever since, thank you …!”
QUT: “It is a wonderful initiative and makes things from a maybe to a
certainty, it also gives a person in a low socio-economic situation a hand up
not a hand-out this again sustains the self-worth and the self-esteem and helps
a person to have a dream become a reality.”
Sydney: “They are so important to help students with financial difficulties who
have significant academic potential.”
2014 NCSEHE study of current equity scholarships practice
Little evidence of what constitutes good practice in equity scholarships
Lack of comparative data on influence of scholarships on success and retention
Funded by NCSEHE 2015 Student Equity in Higher Education Research Grants Program
Case studies offer more detailed knowledge and insights into social context than institutional data alone
Ethics approval via Deakin University Arts and Education HEAG
Study limitation: quantitative data is snapshot only. Need longitudinal data and analysis to enrich findings. QUT case study includes some longitudinal data (since 2007), which affirms findings.
What is an equity scholarship for the purpose of this study?
‘Equity scholarships’: principal selection criteria are financial hardship and/or personal circumstance; including early conditional offers
‘Equity and merit scholarships’: selection criteria are financial hardship and/or personal circumstance and academic attainment’
Only scholarships awarded to domestic students will be included.
Student demographics: Gender, Age, Martin equity groups: 2011 SEIFA to calculate low SES and regional/remote; excluding NESB and WINTA; Centrelink status (for scholarship recipients; not Tax Benefit A&B)
Degree of financial hardship, e.g. personal or family taxable income below the HECS-HELP repayment threshold, depending on independence status
Administrative categories: Commencing/continuing, Discipline differences: e.g. field of study, Faculty, School (to be determined by each university), Attendance mode (on-campus/off-campus; internal/external), Government Basis of admission, Attendance type (part-time/full-time; not specified in original proposal)
Refer to Scholarship scheme details docs attached separately.
Students were invited by email to complete an online survey via a link to QUT’s online student portal (QUT Virtual). Students were given just over four weeks to respond
Longitudinal survey data from QUT affirms survey findings across universities in this study about the influence of equity scholarships on equity students’ ability to stay at University by helping students to give more time and attention to their studies, covering educational and living costs, helping to reduce life complexity and stress and helping students to feel supported and have a sense of belonging at university.
Due to time constraints this presentation will introduce the Deakin case study before presenting overall findings and recommendations.
Deakin showed the largest and most consistent success effect
QUT showed a negative relationship.
Students at the University of Sydney have success rates above the other two universities for both scholarship recipients and the total cohort and the observable scholarship effect was smaller and less consistent than at Deakin
QUT and Sydney: differences in scholarship design mattered, including value, duration and eligibility criteria, especially using ATAR/prior academic achievement as a secondary selection criteria.
Sydney: Sydney Scholar scholarship had demonstrably the best outcomes in terms of retention and success of recipients and there seemed to be a strong correlation between scholarship type and outcomes, i.e. Centrelink status as primary eligibility criterion, ATAR used as a secondary eligibility criterion and a substantial scholarship value ($6,000) allocated for the duration of the degree.
QUT: those who got the higher value scholarship products had the lowest retention and success rates because QUT prioritises need and pays no attention to prior academic achievement.
Deakin: ATAR/prior achievement as a tie breaker to determine successful applicants in a large pool.
Stronger retention and success effects at Sydney and Deakin (lesser) = result of an in-built achievement bias within an equity scholarship program.
Recipient type matters (strong relationship with student outcomes).
Existing equity groups are useful in aggregate but unable to determine need at the individual level and should not be used to assess scholarship applicants, with the exception of students with disability or a health condition.
Scholarships are only one source of income
Only given to small proportion, about 3% of students in the universities included in this study.
Where prior academic achievement is considered, recipients are often the academically successful of the financially disadvantaged, not necessarily the ones who might experience the greatest financial or personal hardship.
Even when scholarships are given to those with the greatest demonstrable disadvantage, money alone cannot overcome the obstacles students face.