How do we reach them? The importance of reimagining and contextualising the Design and Evaluation Matrix for Outreach (DEMO) for mature age equity groups

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Aug 21, 2019
Keywords:
mature age students community-based outreach higher education widening participation DEMO

Main Article Content

Shannon van Zanen
University of Wollongong, Australia

Abstract

When the Review of Australian Higher Education (aka the Bradley Review) (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008) was published 20 years ago, it recommended that Australia ensure a skilled workforce into the future through increased participation in higher education domestically, achievable by increasing groups of students traditionally underrepresented in higher education. As a result, the Federal Government introduced the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) funding model with the primary target group being people from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. While the majority of initiatives since undertaken have been focussed on increasing participation of low SES school leavers, there are also a range of initiatives aimed at engaging or re-engaging potential mature age students from these backgrounds. The targets set in the Bradley Review have drawn attention to the importance of outreach in engaging mature age students and building aspiration in these students for Higher Education as well as building understanding about universities and their processes and offering initiatives to encourage a sense of belonging on entry to higher education for a range of people who may never have considered a degree qualification. This paper is a think piece that considers the need to reimagine and contextualise existing approaches to outreach for the specific cohort with whom practitioners are aiming to engage. It considers the application of the Design and Evaluation Matrix for Outreach (DEMO) developed by Gale et al. (2010), to community-based outreach aimed at engaging mature age people and retaining them once they move into higher education. Also considered are the ways in which the mature age application of the DEMO may be similar or different to school-based cohort use, and why the approach may need to be contextualised for the implementation of effective outreach.

Article Details

How to Cite
van Zanen, S. (2019). How do we reach them? The importance of reimagining and contextualising the Design and Evaluation Matrix for Outreach (DEMO) for mature age equity groups. Access: Critical Explorations of Equity in Higher Education, 6(1), 10–22. Retrieved from https://novaojs.newcastle.edu.au/ceehe/index.php/iswp/article/view/111
Issue
Vol. 6 No. 1 (2019)
Section
Viewpoint
Copyright is retained by the author.

References

Austin, K., & Heath, J. (2010). Using DEMO to evaluate and enhance schools outreach programs: an example from the South Coast of New South Wales. Student Equity in Higher Education 2ndAnnual National Conference, 11-12 October, Melbourne: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education.

Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian Higher Education: Final Report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Burke, P. J. (2017). Access to and Widening Participation in Higher Education. In J. C. Shin & P. Teixeira (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_47-1

Fettes, M. (1998). Indigenous Education and the Ecology of Community. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 11(3), 250-271.

Gale, T., Sellar, S., Parker, S., Hattam, R., Comber, B., Tranter, D., & Bills, D. (2010) Interventions early in school as a means to improve higher education outcomes for disadvantaged (particularly low SES) students. A design and evaluation matrix for university outreach in schools. National Centre for Student Equity, University of South Australia. Commissioned by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Heagney, M., & Benson, R. (2017). How mature-age students succeed in higher education: implications for institutional support. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 39(3), 216-234.

Levy, S. C., & Burnheim, C. (2013). Pathways for non-traditional learners in a research-intensive university. In L. Maurice-Takerei (Ed.), Create & Collaborate Foundation & Bridging Educators New Zealand Inaugural Conference 2012 (pp. 83 - 95). New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa.

Markle G. (2015). Factors Influencing Persistence Among Nontraditional University Students. Adult Education Quarterly, 65(3), 267-285.

Nelson, K., Picton, C., McMillan, J., Edwards, D., Devlin, M., & Martin, K. (2017). Understanding the Completion Patterns of Equity Students in Regional Universities. Report to National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education (NCSEHE) and Regional Universities Network (RUN). Retrieved 26 April 2019 from https://www.ncsehe.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Nelson-Completion-patterns.pdf

Ramsay, E., Tranter, D., Charlton, S. & Sumner, R. (1998). Higher Education Access and Equity for Low SES School Leavers. Evaluations and Investigations Programme no. 98/18, AusInfo, Canberra.

Rogerson, A. M., & Rossetto, L. C. (2018). Accommodating Student Diversity and Different Learning Backgrounds. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 47(5), 411-420.

Samuels, W., Beach, A. L., & Palmer, L. (2011). Persistence of Adult Undergraduates on a traditionally-oriented university campus: Does Donaldson and Graham’s Model of College Outcomes for adult students still apply? Journal of College Student Retention, 13(3), 351-372.

Tones, M., Fraser, J., Elder, R., & White, K. (2009). Supporting mature-aged students from a low socioeconomic background. Higher Education, 58(4), 505-529.

VTAC. (n.d.). Who can apply: Mature-age applicants. Retrieved 24 February 2019 from http://www.vtac.edu.au/who/mature-age.html

White, J. (2001). Adult Women in Community Colleges. ERIC Digest. Retrieved 13 May 2019 from https://www.ericdigests.org/2001-4/women.html