Children are too often turning to Siri for answers to questions and becoming distracted with computer games at a time when the COVID-19 crisis has meant they need to be more immersed in digital learning than ever before.
Growing Up Digital Australia is a ground-breaking research project by the Gonski Institute for Education (UNSW) designed to change the status quo and understand how the widespread use of technology is i
There is a growing body of work that examines the ‘transitions out’ of higher education, using the lens of equity to examine patterns in graduate outcomes and employment/ further study destinations of under-represented students in Australian higher education.
There is a significant silence in the literature regarding equity at the postgraduate level, both internationally and in the Australian context. Instead, the focus on widening participation and supporting equity is almost exclusively located in undergraduate education, and this attention is also mirrored in government and higher education institution policy initiatives.
As an identified equity group, both in legislative and higher education policy terms, students with disabilities have also been a growing focus of attention. This literature is broadly focused on three things: firstly, it has offered characterisations of the composition of the students with disabilities population is (in terms of what disabilities are most reported in enrolment data); secondly, it outlines the challenges and barriers that students with disabilities can face; and thirdly, it explores institutional responses to such issues.
The literature suggests that there are strong relationships between equity group students and an increased likelihood of, or actual, attrition. Edwards & McMillan’s (2015) research strongly suggests that students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to complete their higher education studies, particularly for low SES, rural and remote, and Indigenous students.
Much like space, time is such a constant element of social life that it is often taken for granted in social research. However, although time is often understood as a ‘simple, singular, and linear contextual dimension of people’s experiences’, there is a substantial body of work that points to how time can be better understood as complex, conflicting, multi- dimensional and intersectional.
There are three dominant conceptual framings in the literature included in this review: equity, social justice, and social inclusion. These three conceptualisations are evident in all the different types of contributions included in this review: empirical work, theoretical discussions, literature reviews, research reports.
There is a body of work that traces the history, evolution and development of equity in Australian higher education policy. The work of Gale & Tranter (2011) was very useful in this regard, presenting a historic overview of Australian higher education through the lens of equity/ social justice as well as tracing how higher policy is shaped by (and shapes) social and economic drivers, policies and social justice intentions.
Students with caring/ parenting responsibilities is a sub-set of the broader literature on mature-age students and how gender impacts on students’ access and engagement with higher education studies. There are myriad challenges that student-parents face with regard to their studies, largely thematised in the literature in terms of time, balance, and care, all of which are underpinned by a common finding that universities are considered inflexible, unresponsive and “care-blind”.
The literature highlights out-of-home-care (OOHC) students as one of the most underrepresented groups in higher education (HE). This is evident in the extremely low participation rates of OOHC students in HE, their significantly low educational outcomes and the higher retention rates observed among care leavers in HE.
There has been a strong focus on low SES students in Australian higher education since the then-Labor government chose to focus exclusively on low SES students despite the suggested target groups of low SES, Indigenous and rural and remote students in the 2008 Bradley review.
There is a small body of work that explicitly links equity with language and literacies (often packaged under the unhelpfully reductive ‘skills’ label; see Lea & Street, 1998; Lillis, 2001; Wingate, 2006 for critique of this description of language).