Advance HE Home - Advance HE - Attracting Diversity · 2018. 6. 7. · Dr Meg Dunn, University of the West of Scotland Lesley Balfour, Abertay University Jill Davie, ... traditional

Attracting Diversity

Festival of Learning

@EqualityinHE @AdvanceHE #AttractingDiversity

Welcome to the Festival of

Learning

Gary LokeAdvance HE

@EqualityinHE @AdvanceHE #AttractingDiversity


http://www.ecu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Friends.jpg


Festival of Learning aims

= Showcase learning from Attracting Diversity

projects

= Consider recommendations from Attracting

Diversity for embedding effective institutional

activity and improving student outcomes

= As a sector discuss next steps for how we take

equality in student access work forward

Programme overview10.20 Keynote Dr Matson Lawrence, Scottish Funding Council

10.30 Panel discussion Building sustainable and context specific

initiatives

11.15 Refreshments

11.35 Presentations Positive action

12.15 Panel discussion Men into care

13.00 Lunch

13.40 Exhibition stalls and poster presentations

14.10 Interactive workshops

15.00 Crowdsourcing the future – what’s needed for future progress?

15.30 Achievements, recommendations and hard truths Prof. Liz

Thomas

16.00 Keynote Prof. Peter Mathieson Principal, University of Edinburgh

16.15 Closing remarks Gary Loke

Equality in student access and

recruitment

Matson Lawrence

Scottish Funding Council




Building sustainable and context

specific initiatives

Clare Fraser, West College Scotland (Chair)

Jesse Paul and Cress Maher, Royal Conservatoire

of Scotland

Monica Medina, Forth Valley College

Janet Hackel, University of the Highlands and

Islands

Positive Action

David Bass, Advance HE (Chair)

Prof Katherine Kirk, Dr Patricia Munoz- Escalona,

Dr Meg Dunn, University of the West of Scotland

Lesley Balfour, Abertay University

Jill Davie, West Lothian College

abertay.ac.uk

Lesley Balfour, Director of Recruitment

ECU Attracting Diversity: Reducing barriers in transitions to post-16 education to support gender diversity in Computing, Computer Games, Food and Sport

abertay.ac.uk

Rationale

• Understand why gender influences affect application and enrolment

• Develop an institutional framework to assist in reducing barriers in transitions to post-16 education to improve gender diversity in our courses

• Focus on four subject areas with the largest gender imbalances (Computing, Games, Sport and Food)

Activity

• Programme entry requirements – Minimum Access Thresholds

• Articulation - alternative routes to degree study

• Degree titles – can degree titles improve gender balance?


abertay.ac.uk

Outcome: 2017 entry intake

141 149 180

2015/16 2016/17 2017/18

37% of entrants joined us from college

in 2017/18


abertay.ac.uk

Reflections

• Institutional approach – organisation culture/leadership• Right people – buy-in v commitment

• Leverage links/connections to other work eg Athena Swan, Equality and Diversity, Outcome Agreement, Gender Action Plan

• Develop/embed in institutional frameworks• Understanding how policies/factors influence/impact on individuals

• Intersectionality – contextual admissions

• Scrutinising our assumptions – reframing the ‘offer’

• Focus effort, prioritise evaluation• long-term results for no additional resource


The Attracting Diversity Festival of Learning

Edinburgh, 5th June 2018

“Giving Girls another Chance to Choose Physics and Engineering”

Alternative admissions criteria for Physics and Engineering degrees to remove barrier for applicants who do not have

traditional Physics and Maths Higher qualifications

ECU Scotland “Attracting Diversity” Project

Katherine Kirka, Patricia Muñoz-Escalonab, Meg Dunnc

University of the West of Scotlanda,bSchool of Engineering and Computing, cExternal Engagement



Background - the UWS project ….We are investigating if changes to entry requirements to Physics and Engineering degrees can be used to improve gender balance. Physics and Engineering degrees usually require Physics Higher. However girls make up only 20% of pupils taking Physics Higher. This is proving hard to change within schools and therefore presents a barrier to participation at University. Achieving SFC GAP targets is unlikely unless Universities are prepared to try a different approach.

17

Scottish Funding Council2016

Gender Action Plan

2030:Gender gap: reduced to 5%

2021:Minority gender increased by 5%

Equality Challenge UnitAttracting Diversity

HEIs

- Scotland - England

- Wales - Northern Ireland

UWS

Removing barriers



Proportions of female entrants have remained (at best) static over many years, despite considerable efforts in Engineering and Physics outreach to girls.

18

A barrier in reaching gender balance

Diversity of intake to Engineering is in the blue hatched area below (figures shown for English system). Dawn Bonfield, “Disruptive Diversity”, report for ICE, October 2015.

Percentage of Male entrants to STEM Highers. SQA Statistics to 1986 to 2014



STEM Highers - %Male updated to 2017

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Biology Chemistry Computing Science /StudiesGeography Mathematics Modern StudiesPhysics

19



STEM Highers - %Female updated to 2017

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Biology Chemistry Computing Science /StudiesGeography Mathematics Modern StudiesPhysics 20



Higher Physics – entrant numbers trend

21

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

M F Total



8,933

5,186 2,321

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Male Female

What are girls actually doing, and how many are there?

Higher entries 2017

22



Choice of topic under “Attracting Diversity”Engineering and Physics degrees traditionally demand Higher Physics – an unpopular choice for girls.

Therefore Higher Physics presents a clear barrier to participation in Engineering and Physics at University.

Female applicants who become interested in Engineering at S5 and S6 are ineligible if they are not doing Physics.

Rather than add to the 30 year campaign to persuade girls to take Higher Physics, we chose an intervention over which the University has control – the entry criteria.

Possible routes were to remove Higher Physics/Maths for all, or to remove Higher Physics/Maths for female applicants under Positive Action.

23



Plan for the project

1. Starting with the familiar topic of “Women into Engineering” – what can we do?

2. Bring in a revised entry criterion for Physics (Engineering) degrees which removes the barrier of Higher Physics.

3. A decision on the new Standard Offer was made on the basis of academic justification and negotiation across subject areas.

4. Look at the effect on admissions of male and female applicants, and find out if this improves gender balance. Is Positive Action necessary?

5. Build and share knowledge and understanding within the UWS project team, institution and externally.

24



The story of the UWS project

25

Project topic identified to trial alternative entry

requirements

Introduce project within Physics Subject Group, School Management,

Admissions Office.

Internal discussion on possible mechanisms

and start dates.

Dean of School instigates changes to standard offer in Physics and Engineering

2017/18 (M & F)

UWS Institutional visit of Attracting Diversity team

highlights some “interesting” attitudes.

Criteria not widely publicized, 2 students join, Physics, and Engineering,

both male, 2017/18.

Small study for local context - focus groups in

Renfewshire schools

New criteria for Physics and Engineering in

2018/19 Prospectus

Still not much publicity -do eligible 2018/19 candidates know?

UWS revision of Level 7 and 8 Engineering,

alongside validation of new Integrated Masters.

The new entry requirements are National 5 Physics Grade B, Higher Maths retained, and overall tariff of Highers kept the same. Brought in over Engineering and Physics programmes.



Summary of focus groups– Renfrewshire schools

• Strong gender stereotypes were perceived towards different careers, engineering being a male dominant degree.

• Parents/siblings had influence on pupils career’s choices.

• Poor awareness by pupils of what engineers do and different types of engineering.

• Strongly-held perception of link between Maths and Physics.

• Participants had a perception of Physics as “hard” compared to other subjects.

• Some pupils noted advice to “choose their best subject” - this potentially steers girls away from Physics [1, 2].

1 “We should stop advising students to choose subjects they’re good at (revisited)”, 4 May 2018, Heather Earnshaw, IOP Improving Gender Balance project, http://www.iopblog.org/do-what-youre-good-at-revisited/2. “Young People in Scotland Survey 2017: STEM and language findings”https://beta.gov.scot/publications/young-people-in-scotland-survey-2017-stem-and-language-findings/

26

http://www.iopblog.org/do-what-youre-good-at-revisited/

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/young-people-in-scotland-survey-2017-stem-and-language-findings/



Challenges of the project

27

• Senior management buy-in not clearly translated into action across School.

• High level communication of changes across School and Admissions was sometimes contradictory –reducing trust.

• Low level of marketing and publicity.

• Buy-in of Programme Teams – getting beyond gut feeling that “students must have Physics Higher”.

• Staff concerns remain that this will bring “worse” students requiring high levels of support.

• Due to low numbers so far, the ability and success of the new cohort is still unproven.



Learning and benefits of the project

• Provided an exploration of attitudes to Diversity and Inclusion in Engineering and Physics disciplines.

• Local context - perceptions of Physics and Engineering identified in local schools’ focus groups.

• Increased awareness of gender balance issues in School of Engineering and Computing.

• Increased UWS engagement with SFC Gender Action Plan.

• Highlighted in the School of Engineering and Computing different approaches to gender balance than one-off outreach activities.

• Awareness that traditional viewpoints in Physics and Engineering continue to oppose implementation of change.

• Provided impetus for School of Engineering and Computing to revise 1st year provision to allow more flexible admissions.

28



Future possibilities

29

Current offer requires National 5 Physics, Higher Maths.

1. Revised offer in future – numbers suggest that removing National 5 in Physics and retaining Maths Higher could be effective on gender balance.

2. Dropping requirement for Higher Maths. This would be about “sending a message” on who can participate – numbers do not indicate large direct effect on gender balance.

3. Using Positive Action (variable entry criteria) to try to ensure that new offer or future variants is effective for the target group.

PHYSICS n (F) % (F) n (M) % (M)

National 5 3,969 28 10,195 72

Higher 2,321 26 6,635 74

MATHS n (F) % (F) n (M) % (M)

National 5 22,013 52 20,175 48

Higher 8,933 47 9,928 53



Summary and ConclusionsThe UWS project has led to revised entry criteria for Physics and Engineering. Aim was remove the barrier of Physics Higher for applicants with good grades in other subjects –giving applicants “another chance to choose” at S5 and S6 levels. Removing the “Higher Physics barrier” might be the only way to achieve SFC GAP targets. New entry criteria are in place ar UWS but not widely publicised - implementation is slow due to internal cultural barriers.We hope to gain information which can be used to assess the need for Positive Action or further change.

30

Men Into Care

Linda McLeod, Scottish Funding Council (Chair)

Graeme Brewster, City of Glasgow College

Patricia Swan, North East College Scotland

Kev Head, Edinburgh Napier University

Workshop 1: University of Dundee – Men do Care

Biosphere Green

Workshop 2: University of Edinburgh and

Edinburgh College – A spotlight on schools

outreach to increase girls’ participation in STEM

Biosphere Blue

Crowdsourcing the future: What’s

needed for future progress?

Kay Steven

Advance HE

What would success look like in

advancing equality in student

access and recruitment?

As a sector what will it take to get

there?

In light of your discussions write

down your….

Recommendations (external)

Commitments (internal)

Achievements,

recommendations and hard

truths

Professor Liz Thomas

Purpose of the programme

To support Colleges and HEIs to develop student recruitment activity to

be more inclusive, with a particular focus on increasing access of

underrepresented protected characteristic groups to specific

disciplines/courses.

To support institutions in complying with the Equality Act 2010.

To align student recruitment with equality work, increasing

efficiency, maximising resources and increasing impact of existing work.

To highlight links between student recruitment, WP, course content

and delivery, student experience and employability.


Intended outcomes

Underrepresented /PC groups are identified.

Action take by Colleges and HEIs to encourage and

support these groups to apply.

Representation of underrepresented PC groups is

increased across HEIs.

Institutions comply with Equality Act 2010, using positive

action as appropriate.

Project Methodology1. Creating a project team, collaborative

working and institutional buy-in

2. Institutional data availability and access

3. Assessing underrepresentation and data

analysis

4. Qualitative research to understand under-

representation

5. Exploring opportunities for initiatives

6. Developing a positive action initiative

7. Implementing initiatives

8. Formative and impact evaluation

9. Applying and sharing learning

Achievements

22 institutions have participated in 3-year programme and have

assessed under-representation, researched the causes of under-

representation and implemented and evaluated interventions.

Learning about: the problem, how to implement change, what works,

what doesn’t work, unintended consequences, and wider benefits.

Synthesising learning across the programme to move our collective

knowledge forward, and provide guidance and examples to inform the

education sectors in Scotland and beyond.

Started to address inequality in many subjects, and developed

individual and institutional capacity.

Some learning across the

programme1. Research: The issues are not the same for equality groups or for

males and females (e.g. discrimination v choice; peer group effect

works differently); can be difficult to find the most suitable people

to involve in the research; some issues are easier to fix than

others; you can’t always find the answers from the intended

beneficiaries but you can develop understanding; lack of evidence

of what works where and when.

2. Process: Cyclical and iterative; people start with small

interventions and build up towards larger or more significant

changes. Risk adverse, especially with regards to positive action.

Importance of internal and external drivers (e.g. focus on gender).

The nature of senior leadership support.


programme3. Impact: Multi-pronged and on-going rather than one-off

engagement, addressing concerns about relevance (is it for

people like me?); perceived ability (do I feel confident enough?);

and progression pathways (can I see pathways and possibilities

into and beyond studying this subject). It is more effective to

change things that the institution controls than to attempt to

change students, parents, teachers and schools.

Examples: Outreach with schools, collaboration with third sector

organisations and with other HEIs, marketing materials, websites and

images, entry requirements (e.g. subjects rather than grades), course

titles, curriculum contents, single sex courses.


programme4. What doesn’t work: Lack of focus (as project too broad or becomes

side-tracked); developing resources without a clear/embedded way of

being used; focusing on external change that you have not power or

influence over; not developing a theory of change; not piloting and

evaluating interventions; delegating responsibility to staff without

‘power and influence’.

5. Unintended consequences: Conversations and awareness raising

across the institution and the sector; becoming more informed about

positive action and developing capacity and confidence.

6. Wider benefits: Staff capacity regarding research, cross-institutional

projects and evaluation; models that can be applied to other

protected characteristics; wider reach in Scotland and beyond

through webinars, report, tool kits and case studies.

Recommendations for projectsDon’t stop now!

But don’t do it alone – look for opportunities to work with others in your institution,

and collaborate with other colleges and universities.

Continue to raise awareness about the issues: under-representation, barriers to

access, what you’ve been doing, what works and what doesn’t work.

Celebrate your successes and the success of the programme; look for ways to

disseminate your learning internally and nationally.

Make the business case for equality.

Reflect on what you have achieved and what else needs to be done. Develop an

action and evaluation plan for 2018-19.

Recommendations for institutionsCreate a cross-institutional team, including senior leadership, academics from the

disciplines, and data and qualitative research expertise.

Make this an institutional priority, and work to secure wider staff and student buy-in.

Make the case for wider engagement in equality and strategic alignment by

developing a business case.

Develop understanding of the issues through qualitative research before moving to

intervention to improve effectiveness.

Develop a multi-pronged approach addressing factors that you can control or

influence. Avoid only seeking to change others (e.g. students, parents, teachers),

look internally too.

Don’t be afraid of positive action.

Recommendations for

institutions

Develop a theory of change to articulate how you anticipate the

interventions to be effective and identify intermediate outcome indicators.

Pilot interventions, and use emerging evidence to modify interventions,

and promote wider engagement.

Embed the process and activities into the core business of the institution

to facilitate impact and sustainability.

Develop a whole institution approach (Thomas 2017) to equality – this will

work across the student lifecycle, involve staff from across the institution,

and work towards an explicit institutional commitment and targets.

Structure:

Policies,

processes

and

organisation

of staff and

financial

resources.

Culture:

Values,

attitudes and

practices of

all staff and

students.

Institutional commitment to equality

Underpinned by data, evidence and research

Co-ordinated and consistent approach across the institution

Recommendations for SFCRecognise that the process is time-consuming and have honest conversations

about progress towards longer-term targets.

Encourage the use of the theory of change methodology to create evidence

informed and logical action plans.

Nurture a climate that supports greater risk taking, e.g. learning from failure,

support to introduce positive action interventions.

Seek evidence from institutions about achieving intermediate outcomes, or

learning about what doesn’t work when and for whom – and why.

Provide more transparency about the Gender Action Plan process.

Provide strategic, financial and practical support to implement interventions.

And… the hard truths…Equality is difficult as many of the issues are beyond the scope of colleges and

universities.

But it is not acceptable to ignore the problem or assume that it is only others that

need to change.

Institutions need to be bolder and show greater commitment, undertaking internal

change and using positive action.

The SFC needs to push harder (through transparency and support) to raise

equality up the list of institutional priorities.

But it takes time, and there must be more emphasis on and progress towards

intermediate outcomes.

Institutions need greater staff and financial resource to undertake aspects of this

work.

Keynote

Professor Peter Mathieson

Principal, University of Edinburgh

Closing Remarks

Gary Loke

Advance HE

Advance HE Home - Advance HE - Attracting Diversity · 2018. 6. 7. · Dr Meg Dunn, University of the West of Scotland Lesley Balfour, Abertay University Jill Davie, ... traditional

Documents