Eyes on the future: The impact of a university campus experience day on students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds

Abstract

Students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, rural areas, non-English speaking backgrounds and those who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, have traditionally been underrepresented in higher education in Australia. The UC 4 Yourself experience day is an outreach program by the University of Canberra for schools identified as having substantial numbers of students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds. It provides a full day of participation in, and gaining information about, university life. The current article reports on two survey studies (N = 525; N = 183) investigating the effectiveness of this program. Students who participated in the program were more likely to plan to attend university and were better able to imagine themselves as university students after their campus visit. Findings from the two studies suggest that the actual visit, despite its brevity, provides a unique experience by simultaneously establishing a knowledge base and facilitating the psychological transformation necessary to imagine a new future.

Keywords

Disadvantaged socioeconomic status aspiration university attendance Secondary school students gender differences

Despite the rhetoric about ‘living in a digital age’, we nonetheless conduct our lives in a physical world – both online and offline. Arguably, access to a wider array of information may serve to increase the desire to see and experience phenomena first hand. To turn desires into reality, however, often requires assistance from experienced others. For young people navigating the world beyond school and home, the experiences of those around them are crucial. While students from more privileged backgrounds have access to a wider range of possibilities, students from families with more limited resources face restricted options in terms of post-school opportunities (Ball, Davies, David, & Reay, 2002) and the ability to explore these options (Pugsley, 2004).

Such inequality was explicitly recognized in the Australian Government’s Review of Higher Education (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent, & Scales, 2008) and by the subsequent development of the Australian Government’s Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP). Funding from this program is directed specifically toward increasing the participation of students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds into higher education. One of these programs at the University of Canberra is the UC 4 Yourself experience day, an on-campus experiential and discovery day for high school students. The UC 4 Yourself experience day is part of a larger outreach program, the Aspire UC program. The results of the studies reported in this article demonstrate the impact of this visit on young people’s aspirations for their own futures. In addition to increasing intentions for further education, high school students were better able to imagine themselves as university students after their participation in the UC 4 Yourself day.

Socio-economic status and aspirations

Students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to attend university than their wealthier counterparts (Armstrong & Cairnduff, 2012; Bradley et al., 2008; Devlin, 2013; Edwards, 2008). This is not surprising given their lower rates of Year 12 completion (James, 2002; Marks, Fleming, Long, & McMillan, 2000) and their greater likelihood of entering vocational training (Abbott-Chapman, 2011; Dalley-Trim, Alloway, & Walker, 2008). Lower levels of parental education (Zappala, 2003) and a lack of appropriate support networks such as those provided by family and friends (Naylor, Baik, & James, 2013; Young, 2004) further decrease the likelihood of these students pursuing higher education.

Tranter (2012) argues that the stratification of the school curriculum interacts with university entrance procedures to reproduce a higher education system based on advantage. This is partially due to self-selection by some disadvantaged students into pathways that inhibit further study (Dalley-Trim et al., 2008), but also to a lack of subject availability – which limits future course options – and the attitudes of teachers who, justifiably or not, consider the academic ability of these students to be inadequate for higher education (Tranter, 2012).

Such findings are not limited to Australia. In a study in the US by Auwarter and Aruguete (2008), teachers rated a description of a hypothetical student described as being from either a high or low socioeconomic (SES) background. Although boys described as being from high SES backgrounds were rated more favourably (e.g., more competent) than boys from low SES backgrounds, the reverse was true for girls. That is, girls from low SES backgrounds were rated more favourably than girls from high SES backgrounds. Moreover, all children portrayed as being from low SES backgrounds were rated as having less promising futures – including dropping out of school – than those from high SES backgrounds. Similarly, studies in the US and New Zealand showed that teacher perceptions play an important role in students’ approaches to learning (Rubie-Davies, 2010), and in students’ beliefs in their own abilities (Alvidrez & Weinstein, 1999; Rubie-Davies, Peterson, Irving, Widdowson, & Dixon, 2010).

Differential expectations are also evident at the school level, with school culture and beliefs playing a role in both student achievement (Jacobs & Harvey, 2010) and aspirations (Pringle, Lyons, & Booker, 2010; Schuchart, 2013). It is not surprising, then, that young people from low SES backgrounds internalize these views and behave accordingly by pursuing other vocational pathways. For example, Ball, Reay, and David (2002) found post-secondary choices to be highly influenced by social class.

In addition, more Australian girls than boys report aspiring to higher education (Australian Council for Educational Research [ACER], 2002; Alston & Kent, 2003). Suggested reasons for this include the idea that boys traditionally have a wider range of non-academic options available to them (Alston, Pawar, Bell, & Kent, 2001). This applies particularly to boys from low SES backgrounds, where blue collar work is often synonymous with masculinity. Yet, for the many females, and the fewer males, from low SES backgrounds who aspire to further education, numerous barriers exist to the realization of this goal.

Barriers to university study

In an international review of the literature, Gale, Tranter, Bills, Hattam, and Comber (2010) highlighted four major barriers to university study, namely distance, cost, low academic achievement, and low motivations/aspirations. Students from economically poorer backgrounds typically live in locations that are geographically further from places of higher education than do students from more affluent families (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2013). The ever-increasing costs of attending university – even without the added cost borne by travelling greater distances – disproportionately affect students from different socio-economic backgrounds. Moreover, changes in the way family income is means tested and adjustments to youth allowance have further disadvantaged rural students (Alston & Kent, 2003; Godden, 2007).

Similarly, there are considerable differences in the educational outcomes of students at public schools compared with private schools, as well as students in different regional areas or even different suburbs (Di Bartolo, 2005; Polesel, 2008). Consequently, students from different backgrounds do not receive the same preparation for life beyond high school. Again, this is apparent both in students’ academic results (Marks, 2009) and in their hopes and goals for the future (Hay, 2009), not only in Australia but elsewhere, for example, in Coulson’s (2009) review of studies from 23 countries.

Although the barriers of cost and distance are both practical and tangible, each has psychological implications. Moreover, even with the establishment of scholarships and other financial supports, students need to know of their availability in order to take advantage of their benefits. Hoover (2008) found that it is not uncommon for students to be unaware of any financial assistance to enable their further education. This lack of knowledge contributes to the uncertainty that families from low SES backgrounds experience with regard to futures involving higher education (Bradley, 2012).

It is not surprising, therefore, that students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be motivated or aspire toward university (Schoon, 2006). Faced with actual obstacles and a lack of knowledge and/or experience of those close to them, many of these young people do not see university as either relevant or possible (Abbott-Chapman, 2011; James, 2002).

In contrast, Appadurai (2004) and Bok (2010) ardently maintain that aspirations are not the preserve of the middle classes. Rather, they claim that all young people have aspirations and that, what differs, is their access to ‘maps’ or ‘scripts’ and the resources necessary to realize these dreams. Again, however, solutions put forward by those authors are not limited to the provision of scholarships and/or accommodation. Aspirations must be mapped, or scripted, into coherent paths although even the clearest directions can be difficult to follow without prior experience.

Finding one’s way, therefore, requires some degree of knowledge, preferably accompanied by actual experience. Finding one’s way in unknown terrain also requires the ability to improvise which, in turn, requires a certain level of creativity and imagination.

Imagined futures

Imagining one’s future is central to aspirations (Sellar & Gale, 2011; Sellar, Gale, & Parker, 2011) and a vital component of decision-making (Ball, Macrae, & Maguire, 1999). We have proposed elsewhere (Fleming & Grace, 2014a) that imagining one’s future requires psychological transformation – from where one is at present to an imaginable future state. The psychological work involved in imagining a different (or better) future is an essential step in achieving that future. Such a view places the individual firmly within the wider social setting in which these imaginings take place and is thus situated between the individualistic psychological approaches investigating mental states (e.g., Anderson, Dewhurst, & Nash, 2012; Bohn & Berntsen, 2013) and the more sociological or political accounts (e.g., Feher, 2009; Raco, 2009). The focus on rural and remote students having to relocate in order to attend university denies these young people, and their families and communities, the physical and psychological connection that is important to them (Drummond, Halsey, & van Breda, 2011; Drummond, Halsey, Lawson, & van Breda, 2012). Rather, imagined futures (or aspirations) must take account of normative cultural contexts (Appadurai, 2004; Sellar & Gale, 2011) which have the potential to address not only the broader issues of social inclusion (Armstrong & Cairnduff, 2012) and equity (Gale, 2011; Sellar & Gale, 2011) but, paradoxically, would provide individual students with tangible knowledge and skills necessary to pursue these paths.

Mapping one’s future, therefore, requires information and imagination. Both of these can be assisted by others with more experience and/or who have successfully navigated the same path. Navigating a path to university, therefore, can be aided by the experience of an actual campus visit, in the company of one’s peers, and guided by those who have recently taken this step themselves.

UC 4 Yourself experience day

Funded by the HEPPP, the University of Canberra hosts a number of UC 4 Yourself experience days throughout the year. The UC 4 Yourself days are part of the broader Aspire UC schools outreach program which is delivered to students from Year 7 through to Year 10 in numerous schools with substantial numbers of disadvantaged students. Schools were selected based on discussions with the ACT Education and Training Directorate, the NSW Department of Education and Communities and The Smith Family. Additionally, measures of the schools Index of Community Socio-Educational Advantage (ICSEA) were considered in the selection of schools. As a result, the schools that were invited to participate in the Aspire UC program were those identified as having large numbers of students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds.

The program includes delivery of in-school scaffolded sessions designed to raise aspiration, together with the UC 4 Yourself on-campus visit, usually undertaken in Year 9. The Aspire UC program has been shown to increase students’ aspirations for post-school education (Fleming & Grace, 2014b). Students from schools participating in the Aspire UC program are brought to the university campus and shown the range of programs and facilities on offer. The UC 4 Yourself days take students through an organized series of activities that include mock lectures, hands-on workshops and tours of student residences. Central to the philosophy of this day is that students physically experience campus life and activities, meet university staff and students and do so in the company of their familiar peers and teachers. In this way, the UC 4 Yourself day provides knowledge, tangible experience and the opportunity for students to imagine themselves, and their futures, in new ways.

The University of Canberra is not the only university to offer this ‘taster’ experience (Gale et al., 2010). Naylor et al. (2013) identify 17 higher education institutions in Australia that offer some form of ‘pre-entry university experience program’ (p. 45) funded by the HEPPP. The studies reported in this article thus investigated the impact of such an experience for students attending one of three UC 4 Yourself experience days.

Study 1

The first study examined views of students before and after their day at the university. While the aim of the day was for students to learn about the university and to have a positive experience, the focus on aspirations led to the investigation of possible gender differences whereby, consistent with previous research (e.g., ACER, 2002; Alston & Kent, 2003; Reynolds & Burge, 2008), more girls than boys were expected to aspire to university.

Study 1 method

Participants

Five hundred and twenty five students (231 males, 294 females) from 29 high schools attended the UC 4 Yourself experience on one of two consecutive days in September 2013 and completed surveys at the beginning and end of the day. The majority of students were enrolled in Year 9 (N = 431; 187 males, 244 females). The remainder comprised 47 Year 7 students (28 males, 19 females), 39 Year 8 students (13 males, 26 females), seven Year 10 students (three males, four females) and one (female) Year 12 student.

Thirty-one students (14 males, 17 females) were from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. Three hundred and ninety-three students (75% of participants) reported having participated in the Aspire UC program at school prior to the UC 4 Yourself day, while 376 students (151 males, 225 females; 72% of total sample) reported that this was their first visit to a university campus.

Design

In this first study of the two reported in this article, only one item was collected in both the pre-program survey and the post-program survey, namely the extent to which students agreed with the statement ‘I like the idea of going to university’. Responses to all items were compared between males and females.

Materials and procedure

Upon arrival at the university, all students were given a two-page questionnaire and asked to complete the first page entitled ‘Pre-program survey’. This part collected demographic data regarding the school year level, gender and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, together with questions asking if this was their first visit to a university campus and whether or not they had participated in the Aspire UC in-school sessions prior to their campus visit. Finally, students were asked to rate three statements on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), namely (i) ‘I have often considered going to university’; (ii) ‘I like the idea of going to university’; and (iii) ‘My plans for after high school don’t include university’. Questionnaires were then kept in students’ backpacks throughout the day.

Before returning home, students were asked to complete the second page of the questionnaire entitled ‘Post-program survey’. Along with a request for feedback about specific aspects of the day (e.g., mini lecture and tour of student residences), students were again asked to rate a series of statements using the same five-point scale. Specifically, students were asked, ‘After your day at UC … (i) ‘I like the idea of going to university’; (ii) ‘I feel more comfortable on a university campus’; (iii) ‘I can imagine myself as a uni student’; (iv) ‘I feel more confident that I could attend uni’; (v) ‘I want to find out more about uni’; and (vi) ‘I want to go to university’.

Study 1 results

No differences in terms of aspirations, either before or after the program, were found depending on students’ year level, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, previous experience with Aspire UC, or for first visit to a university campus. Hence, these variables were not entered into any subsequent analyses.

Given their conceptual similarity, and after reverse-scoring for the question, ‘My plans for after high school don’t include uni’, the three pre-program questions were combined to form a highly reliable composite score (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85). A between-groups independent t-test revealed a significant gender difference, t(506) = 3.77, p < .001. Although both were high, females (M = 4.08), significantly more than males (M = 3.77), had considered – and liked the idea of – university.

The six post-program questions were also combined and produced a highly reliable composite score (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94). A between-groups independent t-test was conducted to further examine gender differences. Again, females’ scores (M = 4.25) were significantly higher than males’ (M = 3.94), t(512) = 4.30, p < .001, with both groups, again, well above the mid-point of the scale.

The single item that was administered in the pre- and post-program survey, ‘I like the idea of uni’ was then examined in a 2 (gender)× 2 (pre/post) mixed ANOVA. Main effects for gender, F(1,510) = 17.13, p < .001 and for ‘like idea of uni’, F(1,510) = 79.18, p < .001, were subsumed by a significant gender by ‘like idea of uni’ interaction, F(1,510) = 6.51, p = .011. Despite relatively high pre-program scores (mean scores: males = 3.87; females = 4.10), both males and females liked the idea of university significantly more following the UC 4 Yourself experience day, with this increase being even greater for females (mean scores: males = 4.08; females = 4.48).

Study 1 discussion

Data collected prior to students’ participation in the UC 4 Yourself experience day revealed quite high levels of reported interest in university study. Given that many of the students came from financially disadvantaged backgrounds and the concomitant career trajectories that are typical for such students (e.g., Naylor et al., 2013), this is somewhat surprising, though not uncommon (e.g., Bowden & Doughney, 2010). James (2002) also reported high levels of university aspirations in students across socio-economic backgrounds with more nuanced differences found with regard to believing that university study was a likely outcome (p. 31). It is precisely this belief in students’ own abilities that is targeted by the Aspire UC programs.

In addition to students’ genuine interest in university, possible explanations include (i) initial excitement from being on a university campus, and/or (ii) that students felt they should indicate a high level of interest (i.e., demand characteristics). Both explanations are plausible in that (i) it was the first visit to a university for most (72%) of the students, and (ii) students were aware that they were in receipt of a cost-free excursion to the university. For this reason, they may have felt some level of obligation to respond favourably. Irrespective of any possible inflation in students’ reported level of interest, females reported a greater interest in university than did males. This finding is consistent with previous research on gender differences in aspirations to higher education (ACER, 2002; Alston & Kent, 2009; James, 2002) and is addressed further in Study 2.

Gender differences were also evident in students’ post-program responses, with females, again, reporting greater interest in going to university than did males. Again, however, scores for both males and females were quite high. Irrespective of whether, in the same manner as the pre-program scores, these results might have been impacted by factors other than the one-day campus visit, they still point to a high level of interest in university and a greater sense of ease (i.e., more comfortable) with a university campus. The major limitation with the current results, of course, was the inability to compare pre- and post-scores on the composite scores due to the different items on which they were based. This issue was addressed in Study 2.

The issues raised above are, at least partially, addressed by the single item administered to students both before and after their day at the university. When students were asked specifically about whether or not they liked the idea of university, the high pre-program scores did not prevent even higher scores being reported at the end of the day. Whether or not students were excited to be on campus and/or felt obliged to appear interested in university, the significantly higher scores at the end of the day indicated that the day’s experience led to increased interest in university. As with all other measures, females indicated higher levels of interest than males – both before and after their day at university.

Study 2

The encouraging results from Study 1 were limited by the inability to compare pre- and post-program data. Also, the results obtained in Study 1 pertained to general measures of students’ feelings about, and plans for, university. Given these initial positive findings, a more detailed analysis of students’ perceptions and plans was warranted.

The aim of the second study, therefore, was to investigate more closely potential changes in plans for, and attitudes about, university before and after the UC 4 Yourself experience day. In addition to gender differences, this study aimed to examine more closely students’ plans for university along with students’ perceptions of potential barriers and, importantly, their perceptions of themselves as future university students.

Study 2 method

Participants

One hundred and eighty-three students (71 males, 112 females) from five high schools attended the final UC 4 Yourself experience day in December 2013. As in Study 1, the majority of students were enrolled in Year 9 (N = 115; 40 males, 75 females), with the remainder comprising five Year 8 students (four males, one female), 38 Year 10 students (15 males, 23 females) and 25 Year 11 students (12 males, 13 females).

Twenty-three students (12 male, 11 female) identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. One hundred and fifty seven students (86% of the sample) reported having participated in the Aspire UC program at school prior to the UC 4 Yourself experience day, and 123 students (69%) had seen the video provided by the Aspire UC program. For 126 students (70% of the total sample), this was their first university campus visit.

Design

This second study comprised a 2 (gender)× 2 (pre/post-program) mixed model design. All participants completed the two-part questionnaire – at the beginning and end of their university experience day.

Materials and procedure

As in Study 1, all students were given a two-page questionnaire upon arrival at the university. They completed the pre-program questions before participating in any of the activities and kept the questionnaires in their backpacks throughout the day. Students completed the post-program questions and returned the questionnaires before returning home.

Importantly, the key questions of interest in this study were identical for both the pre- and the post-program questionnaire. In addition to these key questions, the pre-program questionnaire collected demographic information, while the post-program questionnaire asked about students’ views of the specific activities undertaken during the day and provided the opportunity for additional comments about the day.

The key questions were posed as statements for which students were asked to indicate the extent of their disagreement/agreement on a five-point scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). While two of the statements pertained to university plans (e.g., ‘My future plans already include going to university’) five statements pertained to potential barriers to university (e.g., ‘It would be expensive to go to university’) with the remaining three statements regarding perceptions of themselves as university students (e.g., ‘I can imagine myself as a university student’).

Study 2 results

As no differences in aspirations were found depending on year level, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status, or previous experience with Aspire UC, these variables were not entered into any subsequent analyses. One effect emerged, however, depending on whether it was a student’s first visit to a university campus or not. This effect concerned how students perceived themselves as students. This finding is discussed in further detail below.

Cronbach’s alphas were then computed for each subgroup of questions. Pre-program these were: (i) university plans = 0.84; (ii) barriers = 0.56; and (iii) self as student = 0.80; and post-program: (i) university plans = 0.90; (ii) barriers = 0.60; and (iii) self as student = 0.83. Given the unacceptably low reliability of the ‘barriers’ measure, analyses proceeded with these items separately. However, the combined items were retained for ‘university plans’ and ‘self as student’.

Plans for university

A 2 (gender)× 2 (pre/post experience day) mixed model ANOVA was conducted on ‘university plans’. This revealed significant main effects for both university plans, F(1,179) = 27.08, p < .001, and gender, F(1,179) = 4.03, p = .046, but no interaction effect. Despite high pre-program scores (M = 3.98), students were significantly more likely to plan to attend university after the experience day (M = 4.23). As expected, females (M = 4.23) were more likely to plan to attend university than were males (M = 3.97).

Self as student

Results of the subsequent 2 (gender)× 2 (pre/post experience day) mixed model ANOVA on ‘self as student’ showed a main effect only for self as student, F(1,177) = 28.36, p < .001. Students – both male and female – were more likely to imagine themselves as university students after the experience day (M = 4.23) than before (M = 3.99). A difference was found, only in the post-program scores, between students for whom this was a first visit to a university compared with those for whom it was not, t(173) = 2.26, p = .025. Students who had visited a university campus before were even more able to see themselves as university students (M = 4.44) than were students on their first visit (M = 4.18). While this points to the success of such visits, alternative explanations appear in the discussion.

Barriers to university

Separate 2 (gender)× 2 (pre/post experience day) mixed model ANOVAs were conducted on the five ‘barriers’ items separately. Only three main effects emerged. These were for ‘expensive to attend uni’, F(1,179) = 4.01, p = .047, ‘hard to find accommodation’, F(1,174) = 42.10, p < .001 and ‘not smart enough to attend university’, F(1,180) = 6.49, p = .012. After the UC 4 Yourself experience day, students considered it less expensive to go to university (M = 3.45) than they did before (M = 3.62), and less difficult to find accommodation (M = 2.44) than before (M = 3.02). Interestingly, they were also less likely to consider themselves ‘not smart enough for university’ following the experience day (M = 2.30) than they did before (M = 2.50). No gender effects were found for any of the ‘barriers to university’ items.

Not surprisingly, no change was recorded for ‘My family could not afford for me to go to university’, nor for ‘My family do not want me to go to university’. Of particular note, however, was that responses to family (not) being able to afford university were around the mid-point of the scale (pre = 2.78; post = 2.59), whereas responses to family not wanting their sons or daughters to go to university were quite low (pre = 1.62; post = 1.55).

Study 2 discussion

This study had two primary aims. The first aim was to improve the comparability of students’ responses before and after their day at university. The second aim was a more detailed examination of the factors involved in young people’s consideration of university as a viable post-school option. As with Study 1, high levels of interest in university were evident already at the start of the day. Importantly, however, these levels rose to even higher levels following students’ university experience. Consistent with Study 1 and with previous research (e.g., ACER, 2002; James, 2002; Schoon & Polek, 2011), females demonstrated greater interest in university than did males, and this was evident both pre- and post-program.

In addition to interest in and plans to attend university, the high school students were asked to think about themselves as university students. Prompted by Sellar and Gale’s (Sellar & Gale, 2011; Sellar et al., 2011) conception of aspirations as ‘imagined futures’, the current research recognized the importance of this psychological transformation in preparing for an unfamiliar goal. Again despite relatively high pre-program scores, the day at university enabled students to better imagine themselves actually attending university.

The one difference – in post-program scores only – between students for whom this was their first visit to a university campus and those for who had not been to a university campus previously further suggests the effectiveness of an actual campus visit to enhance students’ ability to imagine themselves continuing on such a path. It appears that additional visits further enhance the capacity to picture oneself in the situation, that is, to conceive of oneself as a student of the university. However, it is also possible that those students who had been to a university before had done so for specific reasons. That is, they may have previously indicated interest in university and thus facilitated a visit. They may have shown aptitude in a particular area and may have been chosen for a specific university visit. Alternatively, they may already have visited a campus as a result of a sibling attending university. Finally, these particular students may have parents whose aspirations for their son or daughter had already led to them visiting a university. Any of these reasons would increase the likelihood of these students demonstrating an interest in university. What is surprising, however, is that no difference was evident in the pre-program scores. Given this was the only finding in this regard, and the current data provide no possibility to test these explanations, these suggestions remain speculative.

Finally, no gender differences were found with regard to ‘imagined futures’ which indicated that both males and females were more likely to see themselves as university students after their day on campus.

Similarly, no gender effects emerged with respect to any of the barriers to university. However, evidence emerged of change for the well-documented barriers of cost and accommodation (e.g., Gale et al., 2010). Following their campus experience, students reported that university was less expensive to attend than they had previously thought and that it would be easier to find accommodation than they had previously believed. In addition to preconceived general ideas about what going to university actually entails, the day provided the students with up-to-date information on these issues. Because these factors have been repeatedly identified in the literature (Karimshah et al., 2013; Young, 2004), they have received direct attention from universities. At the University of Canberra, for example, a variety of scholarships has been introduced for financially disadvantaged students. Moreover, information about specific course costs, along with deferred payment options, was made available to students on the day of their visit. Affordable accommodation is known to be an issue for students (Lloyd-Jones & Halcrow, 2013) and the University of Canberra has embarked on an ambitious scheme to increase substantially its residential accommodation for students. The residences that the university has recently opened have been supported by funding from the Australian National Rental Affordability Scheme, which allows below-market rents to be charged to students. Provision of information about affordable accommodation options is crucial for students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds, for whom marketing and outreach activities are frequently the primary source of information about university (Bradley, 2012).

Perceptions regarding the final barrier of students not seeing themselves as suitable for university study also changed. After their day at university, students – both males and females – were less likely to consider themselves ‘not smart enough for uni’. This finding is particularly encouraging given the role that – lack of – belief in one’s own abilities plays in (inhibiting) participation in further education and training (Reynolds & Burge, 2008). Although, unlike the previously discussed barriers, the activities of the day did not focus on this issue, it further points to the positive impact of the UC 4 Yourself day on these students.

General discussion

Together, the two studies presented in this article highlight the effectiveness of an actual university campus visit for enhancing the aspirations and plans of teenagers whose backgrounds would typically not lead to higher education paths. Although only a one-day experience, there is no shortage of anecdotal experience concerning the impact of even brief episodes on people’s life trajectories. Within the educational literature, evidence of long-term impacts of short-term programs has been reported. For example, Markowitz (2004) reported a positive impact on students’ decisions to continue science study and to pursue a career in science up to seven years after their participation in a summer science program. Similarly, Sprague and Percy (2014) found positive effects of a university practicum experience program on career decisions up to six years after students participated. Despite the UC 4 Yourself day being considerably shorter than these programs, the experience gained from an actual visit which enables students’ interactions with actual university students and staff should not be ignored. At least three reasons for this finding are suggested.

First, and importantly for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, the provision of information is paramount. Parents who have not been to university themselves are often ill-equipped to provide the relevant information to their children. This is not, as was shown in Study 2, likely to have been due to a lack of aspiration on the parents’ part, as students in the current research considered that their parents were not against university study. What many parents lack, however, is the ‘reservoir of cultural and social resources’ (Devlin, 2013, p. 940) necessary to talk to their children about the possibility of university study and what it may look like. Indeed, reliance on different sources of information is, itself, influenced by social status and social fractions (e.g., Ball & Vincent, 1998). In addition, even many teachers are unable to advise their students adequately (Haynes, McCrone, & Wade, 2013; Smyth & Banks, 2012). Hence, the provision of information directly to the students not only increases the likelihood of accurate transmission of the information, it equips the students for future discussions with their parents and/or teachers.

Second, the day provided students with a real and tangible experience of what being at university entails. Analogous to flying in an aeroplane, visiting Uluru, or seeing the Pyramids, the physical experience is beyond that provided by any written or digital account. Actual physical experience, even of a limited time, provides an added dimension to both a knowledge base and the ability to use this knowledge imaginatively.

Facilitated by the physical experience, the psychological transformation into an imagined future thus becomes a critical element of the successful campus visit. Having experienced university life – even if only for a day – was enough to allow these young people to imagine themselves as part of the university and its community. It is precisely this ability to imagine a new future for oneself that is needed in order to link aspirations to a belief that such a future is both possible and likely. While the current data provide some support for this contention, future research examining this proposed link would be worthwhile.

Consistent with much previous research (e.g., ACER, 2002; Alston & Kent, 2003; James, 2002; Reynolds & Burge, 2008), the current studies found more girls than boys aspiring to higher education. As a measure of success, and regardless of pre-program scores, both males and females reported increased interest in attending university after their visit. That no gender differences emerged regarding perceived barriers to university, or on perceptions of themselves as students, suggests that the UC 4 Yourself experience day was equally influential for both sexes. This is not surprising given that financial concerns among high school students are unlikely to be borne by one gender more than the other.

What the current findings support, however, is that providing students from financially disadvantaged backgrounds with the opportunity to experience a university first-hand has the potential to increase the likelihood of these students attending university. While the precise mechanisms for this remain unclear, it is suggested that a combination of a tangible physical experience, and its subsequent impact on the imagination – a psychological transformation – has the potential to increase students’ perceptions of university study as a possible future pathway.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

None declared.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Abbott-Chapman

(2011) Making the most of the mosaic: Facilitating post-school transitions to higher education of disadvantaged students. Australian Educational Research 38: 57–71.

Alston

M. M.

Kent

(2003) Educational access for Australia’s rural young people: A case of social exclusion. Australian Journal of Education 47: 5–17.

Alston

Kent

(2009) Generation X-pendable. The social exclusion of rural and remote young people. Journal of Sociology 45: 89–107.

Alston, M., Pawar, M., Bell, K., & Kent, A. (2001). The western Riverina higher education needs analysis. Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University. Retrieved from http://www.csu.edu.au/reserch/ilws/research/publications/crsr/docs/needs.pdf.

Alvidrez

Weinstein

R. S.

(1999) Early teacher perceptions and later student academic outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology 91: 731–746.

Anderson

R. J.

Dewhurst

S. A.

Nash

R. A.

(2012) Shared cognitive processes underlying past and future thinking: The impact of imagery and concurrent task demands on event specificity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 38: 356–365.

Appadurai

(2004) The capacity to aspire: Culture and the terms of recognition. In: Rao

Walton

(eds) Culture and public action, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 59–84.

Armstrong

Cairnduff

(2012) Inclusion in higher education: Issues in university-school partnership. International Journal of Inclusive Education 16: 917–928.

Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). (2002). Rural and urban differences in Australian Education. (LSAY Briefings, 5). Melbourne, Australia: ACER.

10.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2013). Australia’s welfare 2013: In brief. Australia’s welfare. No.11. Cat.no.AUS175. Canberra, ACT: Author.

11.

Auwarter

A. E.

Aruguete

M. S.

(2008) Effects of student gender and socioeconomic status on teacher perceptions. The Journal of Educational Research 101: 243–246.

12.

Ball

S. J.

Davies

David

Reay

(2002) ‘Classification’ and ‘judgement’: Social class and the ‘cognitive structures’ of choice in higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 23: 51–72.

13.

Ball

S. J.

Macrae

Maguire

(1999) Young lives, diverse choices and imagined futures in an education and training market. International Journal of Inclusive Education 3: 195–224.

14.

Ball

S. J.

Reay

David

(2002) ‘Ethnic choosing’: Minority ethnic students, social class and higher education choice. Race, Ethnicity and Education 5: 333–357.

15.

Ball

S. J.

Vincent

(1998) ‘I heard it on the grapevine’: ‘Hot’ knowledge and school choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education 19: 377–400.

16.

Bohn

Berntsen

(2013) The future is bright and predictable: The development of prospective life stories across childhood and adolescence. Developmental Psychology 49: 1232–1241.

17.

Bok

(2010) The capacity to aspire to higher education: ‘It’s like making them do a play without a script’. Critical Studies in Education 51: 163–178.

18.

Bowden

M. P.

Doughney

(2010) Socio-economic status, cultural diversity and the aspirations of secondary students in the western suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. Higher Education 59: 115–129.

19.

Bradley

Noonan

Nugent

Scales

(2008) Review of Australian higher education: Final report, Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

20.

Bradley

(2012) Young people navigating the transition to university: Policy, context and influences. Educational and Child Psychology 29: 101–110.

21.

Coulson

A. J.

(2009) Comparing public, private and market schools: The international evidence. Journal of School Choice 3: 31–54.

22.

Dalley-Trim

Alloway

Walker

(2008) Secondary school students’ perceptions of, and the factors influencing their decision-making in relation to, VET in schools. The Australian Educational Researcher 35: 55–69.

23.

Devlin

(2013) Bridging socio-cultural incongruity: Conceptualising the success of students from low socio-economic status backgrounds in Australian higher education. Studies in Higher Education 38: 939–949.

24.

Di Bartolo

(2005) Educational polarisation in Brisbane: Rawls’ least advantaged and the myth of choice. The Australian Educational Researcher 32: 63–82.

25.

Drummond

Halsey

R. J.

van Breda

(2011) The perceived importance of university presence in rural Australia. Education in Rural Australia 21: 1–17.

26.

Drummond

Halsey

R. J.

Lawson

van Breda

(2012) The effectiveness of a university mentoring project in peri-rural Australia. Australian and International Journal of Rural Education 22: 29–41.

27.

Edwards

(2008) What happens when supply lags behind demand? Disadvantaged students and the ever increasing competition for university places. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30: 3–13.

28.

Feher

(2009) Self-appreciation; or, the aspirations of human capital. Public Culture 21: 21–41.

29.

Fleming

M. J.

Grace

D. M.

(2014a) Widening the lens: Utilizing teacher perspectives to assess widening participation efforts in Australian higher education. Widening Participation and Lifelong Learning 16: 27–45.

30.

Fleming

M. J.

Grace

D. M.

(2014b) Increasing participation of rural and regional students in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 36: 483–495.

31.

Gale

(2011) Expansion and equity in Australian higher education: Three propositions for new relations. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 32: 669–685.

32.

Gale, T., Tranter, D., Bills, D., Hattam, R., & Comber, B. (2010). Interventions early in school as a means to improve higher education outcomes for disadvantaged (particularly low SES) students. Component A: A review of the Australian and international literature. Adelaide, South Australia: National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education.

33.

Godden, N. (2007). Regional young people and youth allowance: Access to tertiary education. Wagga Wagga: Centre for Rural Social Research.

34.

Hay

P. J.

(2009) Student’s perceptions of schooling in a senior secondary education system. Australian Journal of Education 53: 54–68.

35.

Haynes

McCrone

Wade

(2013) Young people’s decision-making: The importance of high quality school-based careers education, information, advice and guidance. Research Papers in Education 28: 459–482.

36.

Hoover, E. (2008). Community-college students need better financial advising, survey finds. Chronicle of Higher Education, 55, 19.

37.

Jacobs

Harvey

(2010) The extent to which teacher attitudes and expectations predict academic achievement of final year students. Educational Studies 36: 195–206.

38.

James, R. (2002). Socio-economic background and higher education participation: An analysis of school students’ aspirations and expectations. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Department of Education, Science and Training.

39.

Karimshah

Wyder

Henman

Tay

Capelin

Short

(2013) Overcoming adversity among low SES students. Australian Universities Review 55: 5–14.

40.

Lloyd-Jones, C., & Halcrow, J. (2013). Living on the Edge: Pilot study of housing stress and poverty indicators amongst tertiary students in the ACT. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Anglicare. Retrieved from http://www.anglicare.com.au/pages/research-151.html.

41.

Markowitz

D. G.

(2004) Evaluation of the long-term impact of a university high school summer science program on students’ interest and perceived abilities in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13: 395–407.

42.

Marks

(2009) Accounting for school-sector differences in university entrance performance. Australian Journal of Education 53: 19–38.

43.

Marks, G., Fleming, N., Long, M., & McMillan, J. (2000). Patterns of participation in year 12 and higher education in Australia: Trends and issues. Camberwell, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.

44.

Naylor, R., Baik, C., & James, R. (2013). Developing a critical interventions framework for advancing equity in Australian higher education. Discussion paper prepared for the Department of Industry Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT.

45.

Polesel

(2008) Democratising the curriculum or training the children of the poor: School-based vocational training in Australia. Journal of Educational Policy 23: 615–632.

46.

Pringle

B. E.

Lyons

J. E.

Booker

K. C.

(2010) Perceptions of teacher expectations by African American high school students. The Journal of Negro Education 79: 33–40.

47.

Pugsley

(2004) The university challenge: Higher education markets and social stratification, Cardiff: Ashgate.

48.

Raco

(2009) From expectations to aspirations: State modernisation, urban policy, and the existential politics of welfare in the UK. Political Geography 28: 436–444.

49.

Reynolds

J. R.

Burge

S. W.

(2008) Educational expectations and the rise in women’s post-secondary attainments. Social Science Research 37: 485–499.

50.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

(2010) Teacher expectations and perceptions of student attributes: Is there a relationship? British Journal of Educational Psychology 80: 121–135.

51.

Rubie-Davies

C. M.

Peterson

Irving

Widdowson

Dixon

(2010) Expectations of achievement: Student, teacher and parent perceptions. Research in Education 83: 36–53.

52.

Schoon

(2006) Risk and resilience. Adaptations in changing times, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Schoon

Polek

(2011) Teenage career aspirations and adult career attainment: The role of gender, social background and general cognitive ability. International Journal of Behavioural Development 35: 210–217.

54.

Schuchart

(2013) School social capital and secondary education plans. Educational Studies 39: 29–42.

55.

Sellar

Gale

(2011) Mobility, aspiration, voice: A new structure of feeling for student equity in higher education. Critical Studies in Education 52: 115–134.

56.

Sellar

Gale

Parker

(2011) Appreciating aspirations in Australian higher education. Cambridge Journal of Education 41: 37–52.

57.

Smyth

Banks

(2012) ‘There was never really any question of anything else’: Young people’s agency, institutional habitus and the transition to higher education. British Journal of Sociology of Education 33: 263–281.

58.

Sprague

Percy

R. C.

(2014) The immediate and long-term impact of practicum experiences on students. Journal of Public Affairs Education 20: 91–111.

59.

Tranter

(2012) Unequal schooling: How the school curriculum keeps students from low socio-economic backgrounds out of university. International Journal of Inclusive Education 16: 901–916.

60.

Young

(2004) ‘Becoming different’: Accessing university from a low socio-economic community – Barriers and motivators. Systemic Practice and Action Research 17: 425–469.

61.

Zappala

(2003) Barriers to participation: Financial, educational, technological – A report into the barriers to societal participation among low-income Australians, Camperdown, NSW: The Smith Family.