Introduction
University enabling programs have been designed to accord people without the conventional university entry qualifications a chance to access higher education. In Australian universities, this has been designed for mature age students, disadvantaged students, superior athletes and performers who need to be equipped with skills necessary in tertiary education. Because the very nature of the students targeted in these programs, it is common to find that most educational institutions depend on funding from the government to sponsor its participants. Enabling programs have some of the noblest intentions but it is crucial to assess whether these are actually translated into actual admissions in universities and to determine if the quality of education experienced by students from enabling programs in universities is acceptable. This can best be done by looking at the challenges and the gains of these programs.
Weaknesses Intrinsic in the Enabling Programs
After successful completion of an enabling program, university administrators will often assume that the participants are now ready to take part in a university degree or course, however, research shows that these assumptions may not always be true. McNaught and McInnis (1995) explain that the university environment has its unique challenges which are radically different from prior experiences undergone by students from enabling programs. One will need to analyse, research, interpret and eventually communicate in a different way. Usually, these skills are learnt in the university but are also developed in prior educational programs. Students from enabling programs may be ill equipped in this area because their academic practices are different. Since one’s environment is a major determinant of one’s literacy levels, then enabling students from different cultural and language backgrounds may find it hard to cope with university education as explained by Borland and Pearce (2002).
Enabling programs are sometimes carried out within a period of one year or even less inside the university environment. Most of the time, they tend to focus on disciplines based skills or study skills. Very few of them will actually equip students with actual knowledge of undergraduate rules and academic procedures. In fact, these programs will focus on the outer issues but will rarely get into the intimate learning needs of a university degree. Critical skills are always imperative in the tertiary education environment but when no value is placed on establishing meaning to cognitive tasks then this can definitely impede the effectiveness of the programs. Enabling programs lack reflective and conceptual thinking thus making them suitable for short term goals but never really long term education (Lawrence, 2000).
It is true that lecturers in enabling programs are very cooperative and will go through great lengths in order to prepare these students to be ready for university education. These educators are already aware that they are dealing with a different set of students who may come from a disadvantaged background. What this implies is that they will offer them all the special attention they need or they will cater to their individual needs. This would have been ideal if the same approach prevailed in undergraduate courses. Cullity (2006) reports that most educational staff member’s attitudes change when participants from enabling programs get to pursue their degrees. Lecturers will be dismissive of them and their concerns. Some will not shows them how to access electronic material needed in university work. This severely impairs their capabilities and causes a number of them to be demoralised. These differential pedagogical approaches are what cause underperformance among individuals who came from such a background.
Successes
To some extent, some of the skills acquired in enabling programs do assist participants to have a chance at pursuing university education. Cullity (2005) explains that this is only possible when the participants are placed in other programs that can compensate for their inefficiencies. For example some universities offer literacy courses for students from enabling programs like Unistart. The latter author explains that students who have passed through this program are much more likely than direct enabling program participants to do well in universities. Therefore, enabling programs act as a gateway that prepares (even if this is not done fully) students to get into the world of tertiary education.
University enabling programs also serve a vital role providing students with the confidence needed in order to successfully complete a university course. Sometimes, it is possible to get intimated by the university environment especially when one comes from a disadvantages background or when one did not fulfil the criteria needed in order to ordinarily get into such educational institutions. Participants in enabling programs already feel like failures as they may have taken a very long time before pursuing higher education, they may have failed in their final school years or may have borne the brunt of scornful peers for these inadequacies. However, when students are taken through the enabling programs, their attitudes towards education and such an environment will change. They will forge a sense of identity with an institution and will therefore respond to higher education challenges with the enthusiasm needed in order to make it there (Bull and Clarke, 2004). Students can sometimes be intimated by an academic setting and this diminishes their ability to conform to the academic expectations of degree programs. By putting athletes, mature age or disadvantaged students in an a academic environment that closely resembles the university degree program, individuals can acquire the attitudinal changes needed in order to do well in higher education. They can let go of the negativities that they had undergone while in these settings.
Any university student needs to come from a background that has taught him how to socialise and interact with likeminded individuals. Education is never really an academic only endeavour as it is also a social process as explained by Street and Lea (1998). Students who get into higher institutions using enabling programs will often have gone through a similar scenario that their counterparts in the normal entry level programs have gone through. They will have learnt how to discuss issues with their peers and how to approach their lecturers about educational matters. This implies that most if not all individuals will be at a better place than they would have been if they had not participated in these programs (Cullity, 2006). Most of them are thoroughly relaxed and are ready to take on the challenges of the undergraduate programs. For example, they will know about tutorials or class operations and expectations will be met while studying for their degrees.
Summary
Enabling programs have their place in the academic environment because they offer opportunities to people who would normally have been ineligible for higher education. They work on attitudinal and confidence issues inherent in such kinds of students. They cause students to socialise and also give them certain skills that will foster university education. On the other hand, these programs attention to discipline based skills and may not be adequate in dealing with other aspects of growth. Furthermore, these students will have to cope with dismissive attitudes from undergraduate lecturers. Lastly, the presumptions made by academicians that the programs fully prepare them for university life are premature because cultural disadvantages are rarely undone in higher education.
References
Pearce, A. and Borland, H. (2002). Identifying key dimensions of cultural and language disadvantage. Applied linguistics, 25(2), 103-126.
Clarke, J. & Bull, D. (2004),. USQ’s tertiary preparation program. National conference of enabling educators, new castle, 2004.
Cullity, M. (2005). Alternative entry programs for mature age students. Parkville Melbourne university press.
Street, B. & Lea, M. (1998). Student writing in higher education. Higher education studies journal, 23(2), 158-171.
McNaught, C. & McInnis, C. (1995). Diversity in initial experience of first year Australian undergraduates. Canberra: AGPS press.
Lawrence, J. (2000). Re-thinking diversity. First year in higher education conference, Brisbane, 4th pacific rim.
Cullity, M. (2006). Academic culture that enthuses or intimidates mature age commencers. Melbourne: Edith Cowan University.