| 3. The methodThere are a number of models in the literature that describe
student decision-making and attitude development in the secondary–tertiary education
transition (see, for example, Paulsen 1990, Chapman 1981). These models have often been
developed for education systems that differ significantly in structure from the Australian
system. Many of them focus on the early processes of choice formation and the social,
economic and cultural factors that shape educational aspirations.
A number of previous Australian studies have focused on the formation of educational aspirations and decisions about higher education. These include Williams et al. (1980, 1993), Elsworth et al. (1982), Carpenter & Western (1984, 1989), Hayden & Carpenter (1990), Baldwin et al. (1991), DEET (1993, 1994), ANOP (1994), McInnis & James (1995) and Harvey-Beavis & Elsworth (1998). Generally, previous studies have centred principally on the decision of whether or not to go on to university, rather than on the specific reasons why students select a preferred institution or course. The hypothetical model for higher education aspiration and university application that guided the design of the present study has three stages:
The study was focused primarily on stages 2 and 3. We assumed that most people who have reached the point of application are well past the stage of deciding whether or not to aim for university. Some information on early process factors was collected during telephone interviews, but the majority of the study focused on the particular influences on, and determinants of, student choices in the later stages of their decision-making. In developing the project’s questionnaires and interview schedules we assumed that the majority of applicants were undertaking a decision-making process along the following lines. Some time before choosing a university, most prospective students have formed preferences for the field(s) of study that interests them and that is/are associated with their personal interests and career intentions. It was not assumed that applicants necessarily would have clear ideas about the appropriate field that might suit their general interest or that they had clear career ambitions at this stage. It was anticipated that many might have only a vague understanding of the association between fields of study and possible career outcomes. While assuming a ‘course focus’ we also recognised there may be prospective students who are solely intent on attending a particular institution regardless of the course in which they will enrol, and the survey instrument was designed to identify applicants with this attitude. Closer to the point of tertiary application, we assumed these preferences are used to generate a ‘preferred course set’, comprising the courses that correspond most closely to the fields of personal and career interests. At the first declaration of preferences, students express their personal educational and career expectations as a course-institution combination of first preference. The selection of a single course from the general ‘preferred course set’ is the result of the interplay of a number of choice factors. These include:
We commenced with the view that the order of choice, i.e. course–institution or institution–course, is for most students not a linear, two-step decision, but is an iterative process in which students are weighing up field of study preferences, the possible courses that fit these preferences, and the myriad of institutional characteristics that are attractive to them. In commencing with this model, we took the view that a course does not exist in isolation from its particular enactment in an institution. Even seemingly generic courses with common nomenclature (such as BA or BSc) may differ markedly across institutions—institutional marketing activities are often focused on making these differences explicit. This is not usually the case, however, for well-defined professional fields, such as Optometry, where courses and their vocational outcomes may be very similar regardless of the institutions concerned. 3.1 Data collection Two surveys of a sample of tertiary applicants were conducted at two important times: the first, soon after initial lodgement of application (October 1998); the second, following offers and nearing commencement of the academic year (February 1999). The survey data were complemented by case studies of the decision factors and processes of twelve suitably selected prospective students. Interviews with these students were conducted during the period leading up to selection of preferences and through to the acceptance of an offer. 3.1.1 Project surveys We surveyed tertiary applicants in three states, Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia, using the databases of the Tertiary Admissions Centres. The project budget allowed for a sample of around 3000 applicants. After stratification according to the total number of applicants in each state, and the characteristics of applicants—their gender and whether or not they were school-leavers (i.e. completing Year 12 in 1998), a randomly selected sample of 3194 applicants was drawn up. This sample was selected from a total applicant population in the three states of over 140 000. The first survey was mailed in 1998, soon after applicants’ initial submission to the relevant admissions centre. A single mail-out was used with no follow-up reminder letter. Total responses were 937, a response rate of 29 per cent. A second survey of people who completed the initial questionnaire was conducted in February 1998, after applicants had received offers and made their decisions. Responses to a single mail-out were received from 538 people, a 57 per cent response rate. 3.1.2 Questionnaire design Designing an instrument with the potential to answer the projects’ research questions involved some methodological complexity. As argued earlier, at the outset we assumed that applicants’ discipline and institutional preferences and intentions would be tightly interwoven. We recognised that the questionnaire needed to collect information on both discipline and institution dimensions, while providing the potential to separate with a degree of confidence the relative influence of each. The first questionnaire was a longer and more comprehensive instrument than the second. It had three main components, explained below, in addition to items collecting relevant demographic information. The questionnaire was designed to discover:
The questionnaire took applicants sequentially through the conceptual model of choice that guided our thinking, asking them questions about three groups of possible factors or influences on their thinking:
In the first instance, applicants were asked about their field of study preference and the reasons for it. They were provided with a list of considerations, such as likely graduate outcomes and the intrinsic interest of that field of knowledge, which might influence their selection of a preferred discipline, and were asked to rate the extent of the influence of each on them (from very strong influence to no influence at all). In addition, the questionnaire asked applicants how much they believed they actually knew about each consideration (from a good deal to very little at all). A similar pattern of questioning was applied to course-related considerations and institution-related considerations. 3.1.3 Case study interviews To complement the survey data, we conducted extensive telephone interviews with 12 respondents, on two occasions with each. The group was chosen to be representative of applicant diversity in terms of state of residence, gender, age, intended field of study and preferred institution type. These interviews aimed to elicit additional information on choice factors and the decision-making process which would shed light on the survey data. The interviewer had available to him the interviewee questionnaire responses and used these as prompts during interviews. Individual case studies from these interviews are presented in Chapter 10 (with small modification of interviewee personal details to protect anonymity) to illuminate the quantitative data. The questionnaire was designed mainly around two five-point scales constructed in the following way:
Where we report influences as ‘strong or very strong’ we have summed the response frequencies in categories 5 and 4 on the first scale. Similarly, the percentages of students reporting ‘little or no influence’ for particular factors have been derived by adding category 2 and 1 responses. Likewise, we report the percentages of students who claim a ‘reasonable knowledge or a good deal of knowledge’ or ‘a little knowledge or very little at all’ by summing points 5 and 4 and points 2 and 1 responses respectively. In this way we are able to report the proportions of respondents who have expressed a clear opinion one way or another. Factor analytic techniques (principal components analysis and congeneric modelling) were also used to assist in the reporting of the data. Details of the analyses are provided in the appendix and at relevant locations in the text. The factors extracted through these techniques confirm the basic conceptual structure of the questionnaire items. The factor structures have been used in the report in three ways. First, conceptually similar items have been placed alongside each other in tables. Second, factor means have been used to illustrate the relative importance of various related influences. Third, factor means have also been used to identify significant differences between applicant subgroups in the later chapters. Individual questionnaire items that do not significantly contribute to the identified factors are also reported. In some cases these individual items provide important information. Five subgroup analyses were conducted: by gender, by location, by socioeconomic background, by field of study of first preference, and by category of preferred university. Applicants’ geographical locations were defined as urban or rural/isolated using the postcode of their permanent home address and an index of location (ABS 1990a, ABS 1990b and DPIE 1994). Highest level of parental education was chosen as an appropriate measure of socioeconomic background. The project defined three subgroups as lower, medium and higher socioeconomic status. The appendix provides details of how this classification was constructed. To examine whether applicant motives are reflected in the types of institutions to which they apply, all universities were classified into four categories (see appendix for a full listing of the institutional classifications):
Where participants in the study commented on particular institutions we have replaced the names of these universities with pseudonyms. To avoid losing the full character of responses we have used pseudonyms along the above lines. 3.3 The profile of the survey respondents The project’s sampling technique and the response patterns produced a sample we believe to be adequately representative for the study’s purposes. Seventy-two per cent of the sample were aged 18 or younger, and 18 per cent were aged 19 or above. Females were over-represented in the sample. Two-thirds of the respondents were female while they represented approximately 57 per cent of the applicant populations in the three states used by the study. Fifty-three per cent of respondents attended government schools, 26 per cent attended Catholic schools and 21 per cent attended private/independent schools. As Table 3.1 shows, the sample has a distribution across the ten major fields of study, with respondents’ preferences following similar patterns to the overall applicant population. There is a possibility that the study has received a stronger response rate from tertiary applicants very committed to attending university—we note a high proportion of female applicants and an unexpectedly low proportion who say they would look for work if their first preference is unsuccessful. If the study’s sample does over-represent the more committed applicants, then we cannot say whether or not the university preferences for this group are in some way different from those of applicants overall. Table 3.1 Field of study preferences of the sample compared with the applicant population
|