Enhancing Open and Distance Learning Capacity Building in SADC Region: The Role and Influence of SADC Centre of Specialisation in Open and Distance Learning in Teacher Education

Chapter 8 - Access and Equity in Higher Education in Indonesia: A Review from the Periphery

The history of women's engagement with the academy has been characterised by exclusion and inequality. Seven decades ago, Virginia Woolf1 asked: Do we want to join the procession or don't we? On wh...

Equity in higher education is mostly related to the context in which it is discussed. Most commonly, equity is sought for enhancing access to higher education for under-represented groups such as minorities, low income groups, or any other type of disadvantaged group of people. The plethora of research in this area mostly focuses on different types of affirmative action aiming to enroll more under-represented groups in higher education, whereas in the research on equity, within the context of educational outcomes and quality, the interaction between equity and quality in higher education is scarce. This paper discusses the entangled issues of equity and quality in higher education and explores the possible solutions to promoting both. It concludes that admission models aiming to achieve equity in higher education should be more outcomes-based (e.g., increase success) rather than process-based (e.g., increase participation).

One of the most important strategies of promoting higher education adopted in the recent years has been the promotion of private sector participation in higher education. It is argued by some that private higher education would improve equity, access and quality in higher education. But it shown here drawing from Indian and global experience that (a) public higher education has the greatest potential to address the issue of equity in higher education; (b) charity and philanthropy-based private sector may also have high potential in addressing this issue; (c) state-supported and effectively regulated private sector can address the issue to some extent; and (d) the private higher education sector based on the market principles can actually work against the principles and goals of access, equity and excellence in higher education.

Digital equity, grounded in principles of equity and the ethics of care, is essential for ensuring quality higher education. It facilitates access, supports sustainability, and promotes inclusive education by addressing the technological dimensions of education. This study explores the relationship between digital equity and sustainability in higher education. A total of 167 students enrolled in initial teacher education programs at the University of Primorska, Faculty of Education, completed a questionnaire featuring the Digital Equity in Higher Education Scale and the Sustainability in Higher Education Scale. To achieve this study’s objectives, a principal factor analysis was conducted to validate the scales, and a multiple linear regression was employed to develop a predictive model. The findings revealed that digital equity in higher education comprises five dimensions as follows: (i) access to teachers who support the use of digital technology; (ii) access to digital technology and opportunities for its use; (iii) access to digital resources; (iv) access to culturally relevant software and applications; and (v) access to open-access resources. Sustainability in higher education encompasses two dimensions as follows: (i) collaborative problem solving and (ii) socioemotional aspects of sustainability. These dimensions interact in a complex manner. Key predictors of digital equity and sustainability included access to and use of digital technology, as well as collaborative problem solving. Importantly, this study highlighted the critical role of skilled teachers in facilitating the effective use of digital technology.

A Dual admission model for equity in higher education: a multi-cohort longitudinal study

The increasing participation rate in higher education has raised its own issues, such as how to fund the growth while retaining the quality of education. In Finland, it has been argued that the tuition-free higher education policy increases equality. On the other hand, in the United Kingdom, establishing a system of tuition fees supported by an income-contingent loan system for students has also been argued to increase equality. In Australia, students also face high tuition fees for higher education, as well as a support system focused on domestic students. In addition to tuition fees, entrance examinations also play a crucial part in higher education systems. In order to examine inequalities in higher education from the students’ point of view, tuition fees are scrutinised in connection with equality, and entrance examinations in relation to cultural reproduction. Comparing examples of higher music education institutions in Finland, the United Kingdom, and Australia shows that there are large differences between the tuition fees charged for domestic and international students, as well as between countries. Entrance examinations in higher music education are similar in these countries, but may include inequalities based on long traditions in the field of music, especially in classical music. By revealing misconceptions about equity in higher education, it is possible to have a critical debate about the role of tuition fee systems as they are connected with the economics of higher education, and about entrance examinations as reproducing social class inequalities. This discussion may contribute to the redefinition and reformation of more equitable and just education systems, and promote equality in general in society.

This paper examines several research questions relating to equality and equity in Chinese higher education via an extended literature review, which in turn sheds light on evolving scholarly explorations into this theme. First, in the post-massification era, has the Chinese situation of equality and equity in higher education improved or deteriorated since the late 1990s? Second, what are the core issues with respect to equality and equity in Chinese higher education? Third, how have those core issues evolved or changed over time and what does the evolution indicate and entail? Methodologically, this paper uses a bibliometric analysis to detect the topical hotspots in scholarly literature and their changes over time. The study then investigates each of those topical terrains against their temporal contexts in order to gain insights into the core issues.

Affordability and Equity Concerns in Private Higher Education Institutions

The higher education (HE) equity and social justice agenda is primarily concerned with inequalities in the participation of underrepresented groups. The main purpose of this agenda is to widen access to the social privileges that HE offers. Transnational policy agencies and national governments have advised higher education institutions (HEIs) to deploy relevant indicators and implement inclusive practices, such as financial assistance, nondiscriminatory admission mechanisms, and student guidance and counseling. HEIs have also been funded to provide outreach and widening participation programs in several countries. In the early 21st century, the conceptualization of HE equity and justice has broadened from fair access to more holistic, procedural, and intersectional approaches. Still, the lack of reliable, relevant, and feasible policy indicators and data make it a challenging objective to measure and follow up. Furthermore, research has pointed out the need for contextualized definitions of equity and justice because the specific social and cultural challenges differ from one country to another. Equity and justice manifest themselves in the broader design of national and regional HE systems. Some HE systems have stronger institutional stratification and financial barriers than others, hence restraining the fairness of access and social inclusion. The application of Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological theory has dominated much of the research on structural constraints of HE equity and justice. An understanding of the connection between structure/agency and the cultural reproduction opens up new avenues for the development of HE equity and justice in both policy and practice.

This literature review study aims to provide an overview of influencing factors of access to and equity in higher education. In this way, the research offers insight into specific factors that support or hinder access and equity, respectively. Forty factors from thirty-three peer-reviewed articles, mostly from three continents: Europe, Australia, and America, published between 2014 and 2018, were selected for further analysis. The articles were analyzed into four organizational levels: government, university, pre-university education, and student. Most findings on this topic discuss government policies and financial support. In addition to financial support, the significance of this paper discusses social support influence (by peers, by family, by teachers, by university officers, and via programs) to improve access and equity in higher education. Social support emerged as crucial for both access and equity. This study alerts researchers, teachers, administrators at the university level, and policy-makers at the national level to focus more on social relations between peers, students, and lecturers, support by the managerial level, and establishing programs that provide basic academic skills to disadvantaged groups.

Objective: The objective of this study is to investigate the transformative potential of generative AI in advancing Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), with the aim of enhancing equity, accessibility, and quality in higher education through the integration of AI-driven systems and practices. Theoretical Framework: This research is underpinned by the AI Academic Convergence (AIAC) Framework, which aligns with theories such as constructivism, Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory, and Bloom’s Taxonomy. These frameworks provide a solid basis for understanding the interplay between personalized learning, cognitive engagement, stakeholder collaboration, and ethical governance in educational ecosystems. Method: The methodology adopted for this research comprises a Literature-Driven Conceptual Framework Development approach, synthesizing peer-reviewed studies across key themes: personalized learning, operational efficiency, collaborative learning, and ethical AI governance. Data collection involved systematic literature reviews of scholarly articles, books, and conference proceedings within the past decade. Results and Discussion: The results reveal that the AIAC Framework promotes tailored, adaptive learning pathways, enhances faculty roles as AI-enabled mentors, and optimizes administrative workflows through predictive analytics. The discussion contextualizes these findings within existing theories, emphasizing the framework's ability to mitigate challenges such as algorithmic bias, equity gaps, and data privacy concerns. Limitations include the need for empirical validation and addressing resource disparities in underprivileged contexts. Research Implications: The practical and theoretical implications of this research are significant for higher education institutions, policymakers, and AI practitioners. These include fostering innovative teaching practices, advancing equitable access to AI-enhanced tools, and aligning educational strategies with labor market demands through predictive analytics and collaborative governance. Originality/Value: This study contributes to the literature by introducing the AIAC Framework, an innovative and scalable model for integrating generative AI into education. Its value lies in bridging the digital divide, fostering lifelong learning, and positioning higher education institutions as leaders in ethical and sustainable AI integration, ultimately advancing the mission of SDG 4.

Reviewed by: Allies for Inclusion: Disability and Equity in Higher Education: ASHE Volume 39, Number 5 by Karen A. Myers, Jaci Jenkins Lindburg, & Danielle M. Nied Edlyn Vallejo Peña Karen A. Myers, Jaci Jenkins Lindburg, & Danielle M. Nied. Allies for Inclusion: Disability and Equity in Higher Education: ASHE Volume 39, Number 5. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2014. 152pp. Paperback: $29.00. ISBN: 978-1-118-84611-7 Today, 11% of college students report having a disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Federal legal mandates, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, coupled with growing enrollments of students with disabilities, have increasingly prompted postsecondary institutions to serve the unique and complex needs of their students over the past 25 years. In their monograph, Allies for Inclusion: Disability and Equity in Higher Education, Myers, Lindburg, and Nied (2014) bring attention to the ways in which institutional allies can support the needs and successes of college students with disabilities. The monograph is useful “to serve as a guide to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities” (p. 5) for researchers and higher education practitioners. The seven-chapter monograph departs from the majority of publications about students with disabilities in higher education. That is, the central purpose of Allies for Inclusion is to underscore and explore the role of faculty, staff, and administrators as allies in the lives of students with disabilities. The authors move a step beyond placing the onus of responsibility for postsecondary success on students with disabilities and disability service providers themselves toward a shared model of campus ownership and responsiveness toward students. The authors begin their first chapter with a discussion on preparing institutions of higher [End Page 310] education for a future of equity and inclusion for students with disabilities. It effectively establishes the significant role of allies and argues that the inclusion of people with disabilities is the responsibility of all campus constituents, not just those who work in disability and affirmative action offices. This theme of shared responsibility is woven into the fabric of the rest of the chapters. The second chapter details an overview of disability history in higher education. The authors describe critical pieces of legislation, policies, and cases that made an impact on disability movements in society, and in turn, institutions of colleges and universities. The unfolding descriptions of key decisions made in the United States capture the “spirit of change” over the last 60 years for students with disabilities. The authors describe different types of disabilities in the third chapter, with the majority of college students having been diagnosed with a learning disability or ADD/ADHD. Meanwhile, autism spectrum disorders and psychological disabilities are on the rise. The chapter summarizes research studies that report students’ experiences with faculty, disability services, and navigating campus cultures. The authors remind their readers that the whole campus is responsible for cultivating an inclusive climate. “Disability education is for everyone, by everyone. Through collaborative efforts and open communication, an entire campus community has the potential for providing a welcoming, inclusive environment” (p. 47). The next chapter focuses on “Understanding Campus Complexities: Problems, Challenges, and Marginalization.” The authors detail different theoretical lenses through which people with disabilities are viewed and treated, not just in society but in higher education. The models range from perpetuating damaging perceptions toward people with disabilities to a framework rooted in social justice. These models and frameworks include the moral model, the medical model, the functional limitations framework, the minority group paradigm, the social construction model, and the social justice perspective. Ultimately, the goal is to move toward a lens that “challenges those [traditional] assumptions, celebrating the uniqueness of individual differences while focusing on social change and transforming oppressive structures” (p. 53). The chapter also delves into attitudes about disability, as well as campus services, including serving veterans with disabilities. While the topics in the fourth chapter provide practitioners and researchers with critical information about ways in which to frame and serve students with disabilities, the major drawback of the monograph reveals itself in this very chapter, alerting the readers to a limitation that is systemic to the monograph. That is, Myers, Lindburg, and Nied fail to explain the ways in...

Higher education spaces are embedded within the larger ecosystem of societies, and they simultaneously endorse, question, critique, and transform societal norms. Exploring gender equity in higher education curriculum and pedagogy involves examining the systemic, social, and cultural dynamics that influence gender disparities within academic spaces and society. Examining gender mainstreaming in higher education pedagogy is essential to address systemic biases, promote inclusive teaching practices, and ensure that all students, regardless of gender, have equal opportunities to succeed. A co-constructed comparative case study of Kazakhstan and India provides a unique lens to understand these disparities and devise strategies to address them. In this study, we analyzed data collected from two universities to understand the challenges and curriculum and pedagogic practices that can create more equitable spaces. By adopting a collaborative research approach, this comparative study reveals common challenges, successful strategies, and practices that can help create gender equity and inclusivity in higher education. Findings indicate that while gender awareness and sensitivity are in the minds of the stakeholders, they are not embedded in the curriculum. Data analysis further demonstrates the need to incorporate more representative voices from different genders across the curriculum, both as textual material and as more diverse faculty. We argue that deep-rooted patriarchal norms and systemic barriers that continue to hinder gender inclusivity can be addressed not by creating specific courses or programs but by a holistic, inclusive curriculum that embeds gender equity in every aspect of higher education.

In 1990, the Australian Government published A Fair Chance for All, the first national framework for student equity in higher education. A Fair Chance for All declared that all Australians should have the opportunity to participate successfully in higher education, and that this objective could be met by ‘changing the balance of the student population to reflect more closely the composition of society as a whole’ (Department of Education Employment and Training, A fair chance for all: national and institutional planning for equity in higher education. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1990, p. 2). The Framework identified six under-represented groups for policy priority: people from low socioeconomic backgrounds; Indigenous Australians; people from regional and remote areas; people with disabilities; people from non-English speaking backgrounds; and women in non-traditional areas. Ambitious participation targets were established for each group, and national and institutional strategies were outlined to help reach these targets. Twenty-five years on, the architecture of the Framework remains in place. The original objectives, strategies and categories have shaped how access to higher education is understood, funded and managed through the most significant period of growth in higher education in Australia’s history. Targeted strategies and a rapid increase in student numbers have opened the doors of university to more Australians than ever before. Yet despite progress across some of the six categories and broad systemic growth, the student population still does not reflect the composition of society (Koshy, Student equity performance in Australian higher education. National Centre for Student Equity in Higher Education, Perth, 2014). Inequality is persistent, and progress in widening participation has been slow. This chapter argues the need for comprehensive reform of student equity policy to drive systemic and cultural change.