The Use of the General Achievement Test in Student Selection at Monash University: a Preliminary Evaluation

The use of the general achievement test in student selection at Monash University: A preliminary evaluation Dr Clare Hourigan University Planning & Statistics, Office of Planning & Quality, Monash University Introduction In 2008, Monash University commenced a 3 year pilot program to use General Achievement Test (GAT) scores as supplementary information to the ENTER (Equivalent National Tertiary Entrance Rank) which is used to select students who apply to the University on the basis of their Victorian Certificate of Education (VCE). The University wanted to improve its ability to select students who would succeed at university and believed that an aptitude test could provide additional information about a student’s potential. The catalyst for this was a 2004 UK government instigated review of university admissions, and the subsequent recommendation of the use of aptitude tests for admissions to UK universities. This recommendation was partly based on the findings of a pilot of the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT). This study showed that some students scored well enough on the SAT to be considered for selection at top ranked universities even thought they hadn’t obtained the necessary secondary schooling results (McDonald, Newton & Whetton, 2001). The GAT was chosen because it had the advantage over other aptitude tests, such as the UniTest trialled at Monash’s Berwick campus in 2007, in that it is undertaken by all students doing their VCE and therefore no extra burden would be placed on students and administrative overheads would be minimised . Additionally, extensive analysis was conducted by Professor Rob Hyndman and Dr. Muhammad Akram at Monash University to measure the predictive value of GAT results on first year marks. The study was undertaken using the results of 4,270 students commencing in 2004. It was found that overall a student’s ENTER is the best predictor of their first year marks, accounting for 35.4% of the variance when used on its own although this varies by course. However, the addition of GAT scores improved predictability by about 3% and the effect was significant (Hyndman & Akram, 2006, p. 11). Additionally, when used on its own, the GAT was also found to be a strong predictor accounting for 32.3% of the variance in average marks (Hyndman & Akram, 2006, p. 12). The predictive nature of the GAT was also stronger for students with lower ENTERs suggesting that the GAT may be most useful for students on the borderline of receiving a Monash offer. An extensive consultation process then commenced with key stakeholders, including the Victorian Minster of Education and the Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority. Additionally a joint Monash/Victorian Tertiary Admissions Centre (VTAC) discussion paper was sent to all Victorian 1 secondary schools. There was little objection to Monash’s proposal to pilot use of the GAT, for three years, as additional information for consideration in middle band selection (which is where approximately 20% of places are assessed on a range of extra criteria for applicants with ENTERs below the ‘clearly‐in’ score). The main reasons for piloting the GAT were: 1. To differentiate between middle band applicants to identify those most likely to succeed at university. 2. To assist in identifying and selecting applicants who were likely to succeed at university but had underperformed in Year 12 due to personal circumstances or educational disadvantage. This paper provides a preliminary evaluation of the GAT pilot to monitor the extent to which it is meeting its aims. Background Increasing participation and diversifying the student population while maintaining quality The 2008 Review of Australian Higher Education highlighted the important role that the higher education sector has in preparing Australia for the demands of a global economy but found that the sector is not keeping up with current and future labour market demands for university qualified employees (Bradley, Noonan, Nugent & Scales, 2008). The Review recommended that Australia increase participation in higher education and, because participation varies across society, there should be a focus on under‐represented groups (Bradley, et al., 2008, p. 45). The Australian Government has responded by setting targets for low socio‐economic status (SES) student participation (20% of the undergraduate population by 2020) and bachelor level qualification attainment among 25‐34 year olds (40% of 25‐34 year olds by 2025). To provide assistance, the current cap on Commonwealth supported university places for domestic students will be removed by 2012 (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009a). The Government response encourages and provides the opportunity for universities to grow and diversify their domestic student populations. While this provides greater flexibility in setting strategic directions around education provision, it also raises some challenges. How do universities ensure growth and diversification is achieved without compromising on quality education? This challenge is likely to be a focus of the newly established Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and the upcoming cycle of audits. The Government has explicitly indicated that while the growth of the sector is a major goal, ‘institutions will be required to demonstrate that their graduates have the capabilities that are required for successful engagement in today’s complex world’ and that student academic performance will be a focus of TEQSA (Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, 2009b). Admission policies will play an important role in assisting universities to reach the Government participation targets. To maintain quality, universities will need to ensure that any growth or 2 diversification of the student population is only obtained by recruiting students who are academically able to successfully complete tertiary studies. If universities attempt to reach the targets by recruiting students who are unlikely to succeed at university even with additional support, they will run the risk of setting students up for failure or devaluing their degrees. This might also create a university student population that is diverse in ability rather than social background which can in turn create new teaching and learning challenges and impact negatively on the student experience. The use of Year 12 results in selection and why this may play a role in the under representation of low SES students Currently, the primary tool used by Australian universities to select school leaver students is Year 12 results. Research has shown that this is the best tool currently available (Hyndman & Akram, 2006) but Year 12 results are not a perfect predictor of university performance and may be affected by personal circumstances and student background. One of the main factors hindering university participation and qualification attainment among under‐ represented groups, such as those from low SES backgrounds, is that academic achievement at the secondary level is often lower among under‐represented groups. Year 12 completion rates improve with socio‐economic status (James, Anderson, Bexley, Devlin, Garnett, Marginson & Maxwell, 2008) as do ENTERs (Birrell, Rapson, Dobson, Edwards & Smith, 2002, p. 14). It follows then, that as Year 12 results are the primary selection tool used by universities, students from low SES backgrounds are less likely to obtain a place. There are a range of theories that try to explain why students from low SES backgrounds under‐perform in their secondary studies. James (2002, p.141) argues that their aspirations to attend university are lower and this is due to less encouragement from parents and less confidence in their own ability (James, 2002, p. 50). Additionally, and of some concern for the education system, his research also found evidence that low SES students were much less likely that high SES students to feel that their teachers encouraged them to aim for university (44% compared to 58%) (James et al, 2008, p. 37). Other researchers have specifically focused on the impact of schooling and shown that, in Victoria, Year 12 results obtained by Government schooled students fall behind those from Independent and Catholic schools (Edwards, Birrell and Smith, 2005), p. 10 and p. 20). They argue that school resources play an important role in how well a student performs in Year 12 and that students who cannot afford to attend Independent schools, or do not have access to a high performing Government school , may not have the same opportunities to do well enough in Year 12 to obtain a place at university. As stated in the final report of the Admissions to Higher Education Review undertaken in the United Kingdom (2004, p. 23), the university system cannot ‘be responsible for compensating for social disadvantage or shortcomings in other parts of the education system’. If Government schools are not sufficiently preparing students for university then this should be dealt with at the secondary level rather 3 than by universities. However, further research has suggested that Year 12 results among students from Government schools may under‐reflect their potential to succeed at university. In a study of students commencing their studies at Monash University in 2000‐2003, Dobson & Skuja (2002, p.59) found that, students who had attended non‐selective Government schools performed better than students from Catholic, Independent and selective Government schools when ENTER was controlled for. They argued that

Load more