Project | Approaches to addressing the ethnicity degree awarding gap

The Arts University of Bournemouth has a logic model (rather than a Theory of Change, as the causes of change are not interrogated) which shows the step-by-step process it is following to help eliminate the EDAG. The logic model is identified as a multi-stage approach which outlines how it aims to achieve its proposed outcome. The text supporting the logic chain model refers to a pre-intervention including internal analytics and research. The pre-intervention furthered understanding of the composition of the student body and found that relevant role models, the availability and promotion of clubs and societies, and decolonisation were of particular importance to their students from marginalised ethnic backgrounds. From this understanding, the initial phase of the multi-stage intervention focused on staff development to raise awareness and a deeper appreciation of assumptions and biases. This was then embedded into the curriculum, leading to a curriculum change, which aimed to enable students to feel represented. The hypothesis was that this would improve the attainment of marginalised ethnicity students. The provider gave a timescale for the implementation of the interventions, beginning with implicit bias training during 2019–20. Curriculum changes would go forward in 2020–21, allowing time for due reflection and discussion with student groups, while not overly extending the implementation period. Following these changes, the university is hoping for additional positive impacts, such as students feeling represented. This demonstrates the short-, medium- and long-term implementation of the multi-stage intervention and also shows continual reflection throughout the intervention.

The University of Wolverhampton demonstrated an informed understanding of their organisational makeup after conducting internal analysis. From this, it found that within the previous four years, 30% of its Black students studied business management, creative arts and design, computing or education. They found that the differential attainment within these subject areas over the past four years was over 30%, which was disproportionately impacting overall provider levels. This information guided which areas would be prioritised. The subject areas highlighted were then the focus of interventions in 2020–21, with the remaining subject areas subsequently targeted from 2021–22. From the findings, the university concluded that Black students are disproportionately represented in cases of academic misconduct. From this, they used a logic chain model which demonstrated a multi-stage approach to decrease academic misconduct for targeted students in the prioritised subjects and subsequently aimed to increase the attainment of students from marginalised ethnic groups. By understanding their own student composition, the provider was able to implement a multi-stage intervention, tailored to its contextualised needs and priorities.

The University of Winchester recognised its own challenges and barriers when conducting internal research. Through student consultation, it was established that Afro-Caribbean and Asian students were more reluctant to voice their opinions, ideas and concerns with administrators and that this was leading to a ‘White representation’ of the student voice. The acknowledgement of these barriers led to research into the experiences of Afro-Caribbean students. The findings of the report led to activities to address the EDAG. The university invited student representatives from different backgrounds to a new working group, where they could provide a student voice and monitor progress on the EDAG. Positions for ‘belonging consultants’ were also created to work with academic and professional services departments to identify areas for improvement that would enhance student inclusivity and sense of belonging.

The University of Westminster detailed how it had embedded student co-creation into its structures through a ‘students as co-creators’ programme. This programme enabled students to be involved with curriculum design, teaching and learning collaborations and disciplinary research collaborations. The university reported that the programme represents a diverse student body. It provides students with the opportunity to share their perspectives and ideas, shape their learning experiences, build networks, and develop skills in team building, leadership, communication research, giving presentations and managing projects. These experiences support students’ academic careers and help them to gain important skills to enhance employability.

The University of Kent provided greater detail in their ToC, particularly in accounting for how specific aims would be achieved. The ToC looked at medium- and long-term targets, according to the provider’s context, allowing reflection on practice and ensuring continual improvement throughout the life cycle. The ToC is particularly detailed and shows the input, resources and enablers needed to approach targets and the activities they will implement. Additionally, it includes aims, objectives and targets, along with strategic measures, outputs, outcomes and indicators of outcomes. The outcomes include short-term, medium-term and long-term assumptions and change mechanisms, which need to be met for attitudes, knowledge, behaviour and skills outcomes to be achieved. The indicators of outcomes are subject to ongoing evaluation through the course of the intervention and aim to produce narrative (Type 1), empirical (Type 2) and causal (Type 3) evidence. Within this model, the level of detail depicts the thought process behind the university’s aims and activities.

Bloomsbury Institute had a robust and well-articulated evaluation strategy. It identified current and future data sources that would be used to evaluate the different targets in its APP, and stated dates by when these would be undertaken. The plan recognised that the impacts of four-year programmes would not be seen for at least four years, and so highlighted ‘less ambitious’ realistic targets for the first three years of the intervention. The APP included the detailed information needed to complete evaluations of programmes and activities. The evaluation strategy refers to specific primary data sources (collected by the provider specifically for the evaluation) including surveys, interviews, learning analytics, and secondary data sources (collected separately from the evaluation data), such as from HESA and the OfS and internal monitoring data (e.g. course feedback). This HEP provides a detailed interim and final evaluation plan, which highlights the need and intention to use the emerging findings to adapt interventions where necessary, including decommissioning (i.e. stopping an activity) where findings suggest inefficacy or detriment to students. The university notes where interim evaluation has already impacted its provision:

“Through this evaluation process, for the second year of delivery (2017–18) we redesigned one of the two Semester 1 modules to provide more effective ‘scaffolding’ of learning and assessment. We included a low-stake task in Week 3, followed by progressively longer and more difficult tasks. This was successful and it was then rolled out across other modules in 2018–19.” – Bloomsbury Institute Ltd

Bloomsbury Institute identifies who has responsibility for undertaking the evaluations. Throughout its plan, this provider also indicates how the findings will be used and disseminated to a wider audience, both internally and externally, reflecting both a desire to share knowledge and an intention to seek out opportunities.