Cristina Pérez Maldonado, University Autonomous of Barce- lona
Key words: Access; Higher education; Barriers; Facilitators;
Non-traditional paths.
Introduction and theoretical framework
Currently in Spain, everybody is able to access University by his or her own merits. In our context, there is a constant de- bate in relation to the standardized exams (PAU) to access University. These tests are used as a filter and they can be linked to merit and excellence promotion only. This access path, throughout PAU, limits and forgets to take into account students' social dimensions; such as their socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds and their individual characteristics. However, the standardized tests are commonly justified by the fact that the labour market is not able to absorb as many uni-
versity graduates, as well as to maintain the professional qual- ity required from a massive pool of students (Juarros, 2006). Taking into account that university enrolment has increased in recent years, some education policies developed by the Ad- ministration will have an essential role. One of the latest edu- cation legislations to be implemented in the Spanish educa- tion system is named "LOMCE", which has as a main goal to create new selective filters at the earliest stages of education. However, equal opportunities in accessing University do not guarantee equitable access. This is because it has not taken into account socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds of the students, as well as their schooling progress and experience. It has been studied by Martínez-Celorrio & Marín (2010) that student progress is directly dependent on its decision of cost- risk-benefit, in relation to a student’s social class. On one hand, in order to achieve a certain social status, the student with a high socioeconomic status will tend have longer school- ing. Conversely, it will be expected that a student with a low socioeconomic status will choose shorter and more modest schooling due to its cost-opportunity consequences. This evi- dence suggests that many students usually decide to interrupt their higher education or deviate to shorter training paths fo- cused on the labour market.
There are inconsistencies when it comes to value, if the access to higher education is based on an equitable perspective (Martínez-Celorrio & Marín, 2010). Some different positions are related to diverse interpretations about the concepts of eq- uity and its distinctive meaning with equal opportunities.
As a consequence, the objective of this research is to identify and analyse barriers and facilitators that students encounter when accessing University, and what influences them in decid- ing to access University by non-traditional paths.
Research questions and Objectives
Some questions regarding University access from undergradu- ate students have arisen as a result of this research problem. These questions are focused on the motives that lead students to access University through non-traditional paths and its pos- sible relation with encountered facilitators and barriers throughout schooling. These are the following:
- What conditions lead students to access University through non-traditional paths?
- What perceptions do students have about Univer- sity?
- What facilitators and barriers are perceived by stu- dents to access University?
- How could we reduce barriers and strengthen facili- tators in order to guarantee equity when accessing University? The objectives developed from the questions exposed previ- ously are:
1. Analyse the factors that lead students to access Uni- versity through non-traditional paths.
1.1. Identify decision facts that determine the reason why students access University through non-traditional paths. 1.2. Study of perceptions, opinions and stereotypes that students have in relation to University and its access through non-traditional paths.
1.3. Analyse facilitators and barriers perceived by stu- dents to University access through non-traditional paths.
2. Validate a model that supports students in order to re- duce barriers when accessing University.
2.1. Analyse good practices and relate them with identi- fied barriers.
2.2. Create a model in order to reduce existing barriers and to strengthen facilitators.
2.3. Validate the model created by experts.
Methods and Methodology
This study is based on the interpretative paradigm. The design developed is a mixed methods research since it involves col- lecting, analysing and interpreting qualitative and quantita- tive data. Specifically, the type of design conducted is classi- fied as an exploratory sequential (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; McMillan & Schumacher, 2010).
This design has two different phases: in the first phase qualita- tive data is collected and in the second one, and from the analysis of this data, quantitative data is collected to show pos- sible relation between the studied factors (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2007). Thereby, quantitative data will complete, deter- mine and expand all the data collected through qualitative tools.
The sample for this multi-case study is formed by public uni- versities in Barcelona, Spain: Universitat de Barcelona, Univer- sitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Uni- versitat Politècnica de Barcelona and Universitat Oberta de Barcelona. The context selected for this research is the prov- ince of Barcelona since it collects the greater number of univer- sities and students in Catalonia, having a total of 36.614 enrol- ments during the 2013-2014 academic year.
Results of the research
The earliest result of this research is a brief of barriers that stu- dents could find when accessing to University:
References
Burke, P. J., Bennett, A., Burgess, M. C. & Gray, K. (2016). Ca- pability, belonging and equity in higher education. Australia: The University of Newcastle.
Carnoy, M., Maldonado, A., Santibañez, L. & Ordorika, I., (2002). Barreras de entrada a la educación superior y a opor- tunidades profesionales para la población indígena
mexicana. Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos ( M é x i c o ) , X X X I I ( 3 ) , 9 - 4 3 . R e c u p e r a d o d e http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=27032302.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clarck, V. L. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. United States of Amer- ica: SAGE.
Gairín, J. (2015). Los sistemas de acceso, normativa de perma- nencia y estrategias de tutoría y retención de estudiantes en educación superior. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer.
Gairín, J., Rodríguez-Gómez, D. & Castro, D. (2012). Éxito académico de colectivos vulnerables en entornos de riesgo en Latinoamérica. Madrid: Wolters Kluwer.
Generalitat de Catalunya. Universitat i recerca. Accés i ad- misió a la universitat [online]. [Barcelona]: Catalunya. [Con- sulted: 15th june of 2016].
Juarros, M. F. (2006). ¿Educación superior como derecho o como privilegio? Andamios. Revista de investigación social, 3 ( 5 ) , 6 9 - 9 0 . A t :
http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/628/62830504.pdf
Martínez-Celorrio, X. & Marín Saldo, A. (2010). Educació i mo- bilitat social a Catalunya. Barcelona: Fundació Bofill.
Martínez, J. (2007). “Clase social, género y desigualdad de oportunidades educativas”. Revista de Educación, 342, 287- 306.
McMillan, J. & Schumacher, S. (2010). Mixed Method De- signs. In Hearn, J. (Ed.), Research in Education: Evidence- Based Inquiry, 7th edition. (pp. 394-415). Boston: Pearson.
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. (2015). Datos y cifras del sistema universitario español. Curso 2014-2015. Ma- drid: Secretaría General de Universidades.
Morley, L. & Lugg, R. (2009). Mapping meritocracy: Intersect- ing gender, poverty, and higher educational opportunity struc- tures. Higher Education Policy, 22, p. 37-60. United King- dom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mullen, F. (2010). Barriers to Widening Access to Higher Edu- cation. Scotland: The Scottish Parliament.
OCDE (2008b). Tertiary education for the knowledge society (2): Special features: equity, innovation, labour market, inter- nationalisation. Paris: OECD.
Pérez-Esparrels, C., Ramos, M., Adiego, M., & Cerno, L. (2013). Principales determinantes del acceso a la educación superior en España: ¿existen diferencias antes y después de la crisis? XXII Jornadas de la Asociación de Economía de la Edu- cación (págs. 1-35). La Coruña: AEDE.
Purcell, W. (2008). Balancing the needs and expectations of society with the autonomy of higher education institutions. Outcomes of higher education: Quality relevance and impact, 8-10 September, Paris (France).
Savitz-Romer, M., Rowan-Kenyon, M., Weilundemo, M., & Swan, A. (2010). Educational pathways to equity: A review of global outreach and bridge practices and policies that pro- mote successful participation in tertiary education. Washing- ton, DC: The World Bank.
UNESCO (1998). World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision and action. World Confer- ence on Higher Education. UNESCO, Paris.
UNESCO. (2009). Directrices sobre políticas de inclusión en la educación. París: UNESCO.
Vaccaro, A. (2012). An analysis of Access Barriers to Post- Secondary Education. College Quarterly, 15 (4).