Access policy and approaches to learning

ACCESS POLICY AND APPROACHES TO LEARNING Angus Duff, University of Paisley. ABSTRACT This study using second and third-year undergraduate business students as subjects, investigated the effects of differences in entry qualifications, gender and age to their approaches to learning. The research instrument used was a 30-item, Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (Tait and Entwistle, 1995). Differences between the groups were examined using repeated measures analysis of variance. No statistically significant differences were found between students entering university in second or third-year, from further education to those who had studied successfully at University for one or two years. Statistically significant age and gender differences were found in students’ approaches to learning. The implications for institutional admissions policies are discussed. KEYWORDS: approach to learning, direct-entry, gender, age, access policy 1 Introduction In most countries, higher education institutions seek to recruit the most highly qualified students leaving secondary school. However, in the United Kingdom, the provision of higher education has recently undergone rapid expansion. This is as a result of changes in educational policy and funding arrangements. To sustain this expansion, and to respond to demands to increase access to higher education for other student groups, universities and colleges in the UK are having to recruit non-traditional, older entrants from further education colleges. 42% of all individuals joining as full-time, first-year students, are now aged 21 years or over (Department for Education and Employment, 1994a). The majority of students aged 25 or over admitted to undergraduate courses in the UK are female, a trend which is more evident in those aged 35 or over (Department for Education and Employment, 1994b). Students adopting a non-traditional route to university, formed 42% of total admissions to higher educational institutions in England, in 1992 (Department for Education and Employment, 1994a). Given the changing nature of the student population (Metcalf, 1993), calls to improve access and direct-entry procedures (Fulton and Ellwood, 1989) and that Alevels are considered only suitable for only about 20 per cent of the population (Deere, 1992); it is surprising many admissions tutors are continuing to concentrate on school-based academic achievement (Brown and Bimrose, 1993). The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (NCIHE), considering the role of higher education in the UK over the next 20 years, recognises as a principle in its terms of reference that: “There should be maximum participation in initial higher education by young and mature students and in lifetime learning by adults, having regard to the needs of individuals.” (NCIHE, 1996) However, there is a general paucity of research literature on the experiences of mature and non-traditional entrants in higher education (Richardson, 1994 and Woodley, 1981). Most of the studies that consider older students have focused on their academic performance rather than their experience of higher education (Richardson, 1994). Furthermore, little research considers how students’ prior learning experience may affect their approach to learning. Approaches to Learning in Higher Education How individuals approach learning, that is, the relative emphasis given to learning with understanding relative to the reproduction of facts, or rote learning, has been an important and long-standing interest for education researchers. A broad consensus now exists that three clearly identifiable approaches to learning exist: a deep approach, a surface approach and a strategic approach. Their characteristics are defined in Table 1 below: 2 Table 1: Conceptions of approaches to learning Deep Approach − Intention to understand − Taking an active interest in the subject − Relating and organising ideas and concepts − Using evidence and logic to understand content Surface Approach − Memorise information needed for assessments − Difficulty in making sense − Problems relating concepts − Anxiety about coping with the demands of the course Strategic Approach − Intention to obtain the highest possible grades − Working hard to excel − Effective organisation of study − Effective time management Adapted from Entwistle (1987) It is generally accepted that a deep approach is considered desirable in higher education. Considerable work has focused on how such an approach may be stimulated. Research has attempted to operationalise the distinction between the three defining approaches to learning in terms of students’ responses to different scales of particular self-report inventories. Three commonly used instruments to measure students’ approaches to learning are: the Approaches to Studying Inventory (Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983); the Inventory of Learning Processes (Schmeck et al, 1977) and the Study Processes Questionnaire (Biggs, 1985). Each of these instruments has undergone extensive conceptual and psychometric evaluation. This study investigates the effect of differences in entry qualifications, gender and age in approaches to learning using a revision of the Approaches to Studying Inventory, the Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory - 1995a version (Tait and Entwistle, 1995). The study uses two samples of second and third-year accounting students at a ‘new’ university in Scotland. Entry qualifications are categorised into two groups: those gaining entry to university at second or third-year from further education (‘direct-entry’ students) and those who enter in first-year. Students are categorised into two age groups: mature students (i.e. those aged 25 or over on admission to university) and non-mature students. The present study proposes a methodology to take account of identified sampling and analysis problems with previous research. Hypotheses The hypotheses to be tested were developed in the context of previous research considering differences in entry qualifications, gender and age in students’ approaches to learning. A literature search reveals only one published work considering the effect of different entry qualifications in students’ approaches to learning. Henson and Schmeck (1993) using a sample of college and university students in the United States, and the Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP), report community college (i.e. further education) students are less likely to adopt a deep approach than their university counterparts. However, Roberts and Higgins (1992), reporting the views and experiences of students in higher education examined differences between students with a background in further 3 education to those with A-levels. Students entering university or college from further education felt better prepared than those holding the school-based A-level qualification in nearly every respect. In particular, students holding A-levels felt their school-based education did not encourage the development of the study skills most frequently required in higher education, such as independent study, note taking, planning and report writing. Students with a background in further education believed they were used to researching their own work, using libraries and working on real projects rather than essays. However this work does not consider the experiences of those entering from further education directly into second or third-year of their chosen course. Therefore, the first null hypothesis tested is as follows: H1 : There are no significant differences in approaches to learning between direct-entry students and those entering university in first-year Previous research investigating gender differences in approaches to learning in higher education have found evidence to suggest differences exist. Investigations have typically taken the form of quantitative measurement of approaches to learning using either the Study Processes Questionnaire (SPQ) or the Approaches to Studying Inventory (ASI). The results of these studies are shown in Table 2 below: Reviewing the gender differences in approaches to learning literature, Wilson et al (1996) report two methodological problems with prior research. A common methodological issue concerns sampling bias, with a number of studies reporting less than satisfactory response rates. Also, many studies do not provide any specification of sample characteristics in terms of gender, year or discipline of study. As approaches to learning are known to vary as a function of year and discipline of study (Biggs, 1987; Watkins and Hattie, 1981, 1985) it is possible any gender related differences could be attributable to the differential distribution of male and female students across years or disciplines of study. The second methodological problem concerns the use of inappropriate statistical procedures. Many studies reporting significant gender differences made multiple use of univariate statistics, without employing a more stringent significance level to attempt to avoid family-wise Type 1 errors. None of the studies reporting statistically significant differences, consider the measurement of effect size. Therefore some studies achieve statistical significance simply as a result of sample size. In conclusion, the most consistent finding to date, is an absence of gender differences at the scale level of approach to learning. Consequently, the present study tests the following null hypothesis: H2 : There are no significant gender differences in approaches to learning 4 Table 2: Summary of studies investigating age and gender differences in approaches to learning Study Instrument Morgan et al (1980) Watkins and Hattie (1981) ASI Watkins (1982) ASI Biggs (1985) SPQ Watkins and Hattie (1985) Harper and Kember (1986) Clarke (1986) Biggs (1987) ASI Results Age Gender Mature students significantly more Not reported likely to adopt a deep approach Students aged 21+ produced lower Females score higher than males on scores on surface approach and higher deep motivation and deep strategy scores on internalising Age significantly related to the No significant differences adoption of a deep approach Consistent decline in surface approach Not reported with age (from 18 to 40+) Not reported No significant differences ASI No significant differences ASI SPQ Clennell (1987) ASI Gledhill and van der Merwe (1989) ASI No significant differences Consistent decline in surface approach with age (from 18 to 40+) Mature students scored higher than younger students on deep approach and strategic approach. No tests of statistical inference carried out Not reported Miller, Finlay and McKinley (1990) Richardson (1993) Richardson (1995) Wilson et al (1996) ASI , SPQ Not reported Males score higher than females on reproducing and achieving orientations, females score higher than males on meaning orientation No significant differences ASI Not reported No significant differences ASI Age significantly related adoption of a deep approach Not reported SPQ ASI, SPQ 5 to the Statistically significant differences, direction not reported No significant differences Males score higher than females on surface approach Not reported Not reported No significant differences The next hypothesis examines whether age differences exist in approaches to learning. Reviewing the approaches to learning literature, Richardson (1994) observes that most research has ignored age as an important explanatory variable. He reports a consistent suggestion that mature students are likely to exhibit the more desirable deep approaches than younger students. The results of this literature search considering age and approaches to learning using self-report inventories is summarised in Table 2. However, similar methodological problems exist with much of the literature concerning age differences in approaches to learning as with the research that considers gender differences, namely sampling problems caused by inadequate response rates, poor disclosure of sample composition, the sampling of non-homogenous populations of university students, the inappropriate use of univariate statistics and no measurement of effect size. Therefore the third null hypothesis to be tested is as follows: H3 : There are no significant age differences in approaches to learning. Method Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (RASI) The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory is a more recent version of the ASI, includes a number of changes to the scales within the Deep and Surface scales. The revision includes new labels to make the terms more transparent to non-specialists and to produce comparable features between orientations. Each orientation has a distinctive form of motivation associated with it. Each of the main scales shows certain study processes associated with a distinctive intention (although this coincides with motive in the achieving orientation). The present study uses a short form of the 1995 RASI. The instrument is a 30-item, 12 scale questionnaire to establish how students tackle everyday learning tasks. Each scale consists of two to four items. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The instrument has undergone extensive psychometric investigation and demonstrates satisfactory reliability and validity (Duff, 1997). Table 3 shows the factor pattern matrix for the RASI of the sum of item scores of the 12 scales after oblique rotation and provides evidence of its internal consistency reliability. Internal consistency reliability is measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the present sample. The three factor pattern matrix for the RASI for the present sample, is reported after oblimin rotation to simple structure. An examination of the pattern matrix revealed that items for the three scales loaded consistently on the four factors as expected, suggesting high construct validity. The combination of scales into ‘approach’ scores, created alpha coefficient values between 0.78 to 0.82 - reasonable for scales of that length (Nunnally, 1978). Some of the scales contained items which were inadequately homogenous within their scale, suggesting they should not be used as separate variables for describing differences between students. Accordingly, the present study only uses the three approach scales in its analysis. 6 Table 3: Factor Pattern Matrix for 30-item Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory (n=306) Factors No. of items 10 2 2 3 3 0.06 - 0.01 0.03 - 0.03 Surface Approach Relying on memorising Difficulty in making sense Unrelatedness Concern about studying 10 2 2 2 4 Strategic Approach Determination to excel Effort in studying Organised studying Time management 10 2 2 3 3 Deep Approach Looking for meaning Active interest/critical stance Relating ideas Using evidence and logic I II III (Cron. alpha) 0.05 0.05 - 0.03 - 0.07 0.65 0.50 0.72 0.79 0.79 0.45 0.13 0.63 0.66 0.12 - 0.18 - 0.11 0.16 0.44 0.65 0.68 0.64 0.09 - 0.17 0.08 - 0.04 0.78 0.45 0.51 0.36 0.75 0.66 0.61 0.77 0.74 0.06 - 0.04 - 0.04 0.02 - 0.05 0.15 - 0.03 0.12 0.82 0.44 0.48 0.41 0.71 Principal axis factoring extracted 47.0 % of variance; oblimin converged in 8 iterations. Sample The RASI was administered to two independent samples, being students majoring in accounting in the 1995/96 and 1996/97 academic year. The first sample consisted of 179 second and third year accounting, business information technology (accounting stream) and combined studies (majoring in accounting) students (78 males; 101 females) following BA degree programmes at a university in Scotland in 1995/96. The ages of the males ranged from 18 to 52 years, and the ages of the females from 17 to 50 years. 73 were direct-entry students (35 male; 38 female); 106 students (43 male; 63 female); had already completed 1 or 2 years study at the institution. The second sample consisted of 137 second and third-year accounting, business information technology (accounting stream) and combined studies (majoring in accounting) students (43 males; 68 females) following BA degree programmes at the same university in Scotland in 1996/97. The ages of the males ranged from 18 to 48 years (mean = 23), and the ages of the females from 18 to 52 years (mean = 24). 27 were direct-entry students (13 male; 14 female); 84 students (30 male; 54 female); had already completed 1 years study at the institution. 26 students declined to identify themselves. 7 Procedure The instrument was administered by the author to the two samples in the first week of term in two lectures to the second and third-year students respectively. The first sample was collected in October 1995 and the second in October 1996. By sampling two cohorts of second and third year students we can be more confident the results represent differences in the wider population of second and third-year accounting students. Participation was entirely voluntary and students were given an assurance that the data would not affect any assessment procedures. Administration time totalled approximately 15 minutes. For the first sample, 93.8% of the second and third-year population enrolled on the accounting programmes were present at the time of administration, and of these, 99.4% completed a useable questionnaire. For the second sample 90.2% of the second year and third-year population were present at the time of administration, and of these 100% returned a useable questionnaire. The response rates were thus, 93.2% and 90.2% respectively. In summary, we can be confident that the sampling procedures have avoided the problems inherent in previous research; including inadequate response rates and those which sample quite distinct populations of university students. Analysis In order to test for differences in entry qualifications, gender and age in approaches to learning, data for the RASI was analysed by means of a repeated measures analysis of variance. The causal model to test the three hypotheses was as follows: Approach to Learning (Deep, Surface, Strategic) = a + b (Age Group) + c (Direct Entry) + d (Gender) + error Analysing age, entry and gender differences on each of the three RASI scales represents multiple testing. Accordingly, special procedures are adopted to incorporate dependencies within the experimental unit - a repeated measures design. To test the three hypotheses, the three RASI scale scores (the dependent variables) must be transformed. That is, instead of analysing the three RASI scale scores, linear combinations of their differences are analysed. These linear combinations are chosen so that they are: first, statistically independent (orthogonal) and second, so that the sum of the squared coefficients equals unity (normalised). As a result three transformed variables are formed: T1 = Deep scale score + Surface scale score + Strategic scale score T2 = 2 x Deep scale score - (Surface scale score + Strategic scale score) T3 = Surface scale score - Strategic scale score Separate analyses of variance are performed on each of the three transformed variables. Age group, entry and gender are the independent variables. Results H1 : The results of the repeated measures analysis of variance is reported in Table 4. As hypothesised, no statistically significant differences between direct-entry students and those entering university in first-year were found (F ratio = 2.17; p = 0.142). No interaction 8 between the three independent variables is reported. The analysis of variance results for transformed variable T2 and T3 identify no statistically significant differences. Therefore, the overall effect is consistent across the three scales of the RASI. H2 : Table 4 reports statistically significant differences between gender and the three ‘approach’ scales of the RASI (F ratio = 11.16; p = 0.001). No interaction between the three independent variables is reported. Whilst contrast 3 reports no statistically significant relationship between gender and the three RASI scale scores, contrast 2 identifies statistically significant gender differences (F ratio = 4.94; p = 0.027). This implies the difference reported by the overall effect is not consistent across the three RASI scales. An analysis of mean scores finds females score higher than males on Surface Approach (females = 35.39; males = 32.17) and Strategic Approach (females = 40.20; males = 37.83) - see Table 5. Therefore, although the overall effect reports statistically significant differences, these are not consistent across three RASI scales, with greater differences reported across the Surface Approach and Strategic Approach scales. H3 : Table 4 reports statistically significant differences between age group and the three ‘approach’ scales of the RASI (F ratio = 7.62; p = 0.006). No interaction between the three independent variables is reported. Whilst contrast 3 reports no statistically significant relationship between age group and the three RASI scale scores, contrast 2 reports statistically significant age differences (F ratio = 9.83; p = 0.002). This implies the difference reported by the overall effect is not consistent across the three RASI scales. An analysis of mean scores finds students aged 25 years or older score higher than males on Deep Approach (aged under 25 years = 37.13; aged 25 or older = 41.34) and Strategic Approach (aged under 25 years = 38.60; aged 25 or older = 41.41) - see Table 5. Therefore, although the overall effect reports statistically significant differences, these are not consistent across three RASI scales, with greater differences reported across the Deep Approach and Strategic Approach scales. 9 Table 4: Repeated measures analysis of variance Source of variation Grand Constant Age Direct entry Gender Age by Direct Entry Age by Gender Direct entry by Gender Age by Gender by Direct Entry df Mean Square F Ratio Significance 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,375.32 391.98 2,014.17 74.94 30.76 99.80 522.18 7.62 2.17 11.62 0.42 0.17 0.55 2.89 0.006 0.142 0.001 0.520 0.680 0.458 0.090 7 1,022.69 5.67 0.000 290 200.80 Contrast #1 Age Direct entry Gender Age by Direct Entry Age by Gender Direct entry by Gender Age by Gender by Direct Entry 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1,527.59 260.55 766.94 13.18 95.99 0.00 49.72 9.83 1.67 4.94 0.09 0.62 0.00 0.32 0.002 0.196 0.027 0.771 0.433 0.996 0.572 Explained 7 388.10 2.50 0.017 290 161.00 Contrast #2 Age Direct entry Gender Age by Direct Entry Age by Gender Direct entry by Gender Age by Gender by Direct Entry 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 287.09 68.57 132.27 2.30 6.20 238.98 6.47 3.38 0.81 1.56 0.27 0.07 2.82 0.08 0.067 0.369 0.213 0.869 0.787 0.094 0.783 Explained 7 107.47 1.27 0.27 290 85.41 Explained Total Total Total 10 Table 5: Mean scores of RASI scales by direct entry, gender and age group RASI scale Deep approach Surface approach Strategic approach 37.22 32.17 37.83 38.63 35.38 40.20 Gender Male Female Direct entry Direct entrant 39.54 34.03 40.06 Non direct entrant 37.25 34.04 38.75 Under 25 years 25 years or over 37.13 41.34 33.96 34.44 38.60 41.41 Age Discussion A general consensus exists in higher education that the encouragement of a Deep Approach is more desirable than a Surface Approach. That is, emphasising the understanding of concepts is preferable to the reproduction of facts. The results of the present study indicate there are no statistically significant differences in approaches to learning between direct-entry and non direct-entry accounting students. Therefore, an open access admissions policy is unlikely to detract from the quality of learning on a business degree course. The statistically significant gender differences found are inconsistent with the results of previous studies using the ASI and SPQ. The study indicates female students are more likely to adopt a surface approach than males. Previous studies that report gender differences suggest females are more likely to adopt a Deep Approach and less likely to adopt a Surface Approach than their male counterparts. Possible reasons for the difference include the methodological concerns with previous studies of the inappropriate use of multiple univariate statistics and sampling problems including sample response rate, characteristics and homogeneity. Previous work has considered largely social science or mixed groups of students, the only study of gender differences to include business students (Harper and Kember, 1986) was undertaken with a multi-faculty sample of Australian students. The Harper and Kember study reported significant gender differences but failed to indicate the direction of their findings. Possible reasons for the inconsistency of these findings with earlier research include the use of a different research instrument and the use of UK students, in the second or third year of a business course. Statistically significant differences between age groups are found in both samples. The findings indicate that mature students are more likely to adopt a Deep Approach than their younger colleagues. These results support the findings of Richardson’s (1995) study of social science students and provide further evidence that older students are likely to enrich the quality of higher education by providing school-leavers with an opportunity to learn from the mature students’ superior approaches to learning. In conclusion, students with different entry qualifications do not differ in their approach to learning. Therefore, broadening institutional admissions policy is unlikely to be detrimental to the quality of learning. This is a significant finding for admissions tutors and academics 21 who focus on narrow school-based academic achievement (Brown and Bimrose, 1993; Germon and La Gro, 1993). Furthermore, significant gender differences in approaches to study are found and older students are more likely to adopt a Deep Approach than younger students. Finding ways of promoting deep learning is an increasingly important topic in higher education (Gibbs, 1992). Educational background, age and gender are important social variables for consideration in the design of degree programmes. The identification of consistent and substantive differences would imply differential teaching strategies for different social groups. Ongoing research in differential approaches to learning across all years and disciplines of study should use precise sampling and appropriate statistical models. Future research that identifies differences in approaches to learning created by institutional policies of open access has immediate relevance to the practicalities of effective teaching in higher education. References Biggs, J.B. (1985) The role of metalearning in study processes. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 185-212 Biggs, J.B. (1987) Student Approaches to Learning and Studying. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research Brown, A. and Bimrose, J. (1993) Admissions to Higher Education: Current Practice and Future Policy, Guildford: University of Surrey Clarke, R.M. (1986) Students’ approaches to learning in an innovative medical school: a cross-sectional study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 56, 309-321. Clennell, S. (1987) Older Students in Adult Education. Milton Keynes: Open University Deere, M. (1992) Admissions to Higher Education: A Survey in Higher Education in the Post-Binary System, London: Gresham College Department for Education and Employment (1994a) Mature Students in Higher Education Great Britain: 1982 to 1992, Statistical Bulletin 16/94. Darlington: DFEE Department for Education and Employment (1994b) Students in Higher Education England: 1991 and 1992, Statistical Bulletin 17/94. Darlington: DFEE Duff, A. (1997) A note on the reliability and validity of a 30-item version of Entwistle & Tait’s Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67 (4), 529-539 Entwistle, N.J. (1987) A model of the teaching-learning process. In J.T.E. Richardson, M.W. Eysenck, and D. Warren Piper (Eds.) Student Learning: research in education and cognitive psychology. Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press Entwistle, N.J. and Ramsden, P. (1983) Understanding Student Learning. London: Croom Helm Fulton, O. and Ellwood, S. (1989) Admissions to Higher Education: Policy and Practice, Sheffield; Employment Department Training Agency Germon, S. and La Gro, N. (1993) Gatekeepers’ Views of the Requirements of Entrants into Higher Education, Guildford: University of Surrey Gibbs, G. (1992) Improving Student Learning Bristol: Technical and Educational Services Gledhill, R.F. and van Der Merwe, C.A. (1989) Gender as a factor in student learning: preliminary findings. Medical Education, 23, 201-204 22 Harper, G. and Kember, D. (1986) Approaches to study of distance education students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 17, 212-222 Henson, M. and Schmeck, R.R. (1993) Learning styles of community college versus university students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 118 Metcalf, H. (1993) Non-traditional Students Experiences of Higher Education, London: CVCP Miller, C.D., Finley, J. and McKinley, D.L. (1990) Learning approaches and motives: male and female differences and implications for learning assistance programs. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 147-154 Morgan, A., Gibbs, G. and Taylor, E. (1980) Students’ Approaches to studying the Social Science and Technology Foundation Courses: preliminary studies (Study Methods Group No. 4) Milton Keynes: Open University. National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1996) Terms of Reference. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England. Nunnally, J.C. (1978) Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill Richardson, J.T.E. (1993) Gender differences in responses to the Approaches to Studying Inventory. Studies in Higher Education, 18, (1) 3-13 Richardson, J.T.E. (1994) Mature students in higher education: I. a literature survey on approaches to studying. Studies in Higher Education, 19, (3) 309-325 Richardson, J.T.E. (1995) Mature students in higher education: II. an investigation of approaches to studying and academic performance. Studies in Higher Education, 20 (1), 309-325 Roberts, D. and Higgins, T. (1992) Higher Education: The Student Experience, Leeds: Heist Schmeck, R.R., Ribich F.D. & Ramaniah, N. (1977) Development of a self-report inventory for assessing individual differences in learning processes. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 413-431. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, B. (1989) Using Multivariate Statistics. New York: Harper & Row. Tait, H. and Entwistle, N.J. (1995) The Revised Approaches to Studying Inventory. Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Learning and Instruction, University of Edinburgh Watkins, D. (1982) Identifying the study process dimensions of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Education, 26, 76-85 Watkins, D. and Hattie, J. (1981) The learning processes of Australian university students: investigations of contextual and personological factors. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 384-393 Watkins, D. and Hattie, J. (1985) A longitudinal study of the approaches to learning of Australian tertiary students, Human Learning, 4, 127-141 Wilson, K.L., Smart, R.M., and Watson, R.J. (1996) Gender differences in approaches to learning in first year psychology students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 59-71 Woodley, A. (1981) Age bias. In (Ed. D. Warren Piper) Is Higher Education Fair? pp. 80103 Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education 23