JISC

Download this publication

Technology and its role in supporting the work of admissions professionals in higher education institutions (HEIs) has been explored in three recent studies. The studies found that good practice exists in the areas of supporting learners through the application process, providing feedback to applicants and monitoring the process for fairness purposes. Technology already plays a role, but institutions would benefit from additional tools to help them in these tasks.

Almost all applications to higher education for undergraduate programmes through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) are currently made online, and UCAS member institutions receive data electronically. HEIs use data and information in a variety of ways to support the pre-application and admissions process, and advice and guidance colleagues in schools and colleges use information provided by HEIs to help students to make the best choices of course and institution, and guide them through the application process. All three of the studies found that the ways in which data is used varies widely from very limited to relatively sophisticated.

Admission to higher education is an area of great public interest and has been the subject of a number of recent national reviews and reports. The key concern is that all those who could benefit from higher education are given a fair chance to access the course and institution that best fits with their learning, career and life goals. The Schwartz review of admissions found that, while admissions in the UK are generally fair, there were still a number of issues which needed to be addressed. These issues were further considered by the Wilson Group and implementation has been taken up by the Admissions Reform Delivery Partnership and the Supporting Professionalism in Admissions programme.

These JISC studies were designed to investigate whether there are further technological means of supporting admissions around the topics raised by these recent reports on the themes of: the need for applicants to have access to timely and accurate information about courses and their entry requirements, to know how they will be assessed, and then to receive feedback in the event of being unsuccessful in their application; ensuring that admissions practices are professional and fair.

Study 1: Good practice in the provision of feedback to applicants

Provision of feedback to applicants is an issue that has been highlighted in the recent reports on admissions and also in practical terms, as HEIs receive increasing numbers of requests for feedback from applicants on unsuccessful outcomes. This study was run in tandem with other consultations being carried out by the Admissions Reform Delivery Partnership, and the outcomes have resulted in the production of an agreed statement of good practice for HEIs on providing feedback to unsuccessful students by the Supporting Professionalism in Admissions programme.

The study sought to find out whether other sectors, notably recruitment for employment, used mechanisms for feedback which might provide examples of good practice that could be replicated in HE admissions. However, the main finding of the report was that most employers’ processes for giving feedback to job applicants were not at a higher level of development than those of the best HEIs’ processes for giving feedback to HE applicants. As expected, there was a wide continuum of practice in recruiting organisations, ranging from the non-existent to the well developed and continuously improving. In particular there was no range of technology tools found to support the feedback process that are not already in use in HEIs. Volumes of requests for feedback as a proportion of the number of applications are much greater in relation to HE applications than job applications. The structured process of UCAS admissions, with a timetable and provision of data through a central source, lends itself to further exploration of the development of systems tools to aid the provision of both standardised generic feedback and more personalised feedback. In the meantime, helpful recommendations have been made to HEIs around good practice in providing feedback.

Study 2: Mechanisms for assessing the fairness and effectiveness of selection processes in admissions to higher education

HEIs collect data as a normal part of their admissions practices, with the intention of monitoring admissions activity to measure fairness, efficiency and effectiveness. However, there are few tools available to help them do this, and institutions are struggling to find their own solutions. Few have the tools to use the data to effectively change policy or practice in the light of the information the data reveals.

Part of the problem is that although fairness in admissions is an aim of all HEIs, it is a complex concept which does not lend itself easily to measurement or technological mechanisms. Furthermore, although the Schwartz report made recommendations on fairness, the understanding of what is ‘fair’ varies, and there is a mismatch between what HEIs consider to be fair and what students and schools consider to be fair, especially around the use of contextual data provided during the applications process. This study did find, however, that users of the admissions process (applicants and their schools and advisors) generally consider that the process is fair and efficient and have few suggestions to offer to improve it.

The study has shown a gap between the extensive monitoring of applications, offers and intake, and activity to change policies and processes as a result of this monitoring. The study found that most institutions are collecting and using data to monitor the progress of their admissions processes, for example to track numbers of incoming applications.

Some HEIs are collecting the data but using it in a limited way. Others demonstrated good practice by collecting and analysing data across a range of variables to provide information on how outcomes were being affected by processes. Best practice was found where institutions had for example asked themselves a question, eg ‘Were women more likely to receive an offer following an interview?’, analysed the data over a time period looking for trends and correlations, and then used the resulting information to amend policies and/or change practices.

The outcomes of the study suggest that further work would assist HEIs in the design and delivery of future systems that would address fairness issues.

Related work by TechDis looking at fairness and good practice in the admission of disabled students has found that many HEIs are not fully aware of the appropriate uses of disclosed information on disability in making admissions decisions, and the role technology can play in supporting students with a variety of impairments. It recommended that institutions regularly review their admissions procedures in relation to disability, to ensure that all technological means of supporting prospective students are investigated prior to rejecting a disabled student.

Study 3: Good practice in supporting learners throughout application to and induction in higher education, and the use of supporting technology

Existing technology is being used to support good quality, human-delivered information, advice and guidance practice, especially in relation to supporting learners in becoming more self-aware, and making sure that they have accessible and comprehensive information about opportunities.

Some interesting practice was also identified in relation to supporting learners in evaluating the information found and in making decisions, as well as presenting themselves to institutions and supporting them in understanding the nature of the HE experience and in particular HE learning. What is less satisfactory, however, is that, although many HEIs are now providing comprehensive information on opportunities, for example through the provision of UCAS course entry profiles, the quantity of information and variety of styles of presentation make it very difficult for the learner to filter the information to identify the best opportunities for them. Learners are turning to other sources of information such as social networking sites to help them in their decision-making about institutions and the nature of the learning they will undertake in HE. In addition, many of the systems in use are unable to exchange data.

A series of recommendations have been made to HEIs which will help support learners through application to induction.

Further information and resources

• Full reports from the three studies
• JISC–UCAS partnership
• Supporting Professionalism in Admissions programme
• Admissions Reform Delivery Partnership
• TechDis
• TechDis information on admissions
• eXchanging Course-Related Information (XCRI)
• Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills
• Department for Children, Schools and Families
• Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

You can download a copy of this publication below