Course Structures and Governance

It is important to understand the diverse range of disadvantaged and underrepresented learners who seek access to further learning through FFUR pathways. In addition to the six targeted equity groups, typical FFUR learners include individuals impacted by issues such as financial hardship, regional isolation, carer responsibilities, health and learning difficulties, or trauma, preventing access to higher education. It is essential to acknowledge that individuals’ engagement, academic performance, and decision-making within higher education are significantly influenced by their personal experiences as well as the broader social inequalities they encounter outside of it (Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 2015; Mayne, 2001; Stenhouse, 1980; Whitty et al., 2015). Recent work continues to emphasise the importance of recognising intersectionality and cumulative disadvantage in shaping student outcomes (Dean, 2024). Understanding the wide breadth of cohort diversity is essential for designing responsive and inclusive FFUR offerings which do not lock individuals out of participation because of rigid equity categories (Allen, 2025; Bennett et al., 2018).

The list of factors that impact educational disadvantage was originally developed by members of the NAEEA Executive Group as a guide to better understanding FFUR cohort demographics. It has been updated further below, to convey understanding of the increasingly wide breadth of FFUR cohort diversity and the challenges they face/have faced in their education. This is important to capture, especially as other higher education admissions schemes and pathways continue to develop and grow over time. Understanding the participants and their backgrounds is essential when designing engaging, responsive and inclusive FFUR offerings.

Institutions should aim to gain a nuanced understanding of their FFUR cohorts and the associated diversity of their needs, through confidentially collecting and analysing student data of various types. This information should be viewed through an intersectional lens and consider how the above characteristics may compound, resulting in more complex levels of educational disadvantage.

Despite the longstanding presence of access pathways within Australian Higher Education, there is currently no nationally recognised taxonomy of ‘Enabling’ (FFUR) education types. The proposed Taxonomy (as part of the Framework) is intended to share understanding of typical FFUR course structures. They build on the NAEEA’s Three Components of Enabling (2019b) and feedback from consultation.

There has been significant innovation over time as part of a place-based and cohort-specific approach to FFUR pathways, since other university entry schemes have developed and changed, and especially as prerequisites for awards have reduced and been removed in many locations. FFUR courses have been critical to empowering students from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds and non-traditional pathways, including lower levels of VET, portfolios and recommendation schemes, to access and succeed in higher education (Department of Education, 2024b).

As outlined in the Taxonomy, there are currently four main types of FFUR courses delivered nationally:

1. FFUR Courses: In-depth programs of learning with multiple units for students who require longer forms of preparation. Enables uni-readiness and grants access to higher education study.
2. FFUR Micro Units: Shorter-form FFUR units/modules to support students in learning foundational skills and knowledge development for specific degrees. Often taken prior to, or concurrently with first-year higher education study.
3. FFUR Embedded Units: One or two FFUR units which provide transition and support for students within a pathway award (typically a pathways Diploma course.)
4. FFUR Community Projects: Community or school-based projects in institutions with significant areas of demonstrated need. Offers flexibility of delivery of FFUR units in external settings.

Across the sector, FFUR courses are offered in a variety of types and formats. While best practice pedagogy principles are relevant to all types of FFUR courses, subsequent sections of this guide, including Curriculum Design, apply predominantly to Type 1: FFUR Courses.

The proposed FFUR Framework suggests a consistent approach to institution-specific FFUR delivery, which has developed over time, whilst allowing for flexibility in delivery.

The below figure provides examples of four student journeys through different FFUR Type 1 offerings, tailored for their particular needs:

Examples of diverse student pathways

To optimise national consistency, it is proposed that all FFUR types should align with the NAEEA Common Learning Outcomes (NAEEA, 2019a).

The NAEEA Common Learning Outcomes outline the shared academic and skill outcomes expected across all FFUR types. These learning outcomes include knowledge of higher education environments, and development of academic literacies, critical thinking, and independent learning skills. Moreover, they provide a consistent blueprint for FFUR course delivery, irrespective of type, location, length or mode of delivery. It is recommended that providers ensure that their FFUR courses, irrespective of type, meet these common learning outcomes, that they are communicated clearly to students, and this information is included in the course/unit handbooks.

The Common Learning Outcomes cover three domains (knowledge; skills; application of knowledge and skills), and detail FFUR learner achievement across these domains. Applying these outcomes would ensure consistency and quality across the full spectrum of FFUR Types 1-4, nationally.

To assist with improved national recognition and portability, the proposed Framework includes recommendations on:

• FFUR Minimum achievement standards
• FFUR course governance guidelines for access courses
• Suggestions for a national FFUR access registry for portability
• Suggestions for consistent attainment ratings to assist with student mobility

Project consultation demonstrated the need for consistency in student competencies in academic literacies and across a range of fields of education. The achievement level descriptions (minimum standards) outlined in the Report on Policy Setting are proposed to provide a guide to the typical performance of students in academic literacies (reading and writing) and numeracy. FFUR providers would assure the standards, including the integrity, depth and breadth of study, which the student has achieved.

The Teaching in Practice section below outlines best practice approaches to assist students in reaching minimum standards required for further study in higher education, including recommended design and rigour of FFUR unit types. Guidance on skills, knowledge and achievement level descriptions are also provided.

Further, the proposed FFUR Framework suggests formalising the institutional governance guidelines, as recommended and produced by the NAEEA in Declaration on Enabling Education in Higher Education, which draws on the Higher Education Standards Framework (NAEEA, 2019b), including:

Quality assurance measures: Courses must be approved and accredited through the university policies, monitored and reviewed in accordance with university policy and contain appropriate academic integrity processes in line with policy (NAEEA, 2019b).

The Report on Policy Settings also includes approaches to enable more FFUR portability nationally.

For more advice on quality assurance and institutional policy for FFUR, see Institutional Policy & Advocacy below.

The FFUR Evaluation Principles provide approaches for assessing and improving FFUR offerings.

Evaluation supports continuous improvement through monitoring, benchmarking, and feedback, ensuring that FFUR courses remain effective and responsive to student needs. Evaluation should capture a range of data, including student outcomes and experience, and be designed in such a way as to be comparable across the sector.
As highlighted by Biesta (2010) and other theorists (see e.g., Burke & Lumb, 2018) who convey the importance of values-based approaches in education, evaluation methodologies must enable identification of the multiple complex variables involved in generating outcomes that matter to the groups they are intended for. They must also respond to changing contexts and needs over time in ways that are valuable to all participants.

A dynamic and iterative process, which integrates delivery with evaluation, is important for ensuring responsiveness to changing contexts and participant needs (Bennett, 2018). An evaluation approach — which considers what matters to the people the courses are intended to serve, and which prioritises understanding the diverse experiences, goals, and outcomes of participants — enables reach, engagement, and success of students in the variable ways which are valuable to them. Evaluations must be focused on the diverse experiences and outcomes of student cohorts, e.g. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students and those from disadvantaged backgrounds. This enables understanding of the continuously changing external pressures, inequalities and prejudices, including racism, that people face in accessing, continuing, and completing all forms of education.

Re-imagining Evaluation, produced through a collaboration between the NSW Department of Education, University of Newcastle, NSW Aboriginal Education Consultative Group and principals from Connected Communities schools (NSW Department of Education, 2023) provides an important, culturally responsive evaluation framework, which embeds illuminating Aboriginal perspectives and values. This work shows how conventional evaluation methods often fail to capture the lived experiences and aspirations of Aboriginal students, families, and communities, as well as serves to reproduce cultural biases in education systems. Implementing the following approaches ensures that both educational practices, and the evaluation of it, is: 

• Culturally responsive and educative for all
• Community-driven
• Co-designed with thoseimpacted
• Able to recognise success through student and community-defined outcomes
• Narrative and student experience-based, rather than purely data-driven

This is so that inequalities and other important knowledges are not erased from both consideration and inclusion in education.  

The steps that FFUR evaluators should engage in are: 

1. Engagement and Trust Building: Establish and maintain relationships with school communities and stakeholders. 

3. Fieldwork and Data Collection: Conducted through interviews, discussion groups, and yarning circles. 
4. Validation and Co-development: Sharing findings with communities and collaboratively developing recommendations. 

Treating units and courses as works in progress, continuously mapping aims and activities to outcomes, and reconsidering how outcomes reflect back on their design is essential (Bennett, 2018). The differential experiences across demographic subgroups, modes of study, and learning environments, and feeding evaluation findings into curriculum planning, reporting, and staff development, fosters innovation and systemic improvement. 

Evaluation frameworks such as the Student Equity in Higher Education Evaluation Framework (SEHEEF) (Robinson et al., 2021) provide structured, context-sensitive approaches to assessing equity initiatives. These frameworks emphasise mixed-methods evaluation, embedded design, and student-centred metrics that reflect what matters to participants. The SEHEEF promotes mixed-methods evaluation, combining quantitative impact evaluation (QIE) and theory-based impact evaluation (TBIE). This supports the iterative and context-sensitive evaluation processes described in your document, allowing for both statistical analysis and deeper qualitative insights. The following diagram captures these key points from this literature:
Figure: Student Equity in Higher Education Evaluation Framework (SEHEEF)

The Equity Initiatives Framework 2.0 from the Critical Interventions Framework Part 3 (Bennett et al., 2024) offers a mapping of impactful initiative types and tools for evaluating impact in ways that are inclusive and responsive to diverse student needs.  

Evaluating FFUR offerings using these approaches ensures that offerings are not only accessible but also meaningful and effective for those they aim to support. 

In terms of approaches to evaluation, the Critical Interventions Framework (Bennett et al., 2015 and 2024) project studied access and the impact of equity programs  and found : 

• Evaluation is undertaken most frequently through mixed-methods approaches that utilise quantitative and qualitative data;  

• Multiple effects and outcomes, including: increased access, retention and performance; improved student experiences, connectedness and engagement; informing aspirations for higher education;  

• Collaborations that join program providers’ specialist knowledge with evaluation and research expertise promote rigorous forms of evaluation and high-quality provision.  

• Programs that demonstrate impact use evaluation that is stakeholder centred, context specific and iterative.  

Rich information may be gained from a mixed-methods approach (usually combining qualitative and quantitative methods) to understanding the impact of an initiative/suite of interventions.  

The following are examples of evaluation methods and data sources relevant to equity interventions: 

• Course logic analysis (including plausibility analysis, needs analysis and input/output requirements) 

• Surveys of student and other stakeholder characteristics and experiences (using qualitative and/or quantitative designs) 

• Focus groups with students and other stakeholders (for eliciting targeted feedback and information) 

One-to-one interviews with students and other stakeholders (for exploring more detailed or complex issues) N.B. Focus groups and interviews may be conducted online or by telephone to overcome challenges of distance and cost 

• Documentary/narrative/discourse analysis of program information and resources 

• Documented reflective activities, which may be conducted before and after an initiative to explore its impact 

• Creative forms of feedback from participants (via journal entries, illustrations, responses to narratives, mentors and other stimuli) 

• Participant observation of courses in action (e.g. in learning contexts) 

• Benchmarking (through external program review or comparisons with other interventions or sectoral and/or institutional norms) 

• Case studies of specific interventions (which may involve comparisons between different interventions) 

• Analysis of input/output measures (e.g. numbers of participants, qualifications, numbers of scholarships awarded, etc.) 

• Longitudinal tracking of individual student experience and outcomes

• Cohort analysis (comparing program offers, admissions, enrolments, attrition, retention, success and completion rates)

• Service process tracking (e.g. changes in contact waiting times)

• Web analytics (using the increasing amount of online data to track and analyse student and/or course performance)

• Randomised control trials (initially designed for testing new drugs but now being used for educational interventions)

• Economic modelling (to estimate economic and community-wide or individual benefit from participating in a course)

The Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success (ACSES) provides support and development for evaluations through various schemes, and particularly for developing large, quantitative trials.