Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Enablers of Knowledge Management Strategies in a Higher Education Institution
Previous Article in Journal
Revisiting Urban Resilience: A Systematic Review of Multiple-Scale Urban Form Indicators in Flood Resilience Assessment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 12
10.3390/su16125079
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Do Chinese Residential Colleges Narrow the Education Disparity Caused by Socioeconomic Status? A Comparison of Public and Private Universities Using Two Main Approaches to Assess Disparities in Access and Academic Attainment

by
Pingping Gui
1,2 and
Gazi Mahabubul Alam
2,*
1
Center for Faculty Development, Sias University, Zhengzhou 451150, China
2
Department of Foundation of Education, Faculty of Educational Studies, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(12), 5079; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125079
Submission received: 13 May 2024 / Revised: 7 June 2024 / Accepted: 13 June 2024 / Published: 14 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Education is acknowledged as vital for a nation’s economic progress, yet socioeconomic status often dictates access to high quality education, endangering the achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4), where equitable learning is paramount. Previous studies suggest that public residential colleges (RCs) can narrow the gap in achievement among students of varying socioeconomic status (SES). Nonetheless, they do not guarantee participants equal opportunity across all SES levels to attend RCs. Their effectiveness in private higher education institutions, particularly in China, remains underexplored. This study compares RCs in the public and private sectors to examine their role in promoting sustainable education in China. Employing the proportional stratified sampling technique, questionnaires were distributed among 615 RC students from both the public and private sectors. Through descriptive and multiple regression analyses, findings strongly indicate that RCs—whether in public or private universities—cannot guarantee equal access to RCs for learners from various SESs. Particularly, the enrolment disparity in the private sector is more pronounced. Despite these differences, RCs, regardless of institutional affiliation, contribute to narrowing academic discrepancies, as measured by Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA), among students from various SES backgrounds. This underscores the significance of RCs in reducing academic attainment disparities across different types of colleges. Consequently, while RCs prove to be effective in narrowing academic discrepancies, there is a pressing need to prioritize equal access to RCs for individuals from disadvantaged SES backgrounds. Addressing this challenge is crucial for tackling issues linked to sustainable education, and in this way, ensure the SDGs are actually achieved.

1. Introduction

Over time, the huge increase in higher education enrolments has become a global phenomenon, leading to the establishment of mass higher education systems in many countries [1,2]. As higher education becomes more widespread, it also becomes more di-verse and differentiated [3]. Consequently, there is a growing disparity among university types [4]. In doing so, private higher education institutions (HEIs) have become increasingly popular [5]. Nonetheless, debates on the massification and diversification of HE raise questions about whether socioeconomic equity has improved with increased participation in both public and private HE sectors to ensure sustainable learning activities. Social studies yield conflicting conclusions on this matter.
One perspective suggests that the expansion of education, leading to high participation systems (HPSs) in public and private higher education institutions (HEIs), has ex-tended to groups characterized as coming from disadvantaged socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds [6]. This view assumes that the private sector will accommodate student demand that the public sector is unable to meet; thus, both public and private sectors contribute to increasing the total access [4]. However, another perspective argues that HE has historically been elitist, catering to a small proportion of the relevant age cohort [7]. State-subsidized public HE, along with private HE, has tended to favor the relatively privileged, who have better access to high-quality secondary schools and can subsequently afford the costs of tertiary education [8]. Consequently, while the expansion of HE has been seen as a democratizing process that could contribute to greater equality, there are now contested claims that differentiated mass HE may in fact exacerbate inequality. Part of this is explained with reference to the drastic expansion of the private sector, which has contributed to a larger intake at the cost of quality and equitable higher education because it seeks to make a profit [9].
Although following a particular pattern, private higher education may play some distinct roles, but it should be obliged to offer a wider definition and purpose of HE. Furthermore, a desirable HE system—whether in the public or private sector—should ensure that equal opportunity for access to quality education remains unaffected by SES [10]. Government-driven and managed equality programs typically enhance overall engagement on quality education among underrepresented groups [11]. Worldwide, numerous policies and reforms addressing social inequities in education have been implemented over the years, with varying levels of success [12].
Against this backdrop, residential colleges (RCs) have emerged over time with the aim of providing students with an inclusive environment and holistic experience beyond conventional classrooms, addressing equity and quality issues in HE [13,14]. In tandem with the fourth Sustainable Development Goal (SDG4) devised by the United Nations [15], which focuses on promoting education equality and quality, this involves implementing programs and institutional frameworks that advance national development in an unbiased way [16]. As claimed by Bryk and Schneider [17], students in schools with healthy environments outperform their peers academically on the basis of SES background. Many empirical studies have investigated the role of RCs in enhancing students’ academic achievement and personal development [13,14,18].
Furthermore, comparative studies indicate that students who participate in RCs in the public sector benefit from these institutions’ ability to reduce the performance gap between students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds [14,18]. However, while public RCs can do this, they cannot guarantee access for all participants in all SES levels. If privileged students succeed through participation in private sector RCs but lower-status students, as found in public RCs, cannot fairly access them, it obstructs the sustainable development of education and makes SDG4 difficult to achieve. This is the core issue of this study. After the research problem is stated, this paper proceeds to map the current gap in the literature, making it possible to explore its scope before establishing the research objectives and questions.
Scientific evidence regarding SES, RCs, and education disparities in engagement within the public and private sectors, as well as academic achievement, is limited due to methodological inconsistencies, variable definitions, and variations in study design. Some researchers have demonstrated that the relationship between SES and academic attainment varies across schools with different climates [19], while other research has not indicated associations between SES and school climate [10]. Meanwhile, studies suggest that RCs contribute to diverse aspects of learning, cognition, attitudes, and the attainment of marks or grades [13,20]. In doing so, by comparing RC and non-RC participants in public HEIs, all students who attend an RC benefit from its ability to reduce the performance gap between students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds [14,18]. Nevertheless, whether RCs in the private sector provide equal access for students from different SES backgrounds and potentially narrow the disparities caused by SES differences remains inconclusive. Understanding the functions of private RCs by comparing them to public RCs has practical importance for achieving the goals of sustainable education based on education equality and quality. Additionally, conducting comparative research between the private and public sectors is necessary to explain the diversity of results for the same hypothesis.
Thus, China is used as the case study for this paper as it is one of the countries with a large number of HEIs [21]. The research seeks to explore the impact of RCs on narrowing education disparities in access and academic attainment through two main approaches, as follows. Firstly, a comparative analysis of RC students between private and public universities will be undertaken. Secondly, group linear regression analysis will be employed to explore the relationship between RCs, SES, and academic achievement. Three specific objectives are outlined to achieve these aims: (i) to examine the socioeconomic statuses of students studying in public and private RCs; (ii) to establish evidence regarding whether RCs influence academic achievement for students with varying SESs; and (iii) to investigate the effectiveness of RCs in creating sustainable education.
A better understanding of these relationships can help further elucidate the role of private RCs and their potential contributions to ensuring equality and sustainability in education, generating important insights regarding the higher education reform literature. Moreover, this study is expected to offer comprehensive and objective insights into the implementation of residential colleges, providing a solid foundation for decision-making and policy formulation. Specifically, the following questions will be answered to fulfil these aims:
RQ1.
Does the type of RC (private or public) affect how students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds are able to access it?
RQ2.
Does the type of RC influence the academic achievement of students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds?
RQ3.
Do RCs of both kinds contribute significantly to the provision of sustainable education?
The following section is the literature review, which is followed by the research design. After explaining the results and discussions, the final section will highlight the implications of this study and the conclusion.

2. Literature Review

This section begins by explaining sustainable education in HEIs before critically examining the disparities caused by SES. Subsequently, the impact of RCs in sustainable education is introduced, followed by the hypotheses devised for this study.

2.1. Sustainable Education in HEIs

The United Nations (UN) formally adopted the 17 targets that grew out of the development agenda identified as SDGs in 2015, with the aim being to solve crucial global social, environmental, and economic challenges [14,15,22]. These objectives operate together to promote sustainable development [22]. Sustainable education plays a crucial role in advancing the fourth SDG, the purpose being to ensure equitable access to quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all [15,18]. The essence of sustainable education transcends mere educational standards; it is in fact a holistic instrument [15]. Moreover, sustainable education encompasses programs, schedules, and institutional frameworks designed to foster national progress in an impartial way [16].
The progress of a nation’s culture and society is correlated with the effectiveness of its education system, particularly exemplified in HE [23]. Consequently, HEIs have taken on a pivotal role as primary agents of education aimed at fostering sustainable development [24]. Furthermore, the United Nations emphasizes the need for cooperation among various sectors of society, including public and private institutions, and other fields of education, to incorporate sustainability into education and foster a sustainable society [25]. In line with this, universities around the globe are actively advancing education for sustainable development through teaching, research, community engagement, and campus operations [26].
Previous studies have outlined that HEIs need to manage sustainable development initiatives, which include establishing policies and strategies to steer universities towards sustainable practices, implementing programs for sustainable food, adopting environ-mentally friendly purchasing practices, utilizing renewable energy sources and promoting recycling, as well as incorporating sustainable development themes into courses and research endeavors [27]. Due to the growing public concerns of sustainability issues, HEIs are increasingly acknowledging their pivotal roles and obligations in advancing education for sustainable development and are dedicated to becoming reliable in the long term [26].

2.2. SES and Education Disparity

Education disparity is a central theme of learning due to its strong association with the attainment of qualifications and social/workforce positions, so in effect, it reflects the realities of societal inequality [28]. Ferreira and Gignoux [29] described two types of educational disparities: outcomes and opportunities. Sociological theories have been pro-posed and tested regarding how SES can help transmit advantages across generations [30,31]. Over time, SES has been defined by the American Psychological Association (APA) as “the social standing or class of an individual or group” [32]. It is commonly utilized as a latent construct for assessing family background, which encompasses parental education, family income, and parental occupation [14,18]. Students from higher SES backgrounds typically achieve superior grades or marks because firstly, they benefit from greater access to school resources, and secondly, they demonstrate higher rates of participation compared to their counterparts from lower SES backgrounds [18,33]. Therefore, improving access to high-quality colleges is essential to ensuring that disadvantaged children have equal opportunities to succeed academically and to promote education for sustainable development [18].
While the correlation between SES and students’ enrolment and academic achievement has been extensively documented in the literature, research on how these associations have evolved—whether becoming stronger, weaker, or null—over time within specific education systems, including the public and private sectors, is limited [14,16,18]. Most national education policies aim to reduce the SES achievement gap and enhance the performance and opportunities of disadvantaged students [28]. However, quantifiable measures of these efforts are still lacking, particularly those that are straightforward and easy to comprehend [28]. This represents one of the main gaps addressed by this study.

2.3. RCs and Sustainable Education

Numerous efforts in many nations have been made to address these disparities; however, they persist as a fundamental challenge for sustainable development in education [15]. RCs represent a unique approach to the evolution of higher education, aiming to address the equity and quality challenges encountered in HE, as emphasized in reports from various countries [34]. RCs represent autonomous communities within universities, where students from various socioeconomic backgrounds live together and actively engage in social, academic, and extracurricular activities under the supervision of faculty and staff [14,35]. They typically emphasize four dimensions: infrastructure, faculty and peer communication, and extracurricular climate, aiming to foster a seamless and positive institutional environment both inside and outside classrooms [36].
According to Kuh’s engagement theory, institutions can structure their curriculum and co-curriculum to facilitate student learning and development [37]. Furthermore, as asserted by Buell et al. [38], students in schools with positive environments tend to do better than their peers academically, regardless of their socioeconomic background. Therefore, RCs represent an institutional approach to enhance student academic learning and holistic development by promoting student engagement, a concept supported by rich empirical studies [20,34,35,36].
However, the theory of social reproduction presents an alternative perspective, suggesting that the education system may perpetuate existing social and economic inequalities by transmitting advantages and disadvantages from one generation to the next [39]. Some previous findings on RCs have demonstrated related results, indicating that while public RCs can help narrow the achievement gap between students of different SES levels, they cannot guarantee attendance for learners from all SES levels [14,18]. That being said, minimal attention has been paid to whether and how private RCs promote the same values as their public sector counterparts. Consequently, the theory of social reproduction prompts a thorough investigation into whether private RCs predominantly cater to affluent students, thus perpetuating existing socioeconomic or political hierarchies, or if they genuinely contribute to advancing sustainable equality in higher education.
Taking into consideration the arguments presented above, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. 
SES has a different effect on access to RCs in private and public universities.
H2. 
SES and RCs positively help RC students’ academic performance (H2a); RCs mitigate academic achievement disparities among different SES groups in both types of universities (H2b).
Now the hypotheses are formulated, the study context is delineated, thereby substantiating the rationale for the appropriateness of the implemented research design, as elaborated in the subsequent section.

3. Research Design

This study concentrated on China as a case study and employed a quantitative and comparative approach. This approach served to examine education disparities in participation and academic achievement among RC students, stemming from SES differences. It does this by comparing public and private universities.

3.1. Study Context

China boasts a large number of HEIs, which play a significant role in its economy [21]. In China, the gross enrolment rate in HE totaled 47.63 million, with a gross enrolment rate reaching 60.2% by 2023. The substantial expansion of tertiary education in China is evident from the fact that the enrolment rate stood at only 3.4% in 1990 [40]. As a result of the massification of higher education, public and private HEIs been growing continuously [5]. According to the statistics of the Ministry of Education, from 2000 to 2020, the number of private HEIs in China rose from 43 to 764, and the number of public HEIs has risen from 1041 to 3013 [41]. It is worth mentioning here that Chinese HEIs can be categorized into four types: research institutions, research and teaching institutions, teaching institutions, and application-oriented institutions [42]. Notably, no private sector universities are in the top two tiers.
However, the expansion of HE access has not unfolded equitably alongside the rise in the number of HEIs [1]. Like the HE expansion observed in numerous other nations, the expansion of HE in China has generated new college opportunities but has not diminished the inequality that is experienced when students seek access to (elite) colleges [42]. Students from upper SES backgrounds consistently maintain an advantage in both public and private college opportunities [43]. It has been indicated by some research that the expansion of enrolment has had a serious impact on college quality, and SES remains a barrier to education attainment [42,44].
In this context, the RC system emerged as a strategic response to the dual challenges of equity and quality disparities resulting from the rapid growth of HE in China. RCs in China are recognized as an innovative initiative in student affairs, initially piloted at some elite and public universities in 2005 [14]. This system contributes to cultivating equal access to high-quality education for students from all SES levels [14,18]. Subsequently, with the support of government policies, RCs in China experienced rapid growth, increasing from 5 universities in 2005 to 97 in 2020. The types of RCs have also expanded, encompassing public and private universities, undergraduate and vocational institutions, among others. However, further comparative research is necessary to examine the extent to which this system in private HEIs effectively reduces education disparities and pro-motes sustainable education throughout China.

3.2. Data and Samples

There were 93 undergraduate universities in total piloting RCs in 2020, and these are the target institutions. The decision to focus on these universities stemmed from the need to utilize students’ Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) as a measure of assessing disparities in academic achievement. In China, the college degree typically spans 4 or 5 years, ensuring comprehensive academic records. Among these universities, 76 are public and 17 are private universities.
This study employs stratified sampling, categorizing the 17 private and 76 public universities under study based on geographical regions. Initially, due to time and financial constraints, one university from each eastern and mid-western district was purposively sampled. Within each district, a simple random sampling technique was deployed to ensure an equal probability of selection for each university, ensuring the representation of diversity in regions, types, and sizes. This enhances the robustness and applicability of the findings.
Following the identification of sample institutions, the sample size for RCs was randomly determined. The population of RC participants in the sample institutions is 8361. According to the sample formula used by Krejcie and Morgan [45], the sample size was determined to be 615. Then, a proportional stratified sampling technique was utilized to choose the study sample from each university. This resulted in a sample size of 18 and 358 from eastern and mid-western public universities, while there were 33 and 206 from eastern and mid-western private universities, respectively (Table 1).
Data collection lasted approximately three months using an online survey. Prior approval was obtained from the selected institutions. Participants were assured that their information would be used exclusively for research purposes and that confidentiality would be maintained. Participation was voluntary, and individuals were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. After removing questionnaires with significant missing information, 562 responses were analyzed, achieving a total response rate of 91.3%, which was deemed sufficient for the study.
The demographic data offer insights into the profiles of RC students across public and private universities in various Chinese districts. The data reveal a majority of Han students, outnumbering minorities by about six or seven times in both types of universities. Indicated here is that most participants are from the mid-western area. Furthermore, the demographic data on gender, ethnicity, and other factors all show similarly balanced distributions. Detailed information on the respondents is provided in Table 2.

3.3. Instrument

The questionnaire in this study, validated by prior research, comprises three sections [14,36]. The first section collects background information including gender, ethnicity, family region, major, and other demographic details. The second section addresses socioeconomic background, with five items covering parental education, occupation, and family income. The third section evaluates four aspects of college life: infrastructure, faculty and peer communication, and extracurricular engagement, with twenty-eight items divided into seven factors, utilizing a five-point Likert scale. Academic achievement is measured by CGPA (a scale of 4.0), obtained from the academic office at the sample universities to ensure data objectivity.
The instrument was piloted on 50 RC and non-RC students beyond the samples using SPSS version 27. Reliability testing yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.889, meaning that there was sufficient internal consistency. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was undertaken to examine construct validity. The correlation matrix formed through KMO and Bartlett’s test resulted in an acceptable KMO statistic (0.881), with a significant p-value for the Bartlett’s test. Seven factors were extracted using the varimax rotation method, explaining 65.139% of cumulative variance. This confirms that the questionnaire effectively captures the desired information.

3.4. Data Analysis

Data analysis involves descriptive and inferential statistics, including multiple group regression analysis.
To address Research Question 1 (RQ1) regarding the SES gap in access to private and public RCs, a comparative analysis with descriptive statistics was conducted. Frequency graphs for SES groups are displayed and illustrated to visually represent the results for this research question. Additionally, inferential statistics with group regression analysis were used to examine Research Question 2 (RQ2), focusing on the statistical relationship between RCs, SES, and education disparities in achievement. Respondents were divided into different SES groups. Group linear regression, including an interaction term for SES and RC, was applied to the grouped data to analyze whether RCs narrow the academic gap attributed to SES. This approach strengthens causal assertions by facilitating the differentiation of effects between groups [14,18]. Moreover, the research investigated Research Question 3 (RQ3) regarding practical measures to ensure sustainable education, building on the findings of the previous analyses.

4. Findings and Discussion

The findings and a discussion of them are presented in parallel before addressing the research implications and conclusions in the final section. The initial subsections aim to address the first RQ, followed by the second RQ in the subsequent subsection, and the third RQ in the final subsection.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics Results

To investigate the education disparity caused by SES in engagement between public and private RCs (RQ1), SES indicators, including parental education, occupation, and in-come, were categorized into three levels: low, middle, and high [14,18]. Next, a descriptive comparison of the different SES groups between public and private higher education institutions was performed. This was based on the personal income and demographic distribution data of different socioeconomic groups released by the National Bureau of Statistics of China in 2023 [46].
The comparative analysis in Figure 1 reveals differences in students from three SES levels regarding access to private and public RCs. In the national data, only about 2.9% of people were from the upper social class, while most fell into the middle (48.9%) or the low-SES groups (48.2%). However, the numbers of RC students in these three SES groups vary in private and public universities. Compared to the national data, the percentage of high-SES students increased by 19.7% in public universities and 31.8% in private ones. However, for middle-SES students, there was a decline: 2.8% fewer in public universities and 13.3% fewer in private ones. Surprisingly, the percentages of low-SES students in public and private RC were similar, each diminishing by about 17–18%. Furthermore, based on the above analysis, this enrolment gap is more pronounced in private RCs than in their public counterparts. Subsequently, the first hypothesis (H1), which states that SES has a differential effect on access to RCs in private and public universities, is supported.
The results indicate that students from advantaged SES families are more likely to be enrolled in either public or private RCs. This demonstrates that SES still affects access to RCs, whether they are public or private. Parents who own or have access to ample resources are inclined to invest their economic, educational, and professional assets in ways that enable their children to attend elite colleges [14,18]. This suggests that access to higher education is not equally available to students from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, despite the increased participation in both public and private RCs in China. SES is recognized as a critical factor in education research [30,31]. These findings broaden earlier research on public RCs [14,18], also demonstrating the impact of SES on equal access to private RCs in China. Additionally, this research provides empirical evidence that having more HEIs cannot resolve the inequality in education that is caused by SES [7,8,9]. Moreover, it makes more convincing that the private sector—despite its ability to increase access to education [5]—cannot in fact provide equal access to enrolment for students from different social classes.

4.2. Inferential Statistics Results

To address RQ2 and test the second hypothesis (H2), the predictive relationships between academic achievement, SES and RC, including the moderator effect of RC, are presented using grouped linear regression in Table 3.
Based on the results of the grouping regression model, for each of the three SES groups, the control variables, such as family region, gender, ethnicity, and grade, do not contribute significantly to academic performance. There is, however, a minimal effect for major on the low-SES group (β = −0.040, p < 0.05) and for the family region on all SES groups (β = 0.050, p < 0.05). After excluding the influence of the control variables, SES positively assists academic performance in both the middle (β = 0.093, p < 0.01) and high (β = 0.109, p < 0.01) SES groups, while SES has no effect on the low-SES group (β = 0.020, p > 0.05). Moreover, the influence of RC on academic performance is the same across the three SES groups—there is a positive effect in the middle (β = 0.124, p < 0.01) and high (β = 0.341, p < 0.01) groups, yet no effect in the low group (β = 0.182, p > 0.05). Nonetheless, for the entire sample size, the influence of SES (β = 0.105, p < 0.01) and RC (β = 0.185, p < 0.01) on variations in academic performance is significant both in public and private RCs. Thus, H2a is supported overall.
To test H2b, specifically whether RC can narrow the academic gap as a result of SES, the interaction term between SES and RC is introduced to the regression model. Although there is no relationship between RC and SES for high-SES participants (β = −0.031, p > 0.05), the outcome for all SES groups indicates there is a negative relationship between this interaction term and academic achievement (β = −0.051, p < 0.01). On the whole, this supports H2b, indicating that RC significantly mitigates the role of SES in academic performance.
The nexus between SES and academic achievement has long been a focal point in education research, with SES often serving as a robust predictor of academic performance [10,31]. This suggests that within the RC setting, even in private HEIs, students from advantaged socioeconomic backgrounds tend to demonstrate improved academic performance, echoing findings reported by Gui et al. [14,18]. In this study, the group regression results reveal more detailed and specific findings. For low-SES RC participants, SES wields minimal to no impact on academic achievement. This finding suggests a possible explanation: these students’ perceived SES might serve as a protective factor, mitigating the negative effects of low family SES on their academic development [47]. Furthermore, it suggests that a multitude of factors, for instance their major or an urban or rural family region, can significantly affect a student’s academic performance, and the intricacies of these factors vary among individuals [48].
Additionally, prevailing studies have consistently highlighted the environmental role of RCs in creating encouraging environments for students’ school outcomes [35,36]. This study, expanding RC-based research from Chinese public universities to private sector ones, reinforces the point that RCs broadly constitute a key determinant influencing students’ ability to learn [14,18]. Having said that, for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, RCs do not play the expected role in their academic outcomes. This result expands on current knowledge, suggesting that RCs may have different impacts on academic performance depending on students’ specific contexts [38].
In doing so, the further investigation results on the moderating role of RC imply that RCs could not have a strong effect in narrowing academic gaps by SES for high-SES students. However, this result reveals that RCs can narrow education disparities regarding academic achievement due to SES for students from low and middle socioeconomic backgrounds. By focusing on the unique context of RCs in Chinese public and private universities, this study enriches our understanding of how RC dynamics narrow the SES gap among specific RC participants and, in fact, facilitate sustainable education within this specific setting [14,18].

4.3. Sustainable Education in RCs

Expanding on the findings discussed earlier, RQ3 was investigated. In the Chinese context, RCs were implemented in both public and private universities, aiming to provide increased equal opportunities for quality education for students from various SES levels. The research results indicate that although students from different socioeconomic backgrounds all have the opportunity to join residential colleges, this opportunity is not equal. Specifically, individuals with higher SESs typically participate in RCs before their peers with lower SESs, both in private and public HEIs in China. This discovery provides evidence that SES still influences disparity in access within specific public and private tertiary education systems [43].
However, RCs, whether public or private, effectively moderate the influence of SES on academic achievement, which empirically demonstrates that RCs play a positive role in narrowing academic disparities [14,18]. This insight significantly enhances the understanding of the intricate dynamics involving SES, RCs, education disparity, and sustainable education. RCs have the potential to act as agents of greater equality in education, illustrating that, in Chinese universities, their residential programs may play a crucial role in levelling the playing field and fostering a more inclusive learning environment.
The effects of HEIs on sustainable development manifest through intricate channels, especially concerning research and education [49]. These effects can vary in nature—they may be direct or indirect, intentional or unintentional, and have both positive and negative outcomes. They might become apparent after a considerable delay, emerge in locations distant from the HEI, or impact systems on a broader scale [50]. Therefore, RCs in China serve as institutions with which to conduct innovative explorations of the higher education system, and they play a positive role in promoting sustainable education. It is worth further researching and exploring how to fully leverage the potential of RCs to maximize the promotion of sustainable development in higher education, especially in China, given its diverse education contexts.

5. Implications, Limitations and Future Study

The subsequent content discusses two significant theoretical and practical implications prior to recognizing limitations and proposing directions for future research.

5.1. Theoretical Implications and Practice

This study focuses on what is happening in higher education in China, exploring whether the RC education model, introduced from Western countries, promotes equitable engagement in quality education among students who come from various SES backgrounds [14,18,51]. The research primarily contributes to the integration of knowledge and addressing gaps in knowledge. It synthesizes diverse sources of information on SES, family region, gender, ethnicity, and other factors, integrating these into the RC research process. Thus, it provides a comprehensive framework for studying the effectiveness of RCs on sustainable education. Besides integrating knowledge, this study explores whether the education model of a residential college can offset the influence of SES, contributing to the promotion of equity in China. It fills gaps in the existing literature and offers new insights into SES and education equity, which, to date, have been underexplored.
Additionally, the study introduces novel experimental findings previously lacking documentation. It is crucial to acknowledge that promoting education equity is a fundamental principle for national development. Ideally, every individual, irrespective of their SES, gender, or ethnicity, should have equal and unimpeded access to education [52]. Therefore, the concept of education parity should not be confined to different education systems, which can result in students from privileged SES backgrounds too often receiving more rights and resources [42,44,53]. Consequently, the outcomes of this research can inform the development and selection of policies and management strategies concerning RCs. Policymakers can utilize this data to enhance current policies or create new ones, ensuring that RCs remain in sync with the changing higher education landscape in China.

5.2. Limitations and Future Study

The findings and discussions suggest that RCs positively impact SES in terms of academic achievement. The scope of research on the variables should incorporate other aspects or levels such as academic achievement, which is measured with CGPA. Different instruments to measure the same constructs through alternative dimensions and other indicators, such as students’ satisfaction and professional advancement, could enhance the comprehensiveness of future research on this topic.
Moreover, the sample involves public and private universities across different districts in China. Due to research constraints, it is noted that only four RCs are selected. This restricted scope may not fully capture the diversity of such programs within the same districts or throughout the country. As well, the RC sample size from eastern public and private universities is small, and the data are self-reported, which may influence the reliability of the results. Future research undertakings could strengthen the solidity of their conclusions by integrating a more representative sample population, making possible a broader understanding applicable to various international education systems with differing cultural, social, and economic features.
Furthermore, this inquiry exclusively utilizes quantitative research methods, potentially neglecting the in-depth discussion of RC effectiveness. Embracing mixed methods, which amalgamate quantitative and qualitative methodologies, may yield more holistic research outcomes concerning the impacts of the RC model. This approach would offer a more profound comprehension of the underlying mechanisms and illuminate the qualitative dimensions of sustainable education within RCs. By addressing these limitations, future research analyses can build on the foundations laid by this study and help build a more holistic and nuanced understanding of how RCs promote sustainable education equity.

6. Conclusions

The issue of education disparity has long been a concern for many nations, particularly in the context of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Despite efforts to promote equality within education systems, socioeconomic status continues to function as a barrier to achieving equity. This situation poses challenges to sustainable development in education, which is a crucial component for national development. Government-led equity programs aim to increase overall participation rates and promote the greater involvement of underrepresented groups.
Residential colleges in China, whose operations are dictated by government policies and directives, are designed to foster an inclusive environment that offers high-quality opportunities for all students. This study employs nationwide data to investigate the correlation between RCs, SES, and education disparities concerning access and academic performance in the Chinese context. It specifically examines whether private RCs can alleviate discrepancies arising from SES and foster equity-type conditions compared to public RCs. While they may not fully bridge the gap in access based on socioeconomic status, these institutions significantly reduce academic disparities resulting from SES differences. Consequently, the RC system provides valuable practical experience and insights for promoting education equity. Moreover, it offers a blueprint for innovation in China’s higher education talent development model by creating supportive environments.
In summary, this study offers valuable insights for institutions considering the implementation or expansion of RCs within China’s still-developing tertiary education landscape, with a focus on achieving sustainable outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.G. and G.M.A.; methodology, P.G. and G.M.A.; software, P.G.; validation, P.G. and G.M.A.; formal analysis, P.G. and G.M.A.; investigation, P.G. and G.M.A.; resources, P.G.; data curation, P.G.; writing—P.G.; writing—review and editing, G.M.A.; visualization, P.G.; supervision, G.M.A.; project administration, P.G. and G.M.A.; funding acquisition, P.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of University Putra Malaysia (JKEUPM-2023-292 and 24 July 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

This paper utilizes data gathered during fieldwork conducted as part of a doctoral program, and the data are not publicly accessible.

Acknowledgments

The authors greatly appreciate the sample universities and the students who voluntarily participated in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Marginson, S. The Worldwide Trend to High Participation Higher Education: Dynamics of Social Stratification in Inclusive Systems. High. Educ. 2016, 72, 413–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Koshy, P.; Cabalu, H.; Valencia, V. Higher Education and the Importance of Values: Evidence from the World Values Survey. High. Educ. 2023, 85, 1401–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Marginson, S. Global Stratification in Higher Education. In Higher Education, Stratification and Workforce Development: Competitive Advantage in Europe, the US and Canada; Slaughter, S., Taylor, B.J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; Volume 45, pp. 13–34. [Google Scholar]
  4. Liu, Y.; Green, A.; Pensiero, N. Expansion of Higher Education and Inequality of Opportunities: A Cross-National Analysis. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2016, 38, 242–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Buckner, E.; Khoramshahi, C. Does the Private Sector Expand Access to Higher Education? A Cross-national Analysis, 1999–2017. Int. J. Dev. Educ. 2021, 84, 102410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Marginson, S. Higher Education, Economic Inequality and Social Mobility: Implications for Emerging East Asia. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2018, 63, 4–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Trow, M. Reflections on the Transition from Elite to Mass to Universal Access: Forms and Phases of Higher Education in Modern Societies since WWII. In International Handbook of Higher Education; Forest, J.J.F., Altbach, P.G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; Volume 18, pp. 243–280. [Google Scholar]
  8. Krafft, C.; Alawode, H. Inequality of Opportunity in Higher Education in the Middle East and North Africa. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2018, 62, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Carnoy, M. As Higher Education Expands, Is It Contributing to Greater Inequality? Natl. Inst. Econ. Rev. 2011, 215, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alam, G.M.; Forhad, M.A.R. What Makes a Difference for Further Advancement of Engineers: Socioeconomic Background or Education Programs? High. Educ. 2022, 83, 1259–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Marginson, S. Equity, Status and Freedom: A Note on Higher Education. Camb. J. Educ. 2011, 41, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Berkowitz, R.; Moore, H.; Astor, R.A.; Benbenishty, R. A Research Synthesis of the Associations between Socioeconomic Background, Inequality, School Climate, Aand Academic Achievement. Rev. Educ. Res. 2017, 87, 1–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bronkema, R.; Bowman, N.A. A Residential Paradox? Residence Hall Attributes and College Student Outcomes. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2017, 58, 624–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gui, P.P.; Alam, G.M.; Hassan, A.B. Whether Socioeconomic Status Matters in Accessing Residential College: Role of RC in Addressing Academic Achievement Gaps to Ensure Sustainable Education. Sustainability 2024, 16, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alam, G.M.; Forhad, M.A.R. The Impact of Accessing Education via Smartphone Technology on Education Disparity—A Sustainable Education Perspective. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Alam, G.M. Has Secondary Science Education Become an Elite Product in Emerging Nations? A Perspective of Sustainable Education in the Era of MDGs and SDGs. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bryk, A.; Schneider, B. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gui, P.P.; Alam, G.M. Does Socioeconomic Status Influence Students’ Access to Residential College and Ameliorate Performance Discrepancies among them in China? Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cheema, J.R.; Kitsantas, A. Influence of Disciplinary Classroom Climate on High School Student Self-Efficacy and Mathematics Achievement: A Look at Gender and Racial Ethnic Differences. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2014, 12, 1261–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hurtado, S.S.; Gonyea, R.M.; Graham, P.A.; Fosnacht, K. The Relationship between Residential Learning Communities and Student Engagement. Learn. Communities Res. Pract. 2020, 8, 5. [Google Scholar]
  21. Zhao, W.; Zou, Y. Green University Initiatives in China: A Case of Tsinghua University. Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2015, 16, 491–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mohanty, A. Education for Sustainable Development: A Conceptual Model of Sustainable Education for India. Int. J. Dev. Sustain. 2018, 7, 2242–2255. [Google Scholar]
  23. Salvioni, D.M.; Franzoni, S.; Cassano, R. Sustainability in the Higher Education System: An Opportunity to Improve Quality andImage. Sustainability 2017, 9, 914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rowe, D. Education for a Sustainable Future. Science 2007, 317, 323–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Shaping the Future We Want—UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (Final Report); UNESCO: Paris, France, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wang, J.; Yang, M.; Maresova, P. Sustainable Development at Higher Education in China: A Comparative Study of Students’ Perception in Public and Private Universities. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mintz, K.; Tal, T. Sustainability in Higher Education Courses: Multiple Learning Outcomes. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2013, 41, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Broer, M.; Bai, Y.; Fonseca, F. Socioeconomic Inequality and Educational Outcomes: Evidence from Twenty Years of TIMSS; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ferreira, F.H.G.; Gignoux, J. The Measurement of Educational Inequality: Achievement and Opportunity. World Bank Econ. Rev. 2014, 8, 210–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Coleman, J.S. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. Am. J. Sociol. 1988, 94, 95–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Downey, D.B.; Condorn, D.J. Fifty Years since the Coleman Report: Rethinking the Relationship between Schools and Inequality. Sociol. Educ. 2016, 89, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. APA. Socioeconomic Status. 2018. Available online: http://www.apa.org/topics/socioeconomic-status/ (accessed on 3 April 2024).
  33. Munlr, J.; Falza, M.; Jamal, B.; Daud, S.; Iqbal, K. The Impact of Socio-economic Status on Academic Achievement. J. Soc. Sci. Rev. 2023, 3, 695–705. [Google Scholar]
  34. Pasque, P.A.; Murphy, R. The Intersections of Living-learning Programs and Social Identity as Factors of Academic Achievement and Intellectual Engagement. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2005, 46, 429–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. O’Hara, R.J. How to Build a Residential College. Plan. High. Educ. 2001, 30, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
  36. Inkelas, K.K.; Vogt, K.E.; Longerbeam, S.D.; Owen, J.; Johnson, D. Measuring Outcomes of Living-Learning Programs: Examining College Environments and Student Learning and Development. J. Gen. Educ. 2006, 55, 40–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kuh, G.D. Assessing What Really Matters to Student Learning inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change Mag. High. Learn. 2001, 33, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Buell, K.J.; Love, V.L.; Yao, C.W. Living-learning Programs through the Years: A Reflection on Partnerships between Students, Faculty, and Student Affairs. J. Coll. Univ. Stud. Hous. 2017, 44, 74–89. [Google Scholar]
  39. Bourdieu, P.; Passeron, J.C. The Inheritors: French Students and Their Relation to Culture; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
  40. Textor, C. Enrolment Rate in Tertiary Education in China 1990–2023. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113954/china-tertiary-education-college-university-enrollment-rate/ (accessed on 3 April 2024).
  41. Ministry of Education. Statistical Report on China’s Educational Achievements. 2021. Available online: http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/202108/t20210827_555004.html (accessed on 3 April 2024).
  42. Ding, Y.Q.; Wu, Y.D.; Yang, J.; Ye, X.Y. The Elite Exclusion: Stratified Access and Production during the Chinese Higher Education Expansion. High. Educ. 2021, 82, 323–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rong, L.Y.; Deng, F. China’s Higher Education Expansion and its Impact on Equality in Educational Opportunity. Int. J. Educ. Ref. 2021, 31, 79–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ilie, S.; Rose, P.; Vignoles, A. Understanding Higher Education Access: Inequalities and Early Learning in Low and Lower-middle-income Countries. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2021, 47, 1237–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1970, 30, 607–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. National Bureau of Statistics of China. China Statistical Yearbook—2023. 2023. Available online: https://www.stats.gov.cn/sj/ndsj/2023/indexch.htm (accessed on 3 April 2024).
  47. Ren, Y.; Zhang, F.; Jiang, Y.; Huang, S. Family Socioeconomic Status, Educational Expectations, and Academic Achievement among Chinese Rural-to-urban Migrant Adolescents: The Protective Role of Subjective Socioeconomic Status. J. Early Adolesc. 2021, 41, 1129–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kumar, S.; Agarwal, M.; Agarwal, N. Defining and Measuring Academic Performance of Hei Students—A Critical Review. Turkish J. Comp. Math. Educ. 2021, 12, 3019–3105. [Google Scholar]
  49. Koehn, P.H.; Uitto, J.I. Evaluating Sustainability Education: Lessons from International Development Experience. High. Educ. 2014, 67, 621–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lebeau, Y.; Cochrane, A. Rethinking the ‘Third Mission’: UK Universities and Regional Engagement in Challenging Times. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2015, 5, 250–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gui, P.P.; Alam, G.M.; Hassan, A.B. Does the Concept of Residential College Offset the Effects of Socioeconomic Status on University Students’ Academic Performance? J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Luneva, E.V. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) System in Education. Asian Soc. Sci. 2015, 11, 194–200. [Google Scholar]
  53. Shafiq, M.N.; Toutkoushian, R.K.; Valerio, A. Who Benefits from Higher Education in Low- and Middle-income Countries? J. Dev. Stud. 2019, 55, 2403–2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 05079 g001
Figure 1. Percentage distribution across different SES groups among national population, private and public RC students. Authors’ creation.
Figure 1. Percentage distribution across different SES groups among national population, private and public RC students. Authors’ creation.
Sustainability 16 05079 g001
Table 1. Sampling on this study.
Table 1. Sampling on this study.
TypeDistrictNumber of HEIsNumber of HEIs SelectedNumber of RC StudentsNumber of RC Students Selected
PrivateEast50144833
Mid-west2612800206
PublicEast10124018
Mid-west714873358
Total 9348361615
Note: Authors’ creation.
Table 2. RC respondents’ data.
Table 2. RC respondents’ data.
VariableGroup
PrivatePublic
NumberPercentage (%)NumberPercentage (%)
University DistrictEast3313.8185.6
Mid-west20686.230594.4
GenderMale13556.517253.3
Female10443.515146.7
EthnicityHan20184.128487.9
Minorities3815.93912.2
Family RegionRural12753.115146.7
Urban11246.917253.3
GradeFirst 5523.09228.5
Second 5924.76620.4
Third 6627.68927.6
Forth or above5924.77623.5
MajorNatural science8033.510733.1
Social science8033.512338.1
Human culture7933.19328.8
Subtotal239323
Total562
Note: n = 562. Authors’ creation.
Table 3. Grouping regression model.
Table 3. Grouping regression model.
SES Group
AllLowMiddleHigh
Constant2.519 **
(29.469)		2.873 **
(6.847)		2.755 **
(15.476)		1.982 **
(4.133)
Gender−0.000
(−0.019)		0.014
(0.454)		−0.007
(−0.247)		−0.036
(−1.190)
Ethnicity−0.008
(−0.302)		0.011
(0.269)		−0.054
(−1.309)		0.022
(0.444)
Family region0.050 *
(2.543)		0.063
(1.683)		0.030
(1.030)		0.029
(0.731)
Grade0.000
(0.011)		−0.011
(−0.810)		−0.004
(−0.290)		0.003
(0.232)
Major0.001
(0.074)		−0.040 *
(−2.085)		0.007
(0.414)		0.038
(1.918)
SES0.105 **
(14.378)		0.020
(0.556)		0.093 **
(3.751)		0.109 **
(2.742)
RC0.185 **
(9.365)		0.182
(1.503)		0.124 **
(2.761)		0.341 **
(3.310)
SES × RC−0.051 **
(−4.178)		−0.056 **
(−2.918)		−0.181 **
(−3.915)		−0.031
(−1.896)
n562172234156
R20.5760.3050.2430.404
∆R20.5700.2660.2120.367
F83.4777.8967.97210.986
Note: DV = academic achievement (CGPA), SES = socioeconomic status, RC = residential college, n = sample size. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Authors’ creation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gui, P.; Alam, G.M. Do Chinese Residential Colleges Narrow the Education Disparity Caused by Socioeconomic Status? A Comparison of Public and Private Universities Using Two Main Approaches to Assess Disparities in Access and Academic Attainment. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5079. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125079

AMA Style

Gui P, Alam GM. Do Chinese Residential Colleges Narrow the Education Disparity Caused by Socioeconomic Status? A Comparison of Public and Private Universities Using Two Main Approaches to Assess Disparities in Access and Academic Attainment. Sustainability. 2024; 16(12):5079. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125079

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gui, Pingping, and Gazi Mahabubul Alam. 2024. "Do Chinese Residential Colleges Narrow the Education Disparity Caused by Socioeconomic Status? A Comparison of Public and Private Universities Using Two Main Approaches to Assess Disparities in Access and Academic Attainment" Sustainability 16, no. 12: 5079. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16125079

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop