Faculty and students may hold center stage in society’s image of higher education institutions, but a whole variety of influential behind-the scenes personnel are also essential to running institutions successfully. Faculty and staff alike bring knowledge and skills that often go beyond their current job descriptions. However, the wealth of talent on campus has traditionally been
difficult to identify, track and integrate with the institution’s present needs and long-term strategic plans.
Although education institutions are focused on learning outcomes, they are also businesses. Typically, only about half of the staff
are instructors. The rest are administrators, business professionals, support staff and operational titles. A well-run entity must have a way to track and manage relevant personnel data and competencies across all of these job types. To meet this need, colleges and universities are implementing an integrated system for performance and talent management. “Don’t think of talent management as an isolated topic,” says Dave Jones, organizational effectiveness specialist in the Housing and Food Services Division at Purdue University in Indiana. “It has to be part of the organization’s bigger picture in order to be successful.”
Executive Summary
The NSSE National Data Project is an element of ongoing engagement research and implementation practice in Canada. It has two primary objectives. The first is the construction of detailed NSSE reports (items means and frequencies, benchmarks and learning scales) at the academic program- and student subgroup-level for individual institutions rather than for peer
groups. The second is the development of statistical (regression) models to measure the relative contribution to engagement variation of student characteristics, program mix andinstitutional character at both the student record- and institution-level. Both objectives address the broader goals of providing greater focus to engagement improvement efforts, identifying clusters of promising practices and best engagement results, supporting improved interpretation and use of institutional engagement scores, and informing the development of institutional accountability procedures and metrics. The core of the project is a record-level data file containing the approximately 69,000 2008 or2009 NSSE responses and additional student records system data representing 44 Canadianuniversities. Student responses were classified into 10 general academic programs (e.g., Social
Sciences) and over 75 specific academic programs (e.g., History, Biology) and over 30 student subgroups (including first generation, First Nations and international).
The detailed NSSE reports indicate a considerable level of variation in student characteristics and program mix across Canadian universities; large differences in engagement item scores and benchmarks across academic program clusters and specific programs within clusters, and across student subgroups; and wide engagement variability across institutions of differing size.
A summary of the results from these detailed reports is presented below. The program- and student subgroup-level NSSE reports provide a more focused basis for comparing engagement university by university, and strongly suggest that institution-level engagement comparisons should take account of student, program and size variation and should not be presented without context in ranked format.
The regression models provide a more formal basis for identifying and quantifying the role of student, program and size variation in engagement, and permit a number of conclusions. First, student characteristics, program mix and institutional character all contribute to a comprehensive statistical explanation of engagement variation. Second, the wide variation in
institutional engagement scores is reduced considerably when student characteristics, program mix and institutional size are controlled. Third, each engagement benchmark requires a distinct statistical explanation: factors important to one benchmark are often quite different from those important to another. Fourth, Francophone and Anglophone institutions differ with respect to
certain key engagement dynamics. And finally, the models suggest several approaches to defining the institutional contribution to engagement and the scope of institutional potential to modify engagement level.
You've heard it before:
We already know what our students think.
Our committee has already picked the brand strategy that will work best. We know our school and our
students. We don't need external consultation.
These statements go against three core principles of successful PSE brand positioning, which one can find in the following case studies.
Residential schooling in Canada’s North deserves its own consideration for a number of reasons.
First, its history is more recent than that of residential schooling in the rest of the country. As late as 1900 there were only two residential schools north of the sixtieth parallel. By 1950 there were only six residential schools and one hostel in the North. This slow growth reflects the fact that while the overall goals of the Canadian govern-ment’s Aboriginal policy were to assimilate, civilize, and Christianize, this policy was not applied in a uniform manner. Where there was no pressing demand for Aboriginal lands, the federal government delayed taking on the obligations that Treaties created. This was particularly true in the North. As long as there was no prospect of economic development or of the arrival of large numbers of non-Aboriginal settlers, the federal government was not prepared to negotiate with northern Aboriginal peoples. Nor was it interested in establishing reserves or residential schools—or any sort of school, for that matter. Were it not for the work of Roman Catholic and Anglican missionaries, residential schooling would have no history north of the sixtieth parallel before 1950.
A second distinct feature of the situation in the North was the fact that, in the years after 1950, the Canadian government did not simply extend the existing southern res-idential school system into northern Canada. Instead the federal government created a system of day schools and hostels under the direction of Northern Affairs rather than Indian Affairs. This system was intended from the start to be integrated into, not separate from, the public school system of the day. Unlike the southern schools, the northern schools made no attempt to restrict admission to First Nations students, so Métis and Inuit, along with a number of non-Aboriginal students, also attended them. At the end of the 1960s, these schools were transferred from the federal government to the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
A quintessential Canadian success story Canada’s post-secondary institutions made major contributions to our country’s social progress and economic success in the last half of the 20th century. In the span of several decades, Canada evolved from a
country where an advanced education was reserved for the society’s elite to one that produces one of the world’s best-educated populations. By the turn of the century, Canada boasted the second-highest number of postsecondary
educated citizens per capita of any country —a comparative advantage in a global knowledge economy. Since knowledge is now the currency of the economy, improved post-secondary outcomes increase a country’s ability to develop the skilled human resources and conduct the innovative research it needs to remain productive and competitive.
Canada’s past performance is a remarkable achievement, considering that in the 19th century, just two percent of Canadian 20- to 24-year-olds went to university—usually to join the clergy, or become a doctor or lawyer. Even by the early 1940s, that number had only doubled to four percent. It wasn’t until the post-war period, when the federal government provided educational opportunities to returning servicemen after World War II and began investing heavily in post-secondary education to accommodate the Baby Boom population that enrolment rates swelled. There are now close to 100 public universities and roughly 200 public community colleges, degree-granting and other institutions all across the country. Today, 44% of Canadians possess postsecondary credentials. Much of Canada’s success is attributable to governments’ extensive investments in post-secondary education. Over the past 10 years, Canada has ranked in the top three internationally for public investment in post-secondary education institutions (PSIs). Collectively, the provincial,territorial and federal governments invested roughly $29 billion in 2004. A number of provinces have recently increased their expenditures on post-secondary education to ensure that PSIs are better able to respond to growing public demand. The creation of innovative research bodies and the infusion of new federal funds in national granting councils over the past decade have also enabled Canada’s universities and colleges to pursue an ambitious research agenda—the very heart of academic life.
Shortcomings
In spite of this solid foundation and the impressive track record of Canada’s post-secondary institutions, we cannot
be complacent. The PSE sector’s capacity to sustain its present progress is strained at the very time the world is placing a premium on higher education. Unprecedented demand for post-secondary graduates in the job market, coupled with an aging PSE workforce and deteriorating infrastructure, limit post-secondary institutions’ abilities to meet Canadian economic needs and social expectations. At the moment, there are few means to gauge just how well our PSIs are responding to Canada’s shifting social and economic needs or how post-secondary education in Canada compares with higher education systems in other countries facing similar challenges. Nor are there sufficient data to assess whether Canadians are fully benefitting from the money they and their governments spend on post-secondary education. There is a critical shortage of reliable research on the state of PSE in this country, making it difficult to determine whether PSE effectively prepares Canadians for the challenges and opportunities posed by the knowledge economy, if PSE provides value for money, or how Canada’s PSE system measures up against others elsewhere in the world. Compounding these issues is the fact that, despite widespread agreement that PSE
makes a vital contribution to economic growth and social cohesion, unlike most developed countries, Canada does not have a harmonized set of national objectives and targets for post-secondary education.
In recent years, there has been a great and growing interest in measuring educational quality in the Ontario postsecondary education sector (PSE). Colleges and universities are interested in quality measures for academic planning purposes. Reliable indicators would allow them to identify effective educational practices as well as areas for improvement and to develop strategies in the hopes of improving educational experiences for students. The government is interested for accountability reasons. Quality has become an increasingly prominent focus of the McGuinty government, which seeks not only to increase the number of PSE graduates in the province but also to ensure the quality of degrees being awarded. Robust quality measures could be used to monitor individual institutional performance and to address issues at the sector level. Reliable and comparable provincial-level quality indicators could provide answers to questions such as how the Ontario PSE system is doing compared to other jurisdictions. The problem, however, is that educational quality cannot be easily defined, measured or assessed. Traditional quality indicators consist of two types: input measures (e.g., student-faculty ratio, class size, operating revenue per student) and outcome measures (e.g., retention rate, graduation rate, employment rate). Many researchers have argued that the focus on input measures and the oversimplified use of output measures may create a misleading picture of the quality of PSE in Ontario. Using input measures as quality indicators ignores the substantial differences in the effectiveness with which
institutions use available resources. Using output measures as quality indicators ignores the fact that universities differ from one another in terms of mission, size, location and student composition.
Over the past few decades, Canada’s labour requirements have changed drastically—from a need for physical labourers to a need for knowledge workers—as a result of changes in economic and social conditions that have included advances in information and communication technologies, globalization of economic activity and shifting demographics. Consequently, employers and firms are increasingly seeking skilled workers with a more sophisticated array of capabilities. Of recent concern, the current global recession has led to the deterioration of labour-market conditions in Canada and worldwide, profoundly affecting—through increased vulnerability to unemployment—the economic and social well-being of families and communities across Canada. Canada’s economic strength, as in other countries, depends on its ability to develop a skilled and flexible workforce, capable of adapting to continuous change. While Canada’s formal education is of a high standard, it alone cannot provide the conditions needed to secure the development of Canada’s talent—its human infrastructure*—which is a necessary element of our country’s future prosperity. Against this backdrop, Securing Prosperity through Canada’s Human Infrastructure, CCL’s second†report on the state of adult learning and workplace training in Canada, demonstrates that investments in human infrastructure—both in times of economic uncertainty and relative prosperity—are critical to securing a strong economy and greater social equity.
Incoming students at Seneca College and at most other community colleges in Ontario undergo a post-admission
English language skills assessment. The assessment is used to diagnose their writing needs and
to place them into a course appropriate to their level of proficiency.
Over the past five years, an increasing number of incoming students at Seneca have been placed into a developmental English course called EAC149 (in 2005, 38.0 per cent; in 2009, 43.4). EAC149 is a four-hourper- week, non-credit reading and writing course designed to prepare students for college-level English.
While developmental or remedial classes are not necessarily associated with lower academic success (Attewell, Lavin, Domina & Levey, 2006), our records indicate that a lower success rate in EAC149 puts students at a pronounced risk of not graduating from Seneca College. Effective methods to encourage successful completion of EAC149 may thus increase students’ chances of graduating from their programs.
This project assessed the impact of tablet technology and DyKnow interactive software on the development of
students’ writing skills in EAC149. Tablets enable individuals to use a pen-like instrument called a stylus to
take notes, record marginal comments and modify digital text in a manner similar to writing with a pen on
paper. DyKnow interactive software enables teachers to share and record digital content and collaborate with
students individually and collectively as a classroom session proceeds. With each tablet linked to DyKnow
interactive software, a teacher can display the work of individual students anonymously on a screen for
viewing by all class members and incorporate notations and marginal comments as they discuss the text.
The past few years have ushered in more strident calls for accountability across institutions of higher learning. Various internal and external stakeholders are asking questions like "Are students learning what we want them to learn?" and "How do the students' scores from one institution compare to its peers?" As a result, more institutions are looking for new, more far-reaching ways to assess student learning and then use assessment findings to improve students' educational experiences.
However, as Trudy Banta notes in her article An Accountability Program Primer for Administrators, “just as simply weighing a pig will not make it fatter, spending millions simply to test college students is not likely to help them learn more.†(p. 6)
While assessing institutional effectiveness is a noble pursuit, measuring student learning is not always easy, and like so many things we try to quantify, there’s much more to learning than a number in a datasheet. As Roxanne Cullen and Michael Harris note in their article The Dash to Dashboards, “The difficulty we have in higher education in defining and measuring our outcomes lies in the complexity of our business: the business of learning. A widget company or a fast-food chain has clearly defined goals and can usually pinpoint with fine accuracy where and how to address loss in sales or glitches in production or service. Higher education is being called on to be able to perform similar feats, but creating a graduate for the 21st century workforce is a very different kind of operation.†(p. 10) This special report Educational Assessment: Designing a System for Mo re Meaningful Results features articles from Academic Leader, and looks at the assessment issue from a variety of
different angles. Articles in the result include:
.The Faculty and Program-Wide Learning Outcome Assessment
. Assessing the Degree of Learner-Centeredness in a Department or Unit
. Keys to Effective Program-Level Assessment
. Counting Something Leads to Change in an Office or in a Classroom
. An Accountability Program Primer for Administrators
Whether you're looking to completely change your approach to assessment, or simply improve the efficacy of your current assessment processes, we hope this report will help guide your discussions and eventual decisions.
The Ontario government recognizes the importance of ensuring equality of access to postsecondary education (PSE). One group that has been and continues to be underrepresented in PSE is students with disabilities. As a response, the Ontario government has made improvements to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, with the end goal of making Ontario a more accessible province for people with disabilities by 2025. In addition to making changes to legislation, there has been increased funding for students with disabilities, with more than $47 million allocated in 2010-2011 to help these students achieve
success in PSE. The Ontario government now also provides targeted funding for students with learning disabilities (Tsagris and Muirhead, 2012).
The 2005 Postsecondary Review, “Ontario: a Leader in Learning,” authored by Bob Rae, addressed issues facing students with disabilities. Key recommendations1 included:
Require institutions to reach out to students with disabilities at their schools and in their communities to ease the transition to postsecondary education. Provide funding for enhanced academic and career counselling on campus. Allow for the evolution of centres of research and service excellence and distribute funding to institutions for supports and services on the basis of the size of a given institution’s population of students with disabilities (Rae, 2005: 32).
With a population of 13 million people, the province of Ontario covers a significant geographic distribution of 917,741 square kilometres (Statistics Canada, 2005). Fourteen per cent of the population is categorized as living in a rural, remote or northern area (Statistics Canada, 2011). Within this land mass is a rich diversity of people, systems and institutions that are privileged to call it home - including Francophone persons and First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. There are unique challenges that exist within these communities that affect access to health services: geographic distance, socioeconomic status, availability of health human resources and infrastructure. These factors have an impact on health status, wellness and the ability to offer person-centred health care.
This report was requested and partially funded by the University of Waterloo’s Centre for the Advancement of Co-operative Education (WATCACE), along with funding from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. It presents a customized analysis of findings from three surveys, undertaken in spring 2011 and spring 2012, to gather perspectives from graduating college and university students, postsecondary faculty, and Ontario employers on work-integrated learning (WIL) within a postsecondary program of study. The three surveys were funded by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) and conducted by Academica Group Inc., in partnership with the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU), the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation (MEDI), as well as 14 Ontario postsecondary institutions and a variety of student associations and other stakeholders. The surveys were designed to gain a better understanding of student, faculty, and employer experiences with WIL, including motivations and barriers to participation, and perceptions of challenges and benefits. The results presented in this report provide insights into the attitudes and opinions of students and faculty from the University of Waterloo and the Ontario employers most likely to hire University of Waterloo graduates.
Imagine a future in which cancer becomes a memory, ordinary people travel in space, and computers carry on conversations like humans. Now imagine a darker future – a world beset bywar, rising temperatures and energyshortages, one where the United States faces a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons.
Most Americans think that these developments and many others are likely to unfold over the next 40 years. In the public’s view, this promises to be an era of technological progress. Large majorities expect that computers will be able to carry on conversations (81% say this definitely or probably will happen) and that there will be acure for cancer (71%). About two-thirds
(66%) say that artificial arms and legs will outperform real limbs while 53% envision ordinary people traveling in space.
At the same time, most say that war, terrorism and environmental catastrophes are at least probable by the year 2050. Nearly sixin-ten (58%) see another world war as definite or probable; 53% say the same about the prospect for a major terrorist attack on the United States involving nuclear weapons. An even higher percentage (72%) anticipates that the world will face a major energy crisis in the next 40 years. The public is evenly divided over whether the quality of the earth’s environment will improve over the next 40 years; as many say the environment is not likely to improve (50%) as say it is (47%). There continues to be a widespread belief that the earth will get warmer in the future, though the percentage expressing this view has declined by 10 points, from 76% to 66%,since 1999.
Moreover, 60% say the world’s oceans will be less healthy 40 years from now than they are today; just 32% say the oceans will be more healthy. The survey was conducted just after the Imagining Life in 2050 Probably/DefinitelyIn next 40 years… Will Will not
Science/technology happen happen DK
Computers will be able % % %
to converse like humans 81 18 1=100
Cancer will be cured 71 27 2=100
Artificial limbs will perform
better than natural ones 66 31 3=100
Ordinary people will travel in space 53 45 2=100
Energy/environment
Most of our energy will not
come from coal/oil/gas 74 24 6=100
World will face major energy crisis
Earth will get warmer
War/terrorism
Another world war
Major terrorist attack on U.S.
involving nuclear weapons
Pew Research Center/Smithsonian magazine
April 21-26, 2010. Figures may not add to 100% because of rounding.
April 20 explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico but before the full extent of the massive environmental damage caused by the oil leak became evident.
These are among the findings of a new survey of attitudes and expectations about the future, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Smithsonian magazine in conjunction with the magazine’s 40th
anniversary (see "40 Things You Need to Know about the Next 40 Years"). The survey, conducted by landline
and cell phones April 21-26 among 1,546 adults, was informed by a 1999 survey on the future that explored
many of the same topics (see “Optimism Reigns,
Technology Plays Key Role,” October 24, 1999).
Despite the current economic slump and the widespread anticipation of crises to come, most Americans remain upbeat about the future, both for themselves and the nation. Today, 64% say they are very or somewhat optimistic about life for themselves and their family over the next 40 years, while 61% are optimistic about the future of the United States.
Moreover, 56% say the U.S. economy will be stronger than it is today.
Today’s recession-weary public is less sanguine about the long-term future than it was in May 1999, a time of very strong economic growth. Still, majorities across most demographic and political groups see things getting better – both for themselves and the nation – over the next four decades.
The programs featured in this research represent the two main approaches to international teaching assistant (ITA) preparation in Canada. The first is a traditional or general Teaching Assistant Training Program (TATP), in which ITAs participate in twenty hours of preparation for teaching in an interdisciplinary cohort, together with Canadian graduate students. The second program, ‘Teaching in the Canadian Classroom’ (TCC), is a training program designed especially for ITAs. ITAs participate in twenty hours of preparation for teaching in an interdisciplinary cohort, but only with other ITAs. Both programs include video-recorded microteaching sessions, during which teaching assistants (TAs) receive detailed feedback on a ten-minute lesson that they teach. Both programs also include modules on effective teaching techniques. What makes the ‘Teaching in the Canadian Classroom’ program unique is that it includes a substantial intercultural communication
component. This component addresses cultural differences in the role of instructors and students, expectations for student engagement in Canadian classrooms, and communication strategies that may help ITAs bridge cultural differences in communication styles with their students and their supervisors.
Since the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) was launched, it has completed and published more than 140 research studies – and funded dozens more that are currently underway – that explore a wide range of trends and issues involving Ontario's postsecondary system. Drawing mainly from HEQCO's own research, this @Issue paper:
. Describes how the definition of student success has gradually broadened at Ontario colleges and universities;
. Summarizes some of the underlying institutional and student population factors that also impact on most current measures of student success;
. Provides broad observations about some recent findings as they relate to the awareness, utilization and impact of various student service, course-based and other initiatives designed to promote student success;
. Recommends what can be measured – as well as how and what outcomes can be expected – when it comes to initiatives and interventions designed to improve student success.
Some readers will be looking for the "silver bullet" within this paper. They will want to be told about a best practice that has been proven to be most effective at improving academic achievement, retention or engagement at an Ontario college or university, and that can be replicated to equal effect elsewhere. This @Issue paper does not identify “silver bullets.†As explained in the pages that follow, the scope and scale of an intervention may make it difficult to measure – or even expect – considerable impacts on student success, especially in the short term.
This paper does provide broad lessons, however, that are likely to be applicable across a wide range of student service, course-based and other interventions currently offered at Ontario colleges and universities.
Defining “Student Successâ€
For several decades, both governments and colleges/universities in Ontario and across Canada have tried to broaden access to postsecondary education (PSE) In particular, it was believed that a wide variety of barriers – family and social background, financial resources, information about options, etc. – needed to be overcome to encourage broader PSE participation, especially by those from traditionally under-represented groups (low income, first-generation, Aboriginal, visible
minority, rural, etc.).
Before the emergence of Internet-based technologies, the classroom was still a room. It featured a teacher at the front delivering learning content to a group of students. Much of today’s teaching and learning is stillconducted within the four walls of the classroom. However, the ubiquity of the Internet, mobile devices, wireless networks and other technologies has torn down the walls of the classroom, enabling a variety of unconventional, location-independent learning environments. By allowing students fl exible learning options, schools can provide more individualized instruction. If implemented properly, online and hybrid learning engage students of all ages, ensure equal access to underserved areas, provide learning opportunities for students with family and job responsibilities, and give older learners a second chance at a college degree. This Special Report will focus on the evolution of learning settings from traditional, instructor-led classrooms to completely virtual, student-centric classes and schools. We will describe and illustrate myriad K-12, college and university learning environments, give examples of how evolving classroom models impact students and teachers, and highlight the technologies that make it possible.
Today’s students use technology to make decisions, manage information and engage socially. They require new ways of learning, communicating, thinking, finding information and problem-solving. To continue to keep students engaged in learning in an environment of ever changing technology, the classroom — be it a familiar on-campus environment or a student’s home or even acoffee shop — must evolve.
With experts projection that five million K-12 students will enroll in online course by 2016, thee is no doubt that blended learning asking the key question: "Does blended learning give better outcomes than traditional classes?"
Mathematics is an integral part of the curriculum in the Ontario community college system. Most students are required to take at least one, often several mathematics courses during their college studies. Almost all students enrolled in business and technology programs take several courses in mathematics. Most colleges administer some form of placement/diagnostic math test. At some colleges, the results of the test will help in the proper placement of first semester students into a developmental (remedial) math course or a first semester math course. For a variety of reasons, many of our students struggle with math. According to the College Mathematics Project report 2009,i 33 per cent of our students received a D or F or withdrew
from the course. College faculty who teach mathematics come from diverse backgrounds.
Education levels range from baccalaureates to PhDs with degrees in mathematics, business, engineering, and education to name a few. Many of our faculty members have had little formal training in education. An opportunity to share, discuss, and learn from one another about teaching and teaching practices can therefore benefit both faculty and students. The Ontario College MathematicsAssociation Math Knowledge Exchange Network (MathKEN) has created an environment in which Ontario college mathematics educators can share exemplary teaching practices and resources in business math, developmental math, technical math, and statistics. It is important that teaching methods be shared amongst faculty to help in identifying and disseminating exemplary teaching practices. These teaching methods or practices could be something that has been tried in the classroom and the teacher feels that it is promising and would like feedback from colleagues on whether they have experienced similar results. For example, students coming into the Ontario college system come with the expectation that their studies in college will prepare them with the skills to immediately be successful in their careers.
For many of our students, contextual learningii is very important, not only for how they learn, but also for making their studies relevant to their personal and professional lives.
Faculty have learned about ways to teach from their own education and professional training, from their own learning and teaching experiences, attending courses, workshops, and conferences. Many mathematics faculty in Ontario colleges have the opportunity to share teaching practices by attending meetings and conferences sponsored by the Ontario Colleges
Mathematics Association (OCMA). Unfortunately, there are also many who are not able to attend face-to-face meetings and so miss the opportunity to share resources. For those who do attend, the long periods between meetings can lead to stagnation and de-energized teaching. Many teach in isolation, without the benefit of input and feedback from others who share the same concerns, challenges, and successes.
After reviewing the state of student retention research and practice, past and present, the author looks to the future and identifies three areas of research and practice that call for further exploration. These concern issues of institutional action, program implementation, and the continuing challenge of promoting the success of low-income students.
Key Word: Tinto
As online education moves from the fringes to the mainstream, one question still persists: “How do I know what my online students have learned?” There are no simple answers, just as there aren’t in face-to-face courses, but with a little creativity and flexibility, you soon discover that the online learning environment opens up a host of new student assessment possibilities. And, just as with traditional courses, the trick is finding the right combination that works best for your particular course.
This special report features 12 articles from Online Classroom that will cause you to examine your current methods of online assessment, and perhaps add something new to your assessment toolbox. It even talks about some of the common assessment mistakes you’ll want to avoid.
Take a look at some of the articles you will find in Assessing Online Learning: Strategies, Challenges and Opportunities:
• Authentic Experiences, Assessment Develop Online Students’ Marketable Skills
• Four Typical Online Learning Assessment Mistakes
• Assessing Whether Online Learners Can DO: Aligning Learning Objectives with
Real-world Applications
• Strategies for Creating Better Multiple-Choice Tests
• Assessing Student Learning Online: It’s More Than Multiple Choice
• Using Self-Check Exercises to Assess Online Learning
• Measuring the Effectiveness of an Online Learning Community
• Ongoing Student Evaluation Essential to Course Improvement
Online courses enable a strong student-centered approach to learning and, as a result, assessment. We hope this report helps you design and develop online assessment strategies that take full advantage of the many formal and informal assessment tools now at your fingertips.