Abstract
This study examines the lived experiences of students as expressed in their reflections on their experiences of learning at Ambrose University in Calgary. It uses quantitative outcomes-related data from the National Survey of Stu- dent Engagement and the Theological School Survey of Student Engagement to illuminate qualitative data obtained through student focus groups. The analysis of the qualitative data was conducted using the constant comparative method developed by Glaser and
Strauss. The study concludes with recom- mendations for improving student engagement.
Résumé
Cette étude examine les expériences vécues par des élèves telles qu’exprimées dans leurs réflexions sur leurs expériences d’apprentissage à l’Université Ambrose, à Calgary. Afin d’éclairer les données qualitatives obtenues par le truchement de groupes de discussion d’étudiants, l’étude utilise les données liées aux r��sultats quantitatifs de l’Enquête nationale sur la participation étudiante (NSSE) et de l’Enquête de l’école de théologie sur l’engagement des étudiants (TSSSE). L’analyse des données qualitatives a été réalisée selon la méthode comparative constante développée par Glaser et Strauss. L’étude se conclut par des recommandations afin d’améliorer l’engagement des élèves.
One of the important questions to consider in a review of policy for postsecondary education is what kind of system do we need. To provide a reasonably complete answer to that question would require addressing many different dimensions of postsecondary
education including structures, processes, and relationships. In this paper, I will concentrate on two important and closely related subsidiary questions within the broader question of what kind of system we need. Those subsidiary questions are what is the most appropriate mix of different types of postsecondary institutions, and what should be their relationships with one another?1 As those are pretty large questions, within them my principal focus will be even narrower, on the balance and relationship between universities and community colleges.
Recently, I received an email from a student asking me the name of a writer -- a writer whose book we’d been reading for two weeks. (And discussing in class. And writing about in class.) It was not a textbook, anthology or unusual digital source. It was an old-fashioned printed book containing one play by one writer.
I knew that the student owned the book, because I had seen her with it in class, and in fact, she had told me she was enjoying the reading. However, when it was time for her to do an assignment on the playwright … well, she was stumped. She just didn’t know his name.
I had to explain to her, carefully, and with what I hope was compassion, that if she hadn’t picked up his name in the class discussions so far (or, I was thinking, in the course syllabus and calendar), then she could always try looking on the front cover of the book.
Over the past decade or so, the bachelor’s degree has undergone major changes in much of the world. The most important set of changes was brought on by the adoption, across Europe, of the Bologna Process. This led not only to the introduction of bachelor’s degrees in countries where no such qualification had previously existed, but also to a pan-continental harmonization (more or less) of the length of the degree, at three years. More recently, a number of universities in the United States – where a four-year degree has been sacrosanct for decades – have started experimenting with shorter degrees. At the same time that systems have been altering the length of degrees, there has also been a trend for systems in Europe and elsewhere – including Ontario and other parts of Canada – to open up degree provision to non-university Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). This has broken the centuries-long monopoly of universities over the provision of granting degrees. These two major experiments in changing times and changing places are the subject of this report, which was undertaken by Higher Education Strategy Associates for the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO).
International learning experiences are invaluable for students. Those who undertake education outside their country of residence develop leadership, self-reliance, language skills, intercultural understanding, sensitivity to local and global issues, and specialist skills when they participate in work placements and field schools. Employers also say that international experience gained through education makes a positive contribution to the workplace.1
Both students and educators have long recognized the value of learning abroad. Despite this, and the fact that almost all Canadian colleges and universities offer education-abroad opportunities (including semester exchanges, short-term study abroad, field school, and service learning), relatively few post-secondary students actually participate. Only 3.1 per cent of full-time university students2 and 1.1 per cent of full-time college students3in Canadian have gone abroad for part of their studies. Compared to some OECD countries, these figures are slim. In Germany, for example, fully 25 per cent of students in bachelors and masters programs have participated in a study abroad experience, and the country hopes to raise this number to 50 per cent by 2020.4
Occasionally I’m asked about quitting, particularly “quitting” a PhD program. This happened several times last week,
when I was in Vancouver.
Contrary to what you may hear or what your own internal critics tell you, there’s no shame in moving on. I remember a long post on a Versatile PhD forum from “PJ,” an ABD thinking about leaving instead of spending another two years (minimum) to finish their PhD. In response, one commenter wrote, “But the real question is, do you want to be a quitter? Now, not everyone will view that question the same, and I’m sure many will say that equating quitting a PhD program to being a quitter is not valid, but in reality, it is.” No! Thankfully, most other commenters on the thread offered more nuanced and helpful reflections and advice. “Finishing is not just about the destination,” one former tenure-track professor pointed out. “If that’s the only thing you want, then it’s a tough few years ahead.” Indeed.
The purpose of this document is to provide a high-level introduction to economic impact analysis (EIA) in a postsecondary education (PSE) context, written for a non-subject-expert audience of postsecondary institution stakeholders. It is intended to serve as broad context for individuals in the postsecondary education community who may wish to measure the economic impacts of their institutions or understand the methods, findings and limitations in studies done elsewhere. The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to be an exhaustive, detailed quantitative textbook in actually conducting such studies, nor is it intended to address the circumstances of any specific individual or entity.
Ontario is moving forward with postsecondary education for thousands of French-speaking students by creating a new stand-alone French-language university, l'Université de l'Ontario français. This historic addition to Ontario's postsecondary sector will offer a range of university degrees and education, entirely in French. The university will promote the linguistic, cultural,
economic and social well-being of its students as well as Ontario's growing French-speaking community.
Part 2: How Social Media Support and Expand Teaching and Learning
All post-secondary faculty and students use educational technology– whether for classroom-based, blended or fully online learning and teaching.
This three-part series, Three Pillars of Educational Technology: Learning Management Systems,
Social Media, and Personal Learning Environments, explores the learning management system (LMS), social media, and personal learning environments – and how they might best be used for enhanced teaching and learning.
The headlines are full of trans rights stories these days. From the federal government’s introduction of Bill C16
to finally add gender identity and gender expression to the Federal Human Rights Code, to Ontario’s upcoming reform to add the sex designation “X” to public registries, trans rights are on the move. But where exactly are they going? While the right to nondiscrimination seems to be increasingly recognized, there is a newer right on the horizon: the right to gender self-determination. It is a more positive right—one that gives the power over gender to individuals themselves. It means that gender variant people, like nongendervariant people, have an autonomous right over their gender that others are obliged to respect and protect.
Macleans article about how colleges are seen in the current environment.
Evelyn Christner has a job — actually, four jobs — with low pay, negligible sick time, no vacation or health insurance, no retirement plan, no guarantee of work and zero long-term job security. Christner doesn't serve french fries or run the cash register at a convenience store; she teaches anthropology and sociology to college students.
Part-time adjuncts like her, who freelance without the benefits of tenure or even regular employment, make up the majority of college instructors in the U.S. Tight budgets are pushing colleges and universities to rely increasingly on adjuncts (sometimes called associate or contingent faculty members), but their lives often are a far cry from the ivory-tower image of traditional academe.
This report focuses on data comparability of scale scores in the Teaching and Learning nternational Survey (TALIS).
Valid cross-cultural comparisons of TALIS data are vital in providing input for evidence-based policy making and in promoting the equity and effectiveness of teacher policies. For this purpose, an investigation of data comparability is a prerequisite for any meaningful cross-cultural comparison.
TALIS involves a large number of countries and economies, and has used rather strict conventional statistical methods to test comparability. Thus, many scales in TALIS do not reach the level of comparability that allows direct comparisons of scale scores. To facilitate the effective data analysis of TALIS and maximise its policy implications, this project: (1) uses a more flexible statistical method to testcomparability, and (2) investigates the level and sources of scale data incomparability.
Making work-integrated learning a fundamental part of the Canadian undergraduate experience is one of several commitments recently made by Canada’s Business/Higher Education Roundtable – a year-old organization representing some of the country’s leading companies and post-secondary institutions.
These two stories below are quite distant in terms of time and geography, but they share the same sentiment and implication for higher education institutions — that international student recruit-ment shouldn’t just be about revenue.
This paper examines the policies surrounding international students and international education from the perspective of college students in Ontario. The goal of this paper is to inform the discussion on the federal, provincial, and institutional policies surrounding international students as they pursue Ontario credentials and international education in general. International student currently represent about 10% of the overall college population. Their experiences are different from typical college students’, in part because international students undergo a different process of applying to an Ontario college. Furthermore, these students typically come from cultures that are different than that of Ontario, and may have difficulties in adapting to the way of life and the stresses associated with being an international student. It is important to make sure there are supports in place to address the differing needs these students have as they study in Ontario.
While the cost of tuition and the rate at which it increases are obviously important subjects to students, they often cloud other important tuition-related issues. For instance, there are currently no regulations governing how and when universities may charge students tuition, meaning that each institution has the freedom to set individual payment processes.
If we don’t move quickly, Canada risks seeing many of these young, bright minds take their talents elsewhere.
Ambitious, skilled and often multilingual, international students are a great source of talent. They fill jobs and create
new ones through innovation and entrepreneurship — Silicon Valley is a prominent, international example. Research by the Conference Board of Canada shows immigrants help expand and diversify Canada’s global trade. International students could do the same, helping Canada trade in markets such as Asia, where economic growth is greater than in the U.S. and EU — Canada’s largest trading partners.
In the fall of 2015, Toronto’s four universities collaborated on a massive data collection effort -StudentMoveTO – with the goal of collecting detailed data about where students live and travel throughout the day, as well as what factors influence how they schedule work, studies, and daily activities.
The existence of ‘Learning Styles’ is a common ‘neuromyth’, and their use in all forms of education has been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited in the research literature. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that their use remains widespread.
This perspective article is an attempt to understand if and why the myth of Learning Styles persists. I have done this by analyzing the current research literature to capture the picture that an educator would encounter were they to search for “Learning Styles” with the intent of determining whether the research evidence supported their use. The overwhelming majority (89%) of recent research papers, listed in the ERIC and PubMed research databases, implicitly or directly endorse the use of Learning Styles in Higher Education. These papers are dominated by the VAK and Kolb Learning Styles inventories. These presence of these papers in the pedagogical literature demonstrates that an educator, attempting to take an evidence-based approach to education, would be presented with a strong yet misleading message that the use of Learning Styles is endorsed by the current research literature. This has potentially negative consequences for students and for the field of education research.