Handheld devices are widely applied to support open and distributed learning, where students are diverse. On the other hand, customization and personalization can be applied to accommodate students’ diversities. However, paucity of research compares the effects of customization and personalization in the context of handheld devices. To this end, a customized digital learning system (CDLS) and personalized digital learning system (PDLS) were implemented with the handheld devices and they tailored to the needs of different cognitive style groups. Furthermore, we conducted two empirical studies to examine the effects of cognitive styles on the use of the CDLS and PDLS. More specifically, Study 1 identified the preferences of each cognitive style group while Study 2 investigated how students with different cognitive styles react to the CDLS and the PDLS. The results from these two studies showed that student with the CDLS and those with the PDLS obtained similar task scores and post-test scores, regardless of their cognitive styles. However, cognitive styles affected the efficiency of completing tasks and perceptions for customization and personalization.
Keywords: customization, personalization, handheld devices, cognitive styles
The ability to solve problems and think critically are considered by many to be desired outcomes of the education system, both within K-12 and higher education. They are ever-present skills measured by many accreditation frameworks in the professional and higher education sectors, and consistently rank among the top skills and abilities desired in graduates, according to employer surveys (Hart Research Associates, 2008; 2013). Despite this prevalence, critical thinking and problem solving are often identified by employers as skills that require more emphasis in higher education (Hart Research Associates, 2008; Arum & Roksa, 2011). Recent evidence questions the degree to which current undergraduate education supports the development of critical thinking and complex problem solving skills (Arum & Roksa, 2011; Astin, 1993a; 1993b; Blaich & Wise, 2008; Klein et al., 2009; Pascarella, Blaich, Martin & Hanson, 2011). The development of critical thinking skills (CTS) is itself a complex issue, complicated by a lack of agreement on the definition of critical thinking and on an associated framework for its development (Ku, 2009). Popular frameworks of critical thinking include the Cornell-Illinois model (Ennis, Millman & Tomko, 1985), the Paul-Elder model (Paul & Elder, 2005; Paul & Elder, 1996), the CLA model (Shavelson, 2008), the APA Delphi model (Facione, 1990), and Halpern’s Model for Critical Thinking (Halpern, 1999; Halpern & Riggio, 2002). Each of these frameworks or models proposes a different definition for critical thinking and a different set of skills, traits and abilities that comprise it. Instruction and assessment of CTS is also an area of particular difficulty, with the efficacy of pedagogical strategies for critical thinking development and the authenticity of critical thinking assessment under much scrutiny (Bensley & Murtagh, 2011; Solon, 2003).
The mission of America’s community colleges is focused on three areas of commitment: access, responsiveness to community need, and equity. The commitment to access is exemplified by the open admissions policies of community colleges and the multiple ways colleges remove financial, physical, and academic barriers to entry. That access has resulted in entry into higher education by first generation, low-income, minorities, dropouts, working adults, and others who lacked the financial, academic, time, or location means to participate in traditional higher education systems. Looking at multiple college mission statements as well as scholarly definitions, the essential core of agreement is that community colleges provide access to the education necessary for both a productive life for individuals and healthy and successful communities they serve. Access to higher education is essential to a democratic society and a strong middle class.
Le réseau des collèges publics a été créé en 1967 par le gouvernement du Québec et il est maintenant implanté dans toutes les régions du Québec. Les 48 cégeps (43 francophones et 5 anglophones) constituent la première étape de l’enseignement supérieur québécois et offrent d’une part neuf programmes préuniversitaires, qui mènent à l’université, et d’autre part, cent trente programmes de formation technique, qui préparent à l’entrée sur le marché du travail. En plus des diplômes d’études collégiales (DEC) de l’enseignement ordinaire, les cégeps offrent divers programmes de formation continue afin de faciliter l’acquisition de compétences et de connaissances spécialisées, soit en cours de carrière ou dans le cadre d’un retour aux études.
Pour l’année scolaire 2012-2013, les cégeps comptaient 172 793 étudiants à l’enseignement ordinaire, soit 48,7 % au secteur préuniversitaire, 45,8 % au secteur technique et 5,5 % au programme Tremplin DEC. De plus, 26 024 étudiants poursuivaient des études collégiales par l’entremise de la formation continue créditée. De ces grands totaux, on dénombrait 2 226 étudiants internationaux en 2012-20131.
Ontario is in the process of designing a plan for postsecondary education (PSE) to follow Reaching Higher. The new plan will contain an array of policy goals and strategies, and some consideration must be given to a tuition fee policy. The current tuition fee policy was slated to end in 2009-10, but was extended by two years. A new framework must be in place for the 2012-13 academic year. This paper presents options for a new tuition framework. We do not rank the options or make a recommendation, believing that this decision is appropriately a political one be made by government.
Much has been written about tuition fees and tuition fee policy. Our contribution is to provide some context for the choices ahead. One perspective comes from recent research on higher education. There is an emerging consensus in the Canadian higher education literature that can help evaluate current policies and point to possible new directions. This body of knowledge is frequently missing from tuition policy discussions, either because it is not widely understood or, occasionally, because the implications run counter to long-held positions.
The other perspective is historical. Ontario’s choices will be shaped in good measure by the policies already in place and the priorities underlying them. Specifically, postsecondary education will continue to be viewed as a key contributor to the province’s economic and social goals, and expectations for the sector are likely to continue to focus on accessibility, quality, and accountability.
We begin by describing briefly the current tuition framework and pressures for change. This discussion makes clear that tuition fee policy is not just about tuition fees; it is equally about student financial assistance polices and about the revenue needs of
colleges and universities. Setting a new fee policy requires full appreciation of the complex interplay among these three factors.
We note that, contrary to often-expressed views, Canadian researchers find no consistent correlation between tuition fees and PSE participation and persistence rates. Part of the explanation for this result is that average private rates of return to
postsecondary education compare very favourably to those available from purely financial investments. Increases in tuition rates of the magnitude witnessed in Canada in recent decades apparently have not been large enough to alter this situation.
Another part of the explanation is that non-financial barriers loom large for some individuals.
Private rates of return are relatively high in part because governments have chosen to subsidize PSE in various ways. The public debate frequently focuses on average tuition fees as reported by Statistics Canada. Yet this focus is misleading. For many
students, particularly those with demonstrated financial need, the actual costs of PSE @ Issue Paper No. 6 • Tuition Fee Policy Options for Ontario
2 – Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario are substantially lower once grants, subsidized loans, tax credits and debt relief are taken into account. These government policies notwithstanding, there are still groups that are underrepresented in PSE in Ontario and it is apparent that financial barriers remain part of the explanation. Other factors include lack of understanding of the relative benefits and costs of postsecondary education and decisions made early in the schooling process that preclude a successful transition to PSE.
There is an emerging consensus in the literature on how to design support policies to offset financial barriers. Ontario has many of these features in place, but there are options for improvement. These changes should be considered no matter what new
tuition policy emerges, but it is especially important to do so if the new policy contains ongoing fee increases.
The process for deciding on a tuition policy requires simultaneous and interdependent decisions on three key PSE policy variables: the revenue needs of the colleges and universities in each year of the planning period, a tuition fee framework that balances contributions to these revenue needs with effects on accessibility, and the public funds available each year for operating grants plus contributions to student financial assistance.
Four types of tuition frameworks are presented and evaluated for strengths and weaknesses within the Ontario context: capped tuition fees, a shares approach, constrained deregulation, and full deregulation. We look briefly at several variant of fee caps: a rollback, a freeze, tying increases to the CPI, and retaining the status quo policy of a maximum allowable increase of 5%. We argue that there is no obvious cap figure. Any choice involves a balancing of revenue needs, accessibility, and fiscal capacity.
The same point applies to proposals to adopt a shares approach wherein tuition revenue is set at some portion of institutional operating revenue. There is no obvious share to aim at. Governments over many years, for a variety of reasons, chose to
increase the relative share of PSE operating costs borne by students. These decisions were made in conjunction with a host of other economic and social policy adjustments;
for example, tuition credits. Any decision to alter this trend must take this broader historical perspective into account.
The choice of a new fee policy must also involve consideration of the pros and cons of relaxing or even removing the current distinctions of allowable fee increases among programs. A constrained deregulation approach would remove these distinctions among programs but retain an overall fee cap. Complete deregulation would remove the distinction and the arbitrary cap, although it is perfectly compatible with a scheme to tax back a portion of fee increases for need-based financial assistance.
This report outlines a series of recommendations for the post-secondary sector arising from a research study carried out by researchers from Queen’s University and St. Lawrence College. Funding for this 30-month project, which began in January 2013, was provided by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities under the Mental Health Innovation Fund. In the fall of 2012, each post-secondary institution in Ontario was invited to submit proposals for funding and this project was one of ten successful applications.
The 2015 Campus Freedom Index is the fifth annual report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) to measure the state of free speech at Canada’s universities.
Starting with a survey of only 18 universities in 2011, this year’s edition has grown to include 55 publicly funded Canadian universities—the largest and most expansive Index released so far, with information relevant to the more than 750,000 students who attend these institutions. The 2015 Campus Freedom Index includes an individual report about each university and student union.
Association of Canadian Community Colleges Annual Report 2010-2011
The third stream agenda is a critical strategy in the pursuit of enriched learning, enhancing student employability and much needed revenues. Voices of support of the third stream agenda resonate across political parties, the business community and universities. Academic journals have also reflected a scenario in which the academic community of practice have transformed its rational into ‘can do’ mission statements and strategic policies with a clear focus to source, convert and embed third stream activities. In return, universities seek quarries such as more marketable programmes of studies, committed and commercially
aware academics, improved business interchange and in light of the economic recession and subsequent austere measures, the replenishment of new revenue streams.
The Council of Europe (since the mid-1960s), the European Commission (since the late 1980s) and many European states and civil society organisations (in the aftermath of the Second World War) have long fostered programmes and strategies to enhance the mobility of young people.
The prevailing notion of such programmes is that the process of economic and political integration in Europe will indeed remain fragmentary and unstable without accompanying social and educational measures. Instead of a Europe with non-transparent
bureaucratic institutions, a “Europe of Citizens” was meant to develop wherein people would get to know each other,
appreciate their mutual cultural differences and, at the same time, form a European identity by saying “yes” to core European values. As such, mobility is considered important for the personal development of young people, contributing as it does to their employability and thus their social inclusion.
Post-Secondary Education in Ontario: Managing Challenges in an Age of Austerity January 2013
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.
BY UNDERSTANDING HOW THE BRAIN WORKS, educators are better equipped to help students with everything from focusing attention to increasing retention. That’s the promise of brain-based learning, which draws insights from neurology, psychology, technology, and other fields. Bringing this information to the classroom can help teachers engage diverse learners, offer effective feedback that leads to deeper understanding, and create a rich learning environment that attends to students’ social and emotional needs along with their developing brains.
Chances are, you already know more about brain-based learning than you think you do. When you introduce topics to your students, do you begin by activating prior knowledge? That helps learners build on what they already know, strengthening connections in the brain. Do you use tools like graphic organizers, songs, or rhymes? These strategies help students represent their thinking visually, kinesthetically, and phonetically. These techniques all deserve a place in your tool kit because they get the brain primed for learning.
I am pleased to report that Humber had another strong year as we embrace and deliver on our new strategic plan: Strengthen, Sustain, Maximize. Leading up to the launch of this plan last fall, Humber experienced unprecedented growth.
From 2008-2013, full-time postsecondary enrolment increased by 43% compared to the provincial increase of 25% over the same period. As we approach our 50th anniversary, we continue to innovate and collaborate in order to bring our
students the highest quality education delivered by faculty and staff committed to their success.
We do this by living the values of a learning organization. That means fostering an organizational culture that encourages curiosity, creativity, innovation and collaborative problem solving. All skills necessary to succeed in today’s increasingly
interconnected and global world.
Looking out at our students in classrooms today, with their texting, Facebook updates, Instagram messages, e-mail checking, Google searches, and tweeting, it’s hard to imagine what was so distracting for college students more than 100 years ago when James made this statement. Yet, even then, he recognized the propensity of the mind to constantly seek novel material, to leap from thought to image to belief to fear to desire to judgment and back again — all following one’s own quirky train of thought resembling the chaotic movements of a swarm of bees around a hive. Time passes through a warped dimension when the student finally returns to some semblance of attention, unaware of all the cognitive detours taken between points A and B. And that’s just the internal process, prompted by nothing in particular. How much more distraction is invited by today’s mobile technology?
In 2013, the national economy began to recover more earnestly. Some states even increased funding for higher education, although not by much.1 Performance-based funding, greater accountability, student completion rates and gainful employment became the often-heard buzz words of 2013. Not to be out done, most distance education programs are pressured to find ways to close the student achievement gap many online programs still experience as compared to face-to-face courses, or risk
seeing further budget and staff reductions. As the authors of the ITC survey have suggested for the past several years, the Great Recession has forced many states to undergo a paradigm shift in how they will make funding decisions for colleges and
universities in the years to come.
College prices have increased by 45 percemt on average over the past decade, while household income has declinded by 7 percent in the same period.
While discussions on the value of education often focus on economic gains, the social returns to education are vast and can be reaped at both the individual level (e.g., better health) and societal level (e.g., lower crime rates).
Based on a combination of new and existing analyses, this paper explores the individual benefits and disadvantages associated with education, focusing on civic engagement; health/happiness; crime; and welfare/unemployment. The findings clearly suggest that investing in education has both individual and social benefits. While no causal link can be made between level of education and the returns examined, it is evident that those with some form of postsecondary education (PSE) often fare better than those with no more than a high school education.
For example, in terms of civic engagement, university graduates are more likely than high school graduates to volunteer and donate money. Higher levels of education also increase the likelihood of voting and other forms of political participation. In terms of health and happiness, university graduates tend to rate their physical and mental health higher than those with fewer years of education and are also less likely to smoke. Finally, happiness and life satisfaction also tend to increase with education.
Educated individuals are less likely to be incarcerated, most notably when comparing high school graduates with those who did not graduate. With that said, certain types of crime are more prevalent among certain populations and individuals with higher levels of education are more likely to commit white collar crimes. Finally, those with more education have lower unemployment rates and fared better during the most recent economic recession. They were less likely to require social assistance and had shorter welfare spells, especially for women.
Online writing resources have the potential to improve writing instruction for university students, particularly in large classes where frequent writing assignments are often not possible. The Assignment Planner (AP) is an online resource created by the Writing Centre at Wilfrid Laurier University and is freely available to all students through the Writing Centre website. The AP guides students through the process of researching and writing an academic paper. It projects a timeline for each paper and breaks down the research and writing process into 11 steps. Our research project was designed to examine whether integrating use of the AP into large classes has benefits for students and/or professors.
In this quasi-experimental research project, four large first-year classes and one fourth-year seminar class were studied. The first-year classes were randomly assigned to either a control condition (no classroom integration) or intervention condition (explicit integration of the AP into the classroom). The fourth-year seminar class, in which integration of the AP was already underway, was a post hoc addition to the study. Data collection included frequency counts of students’ online access to the AP, student in-class surveys, student writing marks and professor interviews.
Using a dataset containing nearly 500,000 courses taken by over 40,000 community and technical college students in Washington State, this study examines how well students adapt to the online environment in terms of their ability to persist and earn strong grades in online courses relative to their ability to do so in face-to-face courses. While all types of students in the study suffered decrements in performance in online courses, some struggled more than others to adapt: males, younger students, Black students, and students with lower grade point averages. In particular, students struggled in subject areas such as English and social science, which was due in part to negative peer effects in these online courses.