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).
One of the most profound transformations in postsecondary education is coming from the realization that digital communication skills really do matter in everyday life; therefore, it is imperative that digital skills also matter in academic life. Students and enlightened faculty alike understand that the convergence of technical and creative competencies is helping to create new opportunities for a whole new generation of creative professionals. “Imagine a curriculum that is based on achieving comprehensive goals where students must create and produce a computer game, suggests Eric Converse, CEO of ATIV Software, a mobile application development company. “This requires an understanding of physics and math, programming and scripting, story and dialog writing, cinematography, art and design, music, collaboration, teamwork, and delegation.Digital storytelling has become an essential method of enhancing education in the humanities by making abstract or conceptual content more understandable. It engages students through images, audio, and video and provides a compelling way of sharing their work with their peers that, in turn, fosters more collaboration and accomplishment. The availability of increasingly sophisticated audio editing, image editing and video editing tools, such as those provided in Adobe® Creative Suite® software, has given educators and students unprecedented abilities to become master composers in nonprint media and to build digital stories in the humanities that can captivate and teach an audience and connect people like never before. In addition, competencies that have traditionally been associated with art and design professionals are now expected from professionals working in such disciplines as journalism and education. Institutions are also seeing an increasing awareness of the value that subject matter experts with deep technological ability bring to the classroom and the workplace. This realization that the sum of discipline expertise plus technology expertise is even greater than its respective parts is leading to the emergence of fields of study such as informatics, instructional design, and educationaltechnology, areas of study that claim digital proficiencies as core components.
This paper explores the impact that digital communication skills, using processes associated with digital storytelling, is having on disciplines including liberal arts, humanities, and cross-curricular humanities/ technology collaboratories. In its simplest forms, digital storytelling involves the illustration of story elements using photographs and graphics tools, sometimes using nothing more than free and open source tools that can help make an abstract idea more conceptually complete. Increasingly, however, digital storytelling has evolved to include more complex forms of digital expression requiring video skills, such as micro-documentary production. In some cases, digital storytelling is dependent upon computer programming skills for application development and augmented reality.
Table of contents
1: Background
1: Introduction
2: The evolution of 21st century digital communication skills
2: Digital storytelling for enriched communications
3: Integrated enrichment: digital humanities instruction and practice
3: English language and literature course presentations enhanced by use of Adobe CS5
3: Other notable digital storytelling initiatives
4: Summary
4: References
Ontario’s professors and academic librarians are on the front lines of Ontario’s universities. They are uniquely positioned to assess the performance of the sector, and to identify trends that affect the quality of university education.
To take advantage of this insight, the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) surveyed Ontario faculty to gauge their opinions on the quality of university education in our province. The survey was also designed to assess the priorities of university faculty, particularly in regards to the balance of teaching and research in their work.
The survey was conducted online between March 21, 2012 and April 16, 2012. Responses to the questionnaire were received from over 2,300 faculty members, with a total of 2,015 complete responses from professors and academic librarians from all Ontario universities and a full range of disciplines. The following report presents the survey findings and provides additional commentary about key results.
While Scott Jeffrey, PhD, was getting his doctorate at the University of Chicago, he investigated which rewards would be the most effective in getting University staff members to improve speed and accuracyiii in the University’s incentive lab. In a controlled study he tested hard cold cash against a variety of non-monetary rewards, such as massages and tangible rewards. He used only a verbal “thank you” for the control group.
The education of students with Special Needs (SN) has been well researched at the school level (K-12) and a growing number of studies have been conducted at the postsecondary education (PSE) level. However, there is little research on transitions of SN students between the two systems. Inclusive policies at both the school and postsecondary level are designed to encourage students with SN to continue with their education. However, relatively few do so. Some students with SN fail to complete their schooling and drop. Others graduate from high school but decide against enrolling in a college or university program. While some of these students may prefer direct entry to the labour market others have postsecondary aspirations for which they are not adequately prepared or supported. The social goal of inclusive education is to accommodate the aspirations of all students, including those designated as SN. The existing research on college and university access suggests that students with SN who aspire to PSE face significant barriers. How effectively they meet these challenges requires a better understanding of the basis for their post-high school pathway choices. Socio-demographic factors like gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status have long been recognized as influencing access to PSE, whether or not the individual is a student with special needs. Whatever their background, high school students who aspire to PSE must meet the academic entrance requirements of the institution (college or university) and, at the same time, develop the self-confidence and dispositions to study that are needed to succeed in a
postsecondary program. Acquiring the necessary capabilities can be especially challenging forat-risk students – those with low levels of achievement and those with special needs. Many, nevertheless, display the resilience needed to plan for, invest in, and realize their PSE aspirations. Schools play a key role in developing these resilient qualities in adolescents. Inclusive policies that emphasize students’ “strengths” rather than “deficits” have led to greater integration into mainstream classrooms. Learning in integrated settings is assumed to enhance opportunities for school engagement that complement and contribute to key student beliefs and behaviours – specifically, their sense of personal competence, dependability, and capacity for self-regulation.
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.
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.
Ensuring students with special needs are receiving the best education is one of the greatest challenges facing school districts around the country. It is a challenge to organize, staff and operate successfully. It is a challenge to determine how best to provide the required curriculum and content but ensure that it is individualized to meet the instructional needs of the student with special needs. It is a challenge to determine how best to evaluate and assess progress. And it is a challenge for the bottom line — special education programs are expensive. Teachers must have better tools if they are to cost effectively engage and teach students who have special learning needs. The toolkit needs to be well stocked with a variety of capabilities to meet the needs of students across the disability spectrum. The breadth and depth of the toolkit allows for teachers to effectively differentiate instruction for students.
Recent advances in technology, and the accompanying curricula that utilize these advances, are rapidly filling that
toolkit with programs that can provide benefits to students with special needs.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Association of Canadian Community Colleges Annual Report 2010-2011
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.
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?
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.