Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate. In his 1989 book “On Becoming a Leader,”Warren Bennis composed a list of the differences: (a) The manager administers; the leader innovates. (b) The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.
The primary objectives of this paper were to determine whether there are significant gaps in Ontario’s postsecondary education system with respect to education and research activities, with particular attention to activities connoted by the term “polytechnic”, and if so, to consider how to address such gaps. In response to the first part of our task, we identified three major gaps in Ontario’s postsecondary education system: a free standing, degree-granting, primarily teaching-oriented institution that concentrates on undergraduate education; an open university that would expand accessibility and enable Learners to combine credits from different institutions and different types of learning experiences; and effective pathways for students who start their postsecondary education in a college to attain a baccalaureate degree and be able, if they are so
inclined, to continue on to graduate study.
We did not find compelling evidence that there is a shortage of opportunity for polytechnic education in
Ontario. Presently students are able to draw upon Ryerson University and the University of Ontario Institute of
Technology (UOIT), a modest but growing number of joint university-college programs, and baccalaureate and diploma programs of the colleges. In addition, many students create a polytechnic experience for themselves through transfer from a university to a college or from a college to a university, though more needs to be done to improve opportunities of the latter type.
Also, we think that there are some other good reasons for not designating some colleges as polytechnic institutions. The term polytechnic is fraught with ambiguity, and thus adding a new sector of postsecondary institutions with that name could be more confusing than helpful for prospective students. The institutions in British Columbia and Alberta that use the term polytechnic, either formally or informally, have since their founding been formally differentiated from other college sector institutions in their province and have a history of specialization in technology-based programming. No college sector institutions in Ontario have had a differentiated role like the institutes of technology in British Columbia and Alberta. We are aware also that five
colleges in Ontario have been seeking the polytechnic designation. In regard to both labour market needs and practices in other North American jurisdictions, it is hard to see a justification for adding that many polytechnic institutions to the provincial postsecondary education system, especially when four of them would be in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA). We appreciate that many colleges across Canada, including in Ontario, have made valuable contributions to industry through their applied research activities. Our impression is that the expertise and interaction with industry that fosters these contributions is largely situational and contextual related to the existence of particular faculty in particular programs and institutions.
Accordingly, we do not believe that designating some colleges as polytechnics is necessary to maintain or enhance the capability of the college sector to make such contributions.
While we do not believe that there are compelling arguments for designating some colleges as polytechnics, we are mindful of the contribution that could be made by enabling at least a few colleges to have a more substantial and broader role in offering baccalaureate programs if they are able to demonstrate that they meet the conditions required for such activity. Based upon our examination of the issues outlined above, we review a number of possible policy options to address the predicted demand for increased access to university degree programs in the GTA including: 1)
creating satellite campuses of existing universities; 2) creating new universities that are of the same type as existing universities; 3) creating new universities of a new type focusing on undergraduate study and with a limited role in research; 4) providing selected colleges with a new substantial role in baccalaureate programming; 5) providing colleges with a greater role in transfer programs in basic university subjects, such as arts and science; and 6) creating an open university. We review each of these options and discuss factors that should be considered by government.
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.
Why Join the Mobile Learning Movement? Mobile learning has clearly become a major new direction
for improving student education at all levels: in K-12 schools as well as in colleges and universities. Mobile learning
allows a working adult who is also a part-time college student to use a smartphone to view a video lecture on a lunch break. K-12 students can learn at home, on a trip or in school. A mobile device that is part of students’ lifestyles combines many technologies to engage them and help them learn effectively. In these and many more ways, the power and flexibility of mobile technology are transforming both instruction and learning.
Definition of Mobile Learning
The term “mobile learning†has different meanings for different communities. Although related to e-learning and distance education, it is distinct in its focus on learning across contexts, learning collaboratively and learning with mobile devices.
A new direction in mobile learning, or m-learning, enables mobility for the instructor, including creating learning materials on the spot and in the field using mobile devices with layered software such as as Mobl21, Go-Know or Blackboard Mobile Learn. Using web 2.0 and mobile tools become an important part of student engagement and higher achievement.
The Case for Mobile Learning
Why is it important for educational institutions to join the mobile learning movement? Consider these factors:
. Mobile devices are now fundamental to the way students communicate and engage in all aspects of their lives. The
Pew Internet Project found that 49 percent of Americans ages 18-24 own a smartphone, and that the majority of these young adults also own a laptop computer.
. Student expectations are changing, especially in higher education. Today’s students juggle a complex life of school, work, family and social time.
This research report represents the first phase of a multi-year collaborative research initiative of the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario.1 The initiative is designed to develop a cohesive picture of the pathways from secondary school to college. The major purpose of this phase of the research was to identify secondary school students’ perceptions of Ontario colleges and of college as a possible post-secondary educational destination for them, and to determine the factors that have shaped these perceptions. A second purpose was to identify secondary school student achievement patterns, graduation rates and course enrolments in order to consider their influence on current and future college enrolments.
The iconic image of the Baby Boom generation is a 1960s-era snapshot of an exuberant, long-haired, rebellious young adult. That portrait wasn’t entirely accurate even then, but it’s hopelessly out of date now. This famously huge cohort of Americans finds itself in a funk as it approaches old age. On January 1, 2011, the oldest Baby Boomers will turn 65. Every day for the next 19 years, about 10,000 more will cross that threshold. By 2030, when all Baby Boomers will have turned 65, fully 18% of the nation’s population will be at least that age, according to Pew Research Center population projections. Today, just 13% of Americans are ages 65 and older.
Perched on the front stoop of old age, Baby Boomers are more downbeat than other age groups about the trajectory of their own lives and about the direction of the nation as a whole.
Some of this pessimism is related to life cycle – for most people, middle age is the most demanding and stressful time of life. 1 Some of the gloominess, however, appears to be particular to Boomers, who bounded onto the national stage in the 1960s with high hopes for remaking society, but who’ve spent most of their adulthood trailing other age cohorts in overall life satisfaction.
At the moment, the Baby Boomers are pretty glum. Fully 80% say they are dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country today, compared with 60% of those ages 18 to 29 (Millennials); 69% of those ages 30 to 45 (Generation Xers) and 76% of those 65 and older (the Silent and Greatest Generations), according to a Pew Research Center survey taken earlier this month.
I am very pleased to present this issue of In Conversation as it provides me with the opportunity to say once again that I have long believed that we are well on our way to achieving a level and quality of school and system leadership that is second to none in the world. Since the launch of the Ontario Leadership Strategy (OLS) in 2008, we have been recognized internationally as one of the world’s top school systems, and as a system that is building leadership capacity for the future. And that, I believe, is a tribute to the work of our school and system leaders.
Association of Canadian Community Colleges Annual Report 2010-2011
In 2011, CASE founded the Center for Community College Advancement to provide training and resources to help community colleges build and sustain effective fundraising, alumni relations and communications and marketing programs. A goal for the center is to collect data on best practices in community colleges. This white paper summarizes the results of a groundbreaking survey on alumni relations programs at community colleges across the United States and Canada. The purpose of the survey was to help community college staff benchmark their experiences and programs in alumni relations with peers.
Abstract
This paper analyzes the ideological orientations of Canadian university professors based on a unique 2000 study of a representative sample of Canadian academics (n=3,318). After summarizing methodological problems with extant research on this subject, and tentatively comparing the political views of Canadian and American academics, the paper demonstrates that Canadian academics fall to the left of the political spectrum but are not hugely different in this respect from the Canadian university-educated population. Multivariate analyses reveal considerable heterogeneity in the ideological views of Canadian professors, suggesting that contemporary characterizations of the North American professoriate as left- or right-leaning tend to be overdrawn. Multivariate analyses demonstrate the importance of disadvantaged status and disciplinary socialization in shaping professors’ ideological views, although self selection processes are not discounted.
Résumé
Cet article analyse les orientations idéologiques des professeurs des universités canadiennes selon une étude unique datant de l’an 2000 et portant sur un échantillon représentatif composé de 3 318 professeurs d’université du Canada. Après avoir résumé les problèmes méthodologiques avec une recherche approfondie sur le sujet, puis tenté de comparer les vues politiques de professeurs d’universités canadiennes et américaines, l’article démontre que les professeurs d’université du Canada se situent à la gauche de l’éventail politique,sans être très différents de l’ensemble des diplômés universitaires du Canada. Les analyses
multidimensionnelles révèlent une hétérogénéité considérable des vues idéologiques des professeurs canadiens, suggérant ainsi que les aractérisations contemporaines selon lesquelles le professorat nord-américain se situe soit vers la droite, soit vers la gauche, ont tendance à être à exagérées. Les analyses multidimensionnelles démontrent l’importance de la socialisation disciplinaire et du statut de défavorisé pour former les vues idéologiques des professeurs, même si les processus d’autosélection ne sont pas pris en compte.
M. Reza Nakhaie
University of Windsor
Robert J. Brym
University of Toronto
This study is a collaboration between the six colleges in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) – Centennial College, Durham College, George Brown College, Humber College, Seneca College and Sheridan College. The research seeks to better understand why students leave their programs before completion, and the pathways they take after they leave.
One of the important questions to consider in a review of policy for postsecondary education is what kind o f 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.
Effective classroom management is much more than just administering corrective measures when a student misbehaves; it's about developing proactive ways to prevent problems from occurring in the first place while creating a positive learning environment. Establishing that climate for learning is one of the most challenging aspects of teaching, and one of the most difficult skills to master. For those new to the profession, failure to set the right tone will greatly hinder your effectiveness as a teacher. Indeed, even experienced faculty may sometimes feel frustrated by classroom management issues. Strategies that worked for years suddenly become ineffective in the face of some of the challenges today’s students bring with them to the classroom.
Brought to you by The Teaching Professor, this special report features 10 proven classroom management techniques from those on the front lines who’ve met the challenges head-on and developed creative responses that work with today's students. This report will teach you practical ways to create favourable conditions for learning, including how to:
. Get the semester off on the right foot
. Prevent cheating
. Incorporate classroom management principles into the syllabus
. Handle students who participate too much
. Establish relationships with students
. Use a contract to help get students to accept responsibility
. Employ humour to create conditions conducive to learning
The goal of 10 Effective Classroom Management Techniques Every Faculty Member Should Know is to provide actionable strategies and no-nonsense solutions for creating a positive learning environment – whether you’re a seasoned educator or someone who's just starting out.
Executive Summary
This longitudinal mixed method study collected quantitative data from 151 students with Learning Disabilities (LD) and/or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD). Of these,117 students attended a combination of focus groups and personal interviews and shared their postsecondary education (PSE) experiences as persons with disabilities. The quantitative and qualitative data collection was carried out over two and a half years at the Centre for Students with Disabilities, which provides support and accommodations to college and university students within a shared campus environment at Durham College and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the educational quality of the existing student service programs designed to ensure PSE access for students with LD and/or ADHD, who are an under-represented and at-risk population. Specifically, the study set out to measure and explore the effect of the Summer Transition Program (STP) and enhanced services on promoting students’ engagement, academic performance and, ultimately, their ongoing success throughout PSE.
The Ministry’s STP funding is earmarked for students with LD. However, the Ministry recognizes that students with LD have high comorbid rates of AD/HD. The STP is offered prior to the commencement of the fall semester to give students with LD and/or ADHD a chance to learn evidence-based learning strategies, self-determination skills and the use of assistive
technologies that promote PSE success without the added pressure and demands of a PSE course load. The STP curriculum is delivered in August, in a classroom setting in the morning and in a computer lab in the afternoon. Each day has a specific theme and content is designed to enhance knowledge and skills, such as time management. LD-specific supports were found to improve student outcomes, and the ongoing enhanced supports were believed to ensure accessibility.
This study’s most optimistic finding was the positive association between attendance at the STP and use of enhanced services. The study’s findings demonstrate that the STP improves the quality of students’ transition to PSE by first facilitating an earlier intake requirement and then helping students acquire psychoeducational assessments. STP students complete this process before the academic year begins in September.
Students who did not attend STP (NSTP students) described an overall lengthier and more complicated intake process. Findings from this study demonstrate that the STP improves students’ orientation to campus, orientation to services, disability awareness and willingness to self-advocate. STP also promotes their use of student services. On the other hand, when examining the impact of the STP alone, there were no differences between STP and NSTP students in their likelihood of earning a GPA above 2.0 for any of the first five semesters. The sample groups were self-selected or parentally selected. This sample selection could not be controlled for due to ethical reasons and the limited sample size; this may have decreased the measurable effect. A combination of the two programs was found to enhance academic performance.
In March 2012, the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations released its ”U.S. Education Reform and National Security” report calling attention to a distressing truth that many people have known for years: American students are lagging behind their international peers. This report laid out the implications in stark terms with a sense of urgency reminiscent of President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address, in which he called for the U.S. to ”outeducate” the rest of the world.
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.
. Unique value-added in the research “market-placeâ€;
. Experience in applying new knowledge to solve industry problems and achieve industry goals;
. Personnel with expertise and experience across key sectors of the economy;
. The ability to rapidly move innovative ideas through the early stages of development and commercialization;
. State-of-the-art facilities, equipment and space to support the development of new products and applications; and
. A sustained commitment to a culture of innovation.
Systemic barriers that currently limit the degree to which colleges can contribute to the future achievement of Ontario’s productivity and prosperity goals include:
. A permissive but not enabling provincial policy framework for college applied R&D and innovation;
. No operating funding for Ontario colleges supporting applied research activities, resulting in:
. A shortage of funds to strengthen colleges’ institutional capacity to initiate, undertake and manage applied R&D and innovation projects that respond to industry and community needs in a timely way;
. A shortage of funds to support college personnel conducting applied R&D and innovation projects; and
. A shortage of funds to enable college applied R&D personnel to rapidly establish partnerships to address applied R&D challenges and to sustain and foster long-term relationships with key personnel from business, industry and community organizations. To strengthen provincial economic competitiveness and prosperity, Ontario colleges are calling on the government of Ontario to:
. Move beyond merely ermissive policies in relation to applied R&D and innovation activities at Ontario colleges and develop a formal provincial policy and investment framework that recognizes and enables the unique roles colleges can play in support of applied R&D and business and industry innovation activities;
. Explicitly develop Ontario colleges’ applied research, innovation and commercialization
capacity; and
. Enable colleges to increase their capacity for applied R&D and innovation partnerships
with business, industry, federal and provincial governments, and com-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The changes in this book were prepared to serve as a resource document for the National Education Association's (NEA, 1997) Keys project. Keys is an acronym for "Keys to Excellence in your Schools". NEA has identified 35 factors essential to effective schools, and has developed a survey instrument designed to gather data on these items, and in turn to feed back the data to
participating schools. The 35 items cluster into five main domains:
• shared understanding and commitment to high goals
• open communication and collaborative problem solving
• continuous assessment for teaching and learning
• personal and professional learning
• resources to support teaching and learning
Shifting from an emphasis on teaching to learning is a complex task for both teachers and students. This paper reports on a qualitative study of teachers in a nurse specialist education programme meeting this shift in a distance education course. The study aimed to gain a better understanding of the teacher-student relationship by addressing research questions in relation to the students' role, the learning process, and the assessment process. A didactical design comprising three phases focusing on distinct learning outcomes for the course was adopted. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with teachers and were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. The results indicate a shift towards a problematising and holistic approach to teaching, learning, and assessment. This shift highlighted a teacher-student relationship with a shared responsibility in the orchestration of the learning experience. The overall picture outlines a distance education experience of process-based assessment characterised by the imposition of teachers’ rules and a lack of creativity due to the limited role of ICT merely as a container of content.
Keywords: Distance education; higher education; e-learning
Canada is in the midst of unprecedented growth in the postsecondary education (PSE) sector. More students are availing themselves of college and university educational opportunities than at any other time in the nation's history. The students now enrolling bring a diverse set of characteristics rarely seen within the sector previously. They are immigrants, children of immigrants, first in their family to enrol in postsecondary, Aboriginal, visible minorities, and students with disabilities to name just a few.
College and university programs and services have grown to meet the needs of these increasingly diverse learners, and are largely referred to as student affairs and services, (SAS). One of the aims of this study was to develop a greater understanding of the scope of student affairs and services and describe the formal organizational structures of these divisions
within Ontario’s postsecondary sector.
We found no consistent title for the senior student affairs and services officer (SSASO) across the sample; titles ranged from Vice President, Student Services to Associate Vice Principal and Dean of Student Affairs. Despite the inconsistency of title, the reporting line was fairly consistent, with SSASOs reporting to the Provost and Vice President, Academic or directly to the President. In only a few cases, dotted line reporting structures existed between the SSASO and these senior administrators.
The portfolios for SSASOs tended to include new student orientation, student leadership programs and liaison with student government, campus involvement (clubs and organization recognition), community development (service learning and civic engagement initiatives), counselling services, health services, accessibility services (also called services for students
with disabilities), career and employment services (and in some cases, cooperative education), academic skills or learning services, and services for diverse students (such as Aboriginal student services, international student services, women centres, and mature student centres). Portfolios differed in terms of whether the registrar’s office and related enrolment management functions, residence, and athletics were included within the SSASO's portfolio. In general, we found the college SSASO’s portfolios to be more expansive than the portfolios of the university SSASOs.
The second aim of this study was to share the voices of the staff who work in student affairs and services divisions across Ontario. Staff shared their perspectives regarding the organizational structure of their institution and how they perceived these organizational structures as helping or hindering their ability to support student success. Staff depicted and described two types of images that correspond with how they perceived the organizational structure of their institution. Spider webs tended to represent institutions where the staff perceived the organizational culture as one where supporting student success was a shared commitment between staff and faculty; where the SSASO's leadership style was directed toward finding the synergy between divisional areas, open to ideas from all areas within the division, and advocated for the division in senior administrative meetings; and where staff understood the vision and mission of the division as it supported and contributed to the institutional mission. Silos tended to represent institutions 4 – Supporting Student Success: The Role of Student Services within Ontarios Postsecondary Institutions where the staff perceived the organizational culture as one in which people worked in their discrete units and were less committed to a shared focus on supporting student success; where the SSASO's leadership style managed departments within the division more as discrete units, less open to ideas from across the division, and with greater hesitation in advocating for the division in senior administrative meetings; and where staff were less clear about how the vision and mission of the division supported and contributed to the institutional mission.
This imagery was powerful in that it spoke to two different approaches to organizational structure: one was student-focused and the other was institution-focused. Student-focused structures were those that aligned organizational structures (proximal location of departments, sub-unit reporting portfolios, policies and protocols) with the student in mind. Institution-focused
structures were those that focused on the organization of the institution’s business first, and appeared to value it over how students would encounter the institution as they worked through successful completion of their program of study. The spider web and silo imagery and their relation to the student-focused and institutional focused approaches to structure appeared irrespective of the actual organizational structure of the institution. Institutions were typically centralized, decentralized, or federated (a combination of the two former models). A centralized structure tended to have the various units within the division (health and counselling, residence, registrar, and athletics, for example) headed by a director or manager reporting to the SSASO, and providing programs and services for the institution as a whole. Conversely, a decentralized structure was one in which programs and services were managed and provided for within multiple institutional units, typically within the faculties. Finally, the federated structure (or hub and spoke model) was found at institutions in which programs and services existed with some level of centralization, and customized versions of these central services also existed at typically the individual faculty level. A critical finding from this study was that student-focused or institution-focused approaches to organizational
structure could be illustrated by any of the three actual structures (centralized, decentralized, or federated). It is as possible to have a student-focused approach with a federated SAS structure as it is to have an institution-focused approach with a centralized SAS structure.