The characteristics of appropriately worded behavioral objectives and the advantages for curriculum design and implementation of a clear specification of objectives in advance of any teaching or testing have been articulated by a number of people, for example, Mager, Popham, and Sullivan. Essentially, a behavioral objective is a statement or description of intent. It is not, however, a statement of what a teacher intends to do, but rather, a statement of what the teacher intends that the student will be able to do or produce at the conclusion of some period of instruction.
A properly stated behavioral objective must describe without ambiguity the nature of learner behavior or product to be measured. Two major advantages are claimed for behavioral objectives. First, they provide clear end points toward which all can strive; and second, because they focus on expected terminal performance of students (what students are expected to be able to do), they suggest methods of assessing the extent to which objectives have been realized. The apparent logic of such an approach is obvious to all; to argue against behavioral objectives would seem to be to argue for ambiguity, if not irrationality. Nevertheless, a number of people have drawn attention to some of the difficulties and possible hazards of the approach, for example, Atkin,5 Eisner,6 and this author. It is not my intention here to go over old ground; however, I do wish to draw attention to some very serious dangers in evaluating programs from the simple instructional model implied in the behavioral approach.
Business, political, and educational leaders are increasingly asking schools to integrate development of skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, and collaboration into the teaching and learning of academic subjects. These skills are often referred to as “21st century skills” or “deeper learning.”
At the request of several foundations, the National Research Council appointed a committee of experts in education, psychology, and economics to more clearly define “deeper learning” and “21st century skills,” consider these skills’ importance for positive outcomes in education, work, and other areas of life, address how to teach them, and examine related
issues.
Ontario colleges, universities, secondary schools, the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities, the Ministry of Education, as well as service and technology providers from the public and the private sectors are investing significant funds, time and energy on technology in learning.
It may not always be clear how or even whether this investment will add sufficient value to our education system. There are skeptics as well as technology evangelists who rightfully draw attention to the decisions that are made, or not made, and seek explanation and justification.
At Contact North | Contact Nord, Ontario’s distance education & training network, we believe there is a critical need to articulate the fundamental guiding principles that drive our decisions and policymaking with respect to technology in learning.
We have a set of guiding principles, which has informed our planning and served our network well over the past number of years. Many of these principles, at least the ideas themselves, did not originate with us but were gleaned from a variety of sources. We did, however, synthesize these ideas into a coherent set of principles and provided our own explanations and clarifications.
It is most likely that all of our decisions as college, university, and secondary school administrators, instructors, policymakers and funders have already been implicitly driven by some or most of these principles. It is by identifying just what these principles might have been that we are
more likely to be consistent and on target.
The following is a summary of ten principles that have had merit for us at
Contact North | Contact Nord over the years, and may have merit for others.
For many years now, people have been touting the arrival of the “digital native,” or students that were “born digital”. These terms were meant to describe members of a generation who, according to the more fevered sections of the technorati at least, actually have a different set of neural pathways – who, having been exposed since birth to the Internet and hypertext, “think and process information differently” from previous generations.1 In some quarters this has led to calls – on the basis of evidence that can sometimes be alarmingly thin – that curricula and instructional technologies be radically overhauled in order to cater to the “new learner.”
At the same time, much has been made about the quality-enhancing – and cost-reducing – potential of using the Internet for learning purposes in universities. The National Center for Academic Transformation in the United States, in particular, has been a leading voice in using course redesign as a means to improve both learning outcomes and resource allocation.2 This has not really been about moving whole courses online – the “disruptive technology” that some commentators suggest is about to change universities completely3 – but rather it has been about deploying e-learning resources in such a way as to complement and amplify what is being done in more traditional courses. The entwining of these kinds of resources into courses that
remain primarily physical and class-based is commonly referred to as “blended learning.”
Higher education leaders have many opportunities today to make changes that can profoundly alter the learning
environments they provide students. The digital revolution and rise in the use of both wireless networks and mobile
computing devices promise a new paradigm in education, one in which students and faculty need anywhere, anytime access to the network; where learning can be more personalized and customized; where students are more engaged; where remote learning opportunities are optimized; and where collaboration between all stakeholders becomes much easier to achieve.
Institutions of higher learning, including public and private universities, community colleges and technical schools, are increasingly turning to digital learning approaches. Higher education students expect a more socially engaging and collaborative learning experience and new technology is enabling these opportunities that were once difficult to imagine. The Center for Digital Education’s 2011 Digital Community Colleges Survey found that 92 percent of respondents have expanded distance learning offerings for online, hybrid and Web-assisted courses over the past year. A survey of adult students also found that 33 percent cited blended courses (courses that are part online and part in the classroom) as their preferred learning format. However, layered on top of these digital opportunities are significant budget pressures and rising enrollment rates. Traditional funding sources — like grants and donations — are under tremendous strain, forcing administrators to consider tuition hikes and reduced course offerings, along with other undesirable cost-cutting measures. Along with these budget pressures, colleges and universities are experiencing an increased demand on IT resources,
including registrations systems, financial aid delivery, help desk support, mobility management, and online/selfservice applications.
The challenge that the higher education community faces is how to reduce complexity and costs within their infrastructure and maximize existing resources at a time when funding is in short supply. Colleges and universities need to reduce costs while ensuring they are providing staff and students with technology that enhances learning and leads to improved student success.
Some campuses are solving this problem by streamlining and simplifying their existing IT infrastructure. Improving what’s already in place not only saves money, but also makes it easier to enhance student learning and achievement using today’s technological tools. Here’s a look at how this is possible.
The PSE Outcomes Study was commissioned by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) to explore the pathways of applicants from postsecondary education (PSE) application to the Ontario labour market, and their employment experiences during and after PSE. This report provides statistically reliable Ontario data to supplement the findings of national studies such as the Youth in Transition Survey (YITS). It offers insights into the factors that contribute to postsecondary education participation and persistence, the barriers that impede access to higher learning, and the relationship between educational attainment and labour market outcomes. In particular, the analysis considers the experiences of four groups who are traditionally under-represented in PSE: Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, students whose parents did not complete PSE, and students who delayed their entry into PSE after secondary school.
The results are based on a sample of 45,000 Ontario applicants to college and university who had participated in Academica Group‟s University and College Applicant Survey™ (UCAS™) between 2005 and 2009, and had agreed to participate in future research. The 4,029 respondents to the PSE Outcomes survey (including 214 French language respondents) yield an overall survey response rate of 9% and a margin of error of +/- 1.55 at the 95% confidence level. Survey respondents were organized into five mutually exclusive postsecondary education pathways, based on the outcome of their initial PSE application:
“Not offered†respondents did not receive offers of admission following their application to PSE (n=273 or 7% of respondents). “Offered/declined†respondents were offered admission to PSE but declined the offer (n=317 or 8% or respondents). “Still attending†respondents (also referred to as “current PSE studentsâ€) were offered admission to PSE and were attending the institution to which they had initially applied when they responded to the PSE Outcomes Survey (n=2,297 or 58% of respondents). “Attended/left†respondents (also referred to as “early leaversâ€) were offered admission to PSE but left their postsecondary program prior to completion (n=279 or 7% of respondents). “Attended/complete†respondents (also referred to as “PSE graduatesâ€) were offered admission to PSE and had completed the postsecondary program to which they applied (n=766 or 19% of respondents).
Overall, 85% of all respondents who received offers of admission accepted the offer, and about three-quarters had a specific occupation or career goal in mind at the time they applied.
PSE participation rates1 were highest among applicants who were younger than 20 when they applied to PSE, never married, with high household incomes, high grade averages, and interested in full-time study. Participation was lower among applicants who were older, from 4 – From the Postsecondary Application to the Labour Market: The Pathways of Under-represented Groups lower household incomes, married or divorced, interested in part-time study, and with lower grade averages. University applicants were more likely than college applicants to accept offers of admission, while college applicants were twice as likely to decline. The overall rate of PSE participation for under-represented applicants (83%) was lower than the participation rate of applicants who did not fall into one of the four groups (88%).
Offering an array of support services to meet the diverse needs of post-secondary learners assumes that these services improve success by providing students with compensatory resources and opportunities for engagement (Purnell & Blank,
2004). Little Canadian research, however, has examined students’ use of support services. This study describes how campus support services are used by Ontario college students and factors that influence the uptake of those services. Results show that despite relatively high student-reported need, the majority of Ontario college students did not utilize most campus services. Age, gender and ethnicity, receptivity to support, negative college experiences, faculty referral, studying with peers, and poor grades were associated with increased use of some services. The findings argue for a proactive service delivery model using web-based resources to minimize location-based barriers and to more effectively promote services dedicated to student success.
College-Level Literacy: An Inventory of Current Practices at Ontario's Colleges instrument for gathering and reporting information. Three categories of college size, based on the Fall 2009 intake of students into postsecondary programs, provided further insight into the distribution of various practices. All 24 Ontario colleges participated in this study.
Colleges Ontario achieved a number of successes in 2011 to help more students get access to a college education. Highlights of the year included new advertising campaigns promoting the value of college education, and a hugely successful annual conference.
Kids today spend their lives outside school surrounded by video whether on their TV screens, tablet PCs, laptops or
smartphones. Too often, the video stream shuts off inside theclassroom doors. But if students are given access to video tools in core classes — especially tools that allow them to produce their own videos — they are not only more engaged in their coursework, but learn valuable 21st-century skills. On average, one-third of high schoolers today don’t graduate; the number is 50 percent or higher for African-Americans and Hispanics. Studies show that one key contributor is lack of engagement:
Students don’t like school and report being bored. According to the 2010 High School Survey of Student Engagement, 55 percent of students said projects involving technology would help them feel more interested in school (49 percent said art and drama would help; 60 percent said group projects).2 Creating video in the classroom often taps all of these interests.
Video technology can also help foster vital skills needed for the 21st century. The 21st Century Framework (see graphic below),
developed by the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, sets forth standards for student achievement to ensure success in today's
technological world. The framework includes skills that are reinforced by student video creation such as creativity, communication and media mastery.
Mentoring novice teachers often features buddy support, technical advice, and classroom management tips to meet teacher-centered concerns of survival. Such mentoring aligns with conventional models of teacher development that describe the
novice concerned with self-image, materials and procedures, and management, and only after the initial years, able to focus on individual student learning. Drawing on the wisdom of practice of 37 experienced teacher induction leaders and case studies of mentor/new teacher pairs, this study found that mentors can interrupt that tendency among new teachers, focusing them on the learning of individual students, especially those underperforming. For this work, mentors tap knowledge of student and teacher learners, pedagogy for classrooms and for tutoring teachers, and especially multilayered knowledge and abilities in several domains of assessment. These include assessment of students, alignment of curriculum with standards, and formative
assessment of the new teacher. Skillful use of this knowledge can bring individual student learning into focus and help new teachers generate methods for shaping instruction to meet students’ varied learning needs. These results challenge developmental models of teaching and conservative mentoring practices, calling for articulation of a knowledge base and relevant mentor development to focus new teachers early on individual student learning. Do students think I’m in charge? What materials should I use in this unit?
This report reflects the enthusiasm and commitment of students, staff and faculty in realizing the vision of environmental sustainability on Ontario’s university campuses.
The report is based on an annual survey of 20 Ontario universities conducted by the Council
of Ontario Universities (COU).
In this article, we analyze a broad range of factors that affect the sense of belonging of undergraduate students taking a first-year academic literacy course (ALC) at a multicultural, multilingual university in Vancouver, Canada. Students who fail to meet the university’s language and literacy requirements are required to pass ALC before they can enrol in writing courses across the disciplines. Consequently, many of those students feel that they have yet to be accepted as fully legitimate members of the university community. We present data from a two-year, mixed-method study, which involved asking students in surveys and interviews about their sense of belonging, as well as analyzing their reflective writing samples for issues related to their sense of belonging. We found that the participants’ perceptions of sense of belonging are multilayered and context-dependent, relating to changes in time and space, classroom pedagogy, and other social, cultural, and linguistic factors. Implications for higher education are discussed.
Vision
To become Sheridan University, celebrated as a global leader in undergraduate professional education.
Mission
Sheridan delivers a premier, purposeful educational experience in an environmentrenowned for creativity and innovation.
In the past, the term “persistence†was used somewhat interchangeably with “retention†to describe the fact of students remaining in a course of studies from one year to the next, typically at a single institution and sometimes within a particular program. Over the last few years, however, persistence has shifted in meaning to refer to the ability of students to continue their PSE studies and ultimately graduate, regardless of switches between programs or institutions or even temporary absences from PSE altogether. There is a growing recognition in Ontario and across Canada that this system-wide perspective on persistence will help government and institutions manage a highly functional, well-integrated PSE system, one in which students can avail themselves of numerous alternative educational opportunities and pathways to success.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume that these system-wide concerns are the primary arena in which PSE outcomes ought to be managed. Indeed, the concept of persistence as a process whereby students overcome obstacles is of note only in the context of the presence of initial decisions to leave and not return to a particular institution. The central aim of any university ought to be to improve its own retention of students. Indeed, a sustained focus on improving in situ retention outcomes is a vital component of an overall strategy for achieving high system-wide persistence rates. It is in the best interests of government and universities to develop the means by which retention practice efficacy can be reliably assessed, compared amongst institutions and used within institutions to actively improve retention rates.
Unfortunately, two common approaches used to calculate retention rates – the raw rate approach and the natural rate approach – are seriously flawed and cannot be recommended for use by Ontario PSE institutions as tools for managing retention practices.
The raw rate approach is transparently inadequate. The crux of the problem with raw rates is that they are essentially outcome measures unadjusted for variation in inputs. An institution that is in a position to admit students who are highly prepared academically, financially and culturally for university life at that particular institution can expect to be rewarded with relatively high outcome rates, and this without having to innovate or invest much in retention practices. Evaluating retention practice efficacy on the basis of raw rates favours institutions that are able to offload potential retention risks during the admissions process.
Another common approach used to calculate retention rates is to calculate the differences between raw rates and “expected†or “natural†rates and then to base evaluations and comparisons on these differences. Natural institutional rates are averages of the estimated probabilities of an event occurring (e.g., being retained after one year, graduating within four years) for each member of a cohort of students at an institution. One key feature of the statistical models upon which the probability estimates are based is the fact that they are system-wide models, pooling data across all institutions in the study and delivering a single set of model coefficients that is applied to all institutions. Another key feature is the fact that probability estimates are based on predictor variables that usually include only pre-entry characteristics of students and sometimes include environmental characteristics such as institution size, the field of study and whether the school primarily serves urban commuters. An institution with a raw rate that exceeds its natural rate is deemed to be performing well at
2 –Shifting from Retention Rates to Retention Risk: An Alternative Approach for Managing Institutional Student Retention Performance retaining students, whereas an institution with a raw rate that is lower than its natural rate is evaluated as performing poorly. This approach has been implemented in the United States but not in Canada.
Three interpretation problems are ingrained in the natural rate approach that impede its meaningful application: normative interpretations given to natural rates are unwarranted; attributions of causation – to students in the case of natural rates and to institutions in the case of differences between natural and raw rates – are also unwarranted and potentially misleading; and a single set of system-wide coefficients is not likely to provide useful characterizations of the realities in play at individual institutions. A large and growing body of research embeds retention processes within the local context of individual institutions and indeed individual students. As research findings accumulate, there is a deeper and growing appreciation of the fact that the PSE system is not homogeneous in terms of the magnitude or direction of relationships between factors influencing retention event occurrence and the actual occurrence of those events. Rather, processes generating retention events operate locally and with considerable variation in form and intensity amongst locales, so system-wide characterizations do not give meaningful summaries of local conditions. The natural rate approach looks like a more sophisticated, finely tuned analysis, but its looks are deceiving.
An alternative to the raw and natural rate approaches is to move away from retrospective analyses of retention rates in favour of prospective analyses of retention risks. According to this approach, institutions use historical data to develop statistical models of retention risk at the individual student level. These models are then employed to estimate for each student in a currently enrolled cohort the “risk†(expressed as a probability) of continuing with their studies beyond a certain length of time.
In the knowledge-based economy (KBE), a strong education system should produce a
citizenry that is equipped with the tools for success: skills,ompetencies, and knowledge. The role of higher education in the development of the KBE is crucial because institutions are the "creators of, and venues for, cultural and social activity” (OECD, 2007: 39). Around the world, governments are aiming to provide higher education equitably and en masse while ensuring it is both of high quality and of relevance to the labour market. This is a challenge that Ontario, too, faces as it prepares its strategies to enhance the knowledge and skills of its citizens. This research note is the second of a three-part series that examines international trends in strategies for developing knowledge-based economies1. It examines issues pertainingto the development of skills, competencies, and knowledge — areas of focused government attention — and the labour market issues faced by skilled graduates. It draws heavily on the experiences of the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States and examines particular fields of government interest in addition to the issues of labour market demand, of skills-matching, and of employer needs. An understanding of these international activities and trends should be of help when Ontario is developing a comprehensive and informed strategy for ensuring students are prepared for the KBE labour market. This research note is structured in three sections, each covering a major theme in the literature. In the first section, debates on the role of higher education within the knowledge based economy are addressed. The role of government in determining future skills needs is discussed, and international trends toward developing a demand-led rather than a supply-led system are addressed. The second section provides an overview of trends in such government activities designed to produce
graduates with specific skill sets and qualifications in Science, Technology, Engineering,and Mathematics (STEM), Creative Competencies, and Middle Skills which many governments consider priority areas. The third section examines skills-matching in the labour market and deals specifically with skills-matching and valued graduate characteristics by examining Ontario data on skills training.
This document supersedes the sections outlining assessment, evaluation, and reporting policy in The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 to 12: Program Planning and Assessment, 2000 and in curriculum policy documents for Grades 1 to 8, Grades 9 and 10, and Grades 11 and 12 published before the release of this document, with the following exception: The achievement charts in all current curriculum policy documents remain in effect.
The reasons why students need to be involved and engaged when they attend college are well established. Engagement can be the difference between completing a degree and dropping out.
Research has sought to identify what makes student involvement more likely. Factors like student-faculty interaction, active and collaborative learning experiences, involvement in extracurricular activities, and living on campus have all been shown to make a difference. Not surprisingly, faculty play a critical role in student engagement … from the obvious: facilitating
discussions in the classroom; to the often overlooked: maximizing those brief encounters we have with students outside of class. This special report features 15 articles that provide perspectives and advice for keeping students actively engaged in learning activities while fostering more meaningful interactions between students and faculty members, and among the students themselves.
For example, in “Student Engagement: Trade-offs and Payoffs” author E Shelley Reid, associate professor at George Mason University, talks about how to craft engagement-focused questions rather than knowledge questions, and explains her willingness to take chances in ceding some control over students’ learning.
In “The Truly Participatory Seminar” authors Sarah M. Leupen and Edward H. Burtt, Jr., of Ohio Wesleyan University, outline their solution for ensuring all students in their upper division seminar course participate in discussion at some level.
In “Reminders for Improving Classroom Discussion” Roben Torosyan, associate director of the Center for Academic Excellence at Fairfield University, offers very specific advice on balancing student voices, reframing discussions, and probing below the surface of group discussions. And finally, in “Living for the Light Bulb” authors Aaron J. Nurick and David H. Carhart of Bentley College provide tips on setting the stage for that delightful time in class “when the student’s entire body says ‘Aha! Now I see it!’” Who wouldn’t like to see more light bulbs going on more often? One of the most challenging tasks instructors face is keeping students engaged. Building Student Engagement: 15 Strategies for the College Classroom will help you meet that challenge while ensuring your classroom is a positive and productive learning environment.
95% of those in households earning over $75,000 use the internet and cell phones Those in higher-income households are more likely to use the internet on any given day, own multiple internet-ready devices, do things involving money online, and get news online Those in higher-income households are different from other Americans in their tech ownership and use. Analysis of several recent surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Projects find that there are key differences between those who live in households making $75,000 or more relative to those in lower-income households. Some 95% of Americans who live in households earning $75,000 or more a year use the internet at least occasionally, compared with 70% of those living in households earning less than $75,000. Even among those who use the internet, the well off are more likely than those with less income to use technology. Of those 95% of higher-income internet users:
- 99% use the internet at home, compared with 93% of the internet users in lower brackets.
- 93% of higher-income home internet users have some type of broadband connection versus 85% of the internet users who live in households earning less than $75,000 per year. That translates into 87% of all those in live in those better-off households having broadband at home.
- 95% of higher-income households own some type of cell phone compared with 83% in households with less income.
This report documents the central role of the college-educated workforce in improving labour productivity across the economy and supporting an innovation culture in the workplace. It describes critical “enabling occupations” that play a key role in allowing companies to build a culture of innovation in the workplace which they need if they are to continually restructure for success. It develops a “Prosperity Cycle” model and demonstrates the importance of college graduates in building a culture of innovation in a dozen key Ontario industries.
Ontarians work hard and build for the future, hoping that rising prosperity will improve the quality of life for their families. A higher standard of living seems hard to achieve these days – especially for young people leaving school. Government, businesses, researchers and others believe that Ontario’s prosperity depends on rising productivity that improves the competitiveness of industry. But how is this achieved and how do young people share in the benefits?