Love or hate it, group work can create powerful learning experiences for students. From understanding course content to developing problem solving, teamwork and communication skills, group work is an effective teaching strategy whose lessons may endure well beyond the end of a course. So why is it that so many students (and some faculty) hate it? Although the students may not state their objections verbally, the nonverbal reactions are truly eloquent. They just sit there; only with much urging do they look at those sitting nearby and move minimally in the direction of getting themselves seated as a group. This lack of enthusiasm is at some level a recognition that it is so much easier to sit there and take notes rather than work in a group and take ownership. The resistance also derives from past experiences in groups where not much happened, or where some members did nothing while other did more than their fair share of the work.
Often very little happens in groups because students don’t tackle the tasks with much enthusiasm, but group ineffectiveness also may be the product of poorly designed and uninteresting group tasks. This special report features 10 insightful articles from The Teaching Professor that will help you create more effective group learning activities and grading strategies as well as tips for dealing with group members who are “hitchhiking†(getting a free ride from the group) or “overachieving†(dominating the group effort). Here’s a sample of the articles in the report:
. Leaders with Incentives: Groups That Performed Better
. Dealing with Students Who Hate Working in Groups
. Group Work That Inspires Cooperation and Competition
. Better Understanding the Group Exam Experience
. Use the Power of Groups to Help You Teach
. Pairing vs. Small Groups: A Model for Analytical Collaboration
Though research on student attrition is plentiful and debate over theories of student persistence vigorous, less attention has been paid to the development of a model of institutional action that provides institutions guidelines for effective action to increase student persistence and in turn student success. This report describes a model of action for institutions that is intended to increase student persistence. The report does so by reviewing not only the growing body of research on effective institutional practices, but also studies of effective state and federal policy. In doing so, it seeks, for the first time, to situate institutional action within the broader context of federal and, in particular, state policy.
While Canada leads other OECD member countries in postsecondary education (PSE) participation rates, there still remain underrepresented segments of the population which are less likely to pursue PSE. Ontarians who come from low-income households, have parents with no PSE, live in a rural area, identify as an Aboriginal person, and/or have a disability are less likely to enrol in PSE (Norrie & Zhao, 2011).
Youth from some ethnic and racial groups are also less likely to pursue PSE, particularly university (Abada, Hou, & Ram, 2008).
This paper focuses on early intervention programs as one approach to support underrepresented youth to complete secondary school and make the transition to PSE. These programs are intended to provide youth with the resources, support and information necessary to avoid dropping out of school and to increase their chances of participating in PSE (Chambers & Deller, 2011). Early intervention programs can originate within the elementary and secondary school systems, colleges, universities, community centres or other community-based organizations.
The first section of this report is a literature review summarizing the key thinking on the role of early
intervention programs in supporting access. Much of what we know in Canada about these programs is
drawn from the American context, where research on the topic has been extensive. As a result, the
literature review draws heavily from American sources, making links to the Canadian context where
possible.
WHAT IS THE COMPOSITE LEARNING INDEX?
A product of the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL), the Composite
Learning Index (CLI) is Canada’s annual measure of progress in lifelong learning. It is based on a combination of statistical indicators that reflect the many ways Canadians learn, whether in school, in the home, at work or within the community.
The only index of its kind in the world, the CLI is an unprecedented measurement tool that expresses how learning in all aspects of life is critical to the success of individuals, communities and the country as a whole. On an individual level, Canadians stand to benefit from lifelong learning through higher wages, better job prospects, improved health and more fulfilling lives.
Accordingly, Canada stands to gain through a more resilient economy and stronger bonds within and between communities.
Although most Canadians are aware of the potential benefits of lifelong learning, until CCL launched the CLI in 2006 there was no way of measuring how Canadians were performing across the full spectrum of learning. To reflect this broad perspective, the CLI uses a wide range of learning indicators to generate numeric scores for more than 4,500 communities across Canada. A high CLI score means that a particular city, town or rural community possesses the kinds of learning conditions that foster social and economic well-being. A low CLI score means that a community is under-performing in certain aspects that are key to lifelong learning.
It is important to note that these scores are not meant to single out “winners” and “losers,” but rather to help Canadians understand the state of lifelong learning in their communities and to encourage them to think of concrete ways that they can improve on these conditions. With new results published on CCL’s website every spring, the CLI is an objective and reliable measurement tool that can help communities make the best possible decisions about learning—decisions that will strengthen
social ties, bolster the economy and hopefully improve people’s lives.
Explore the effects of lifelong learning
The structure of the Composite Learning Index echoes the interconnectedness and complexity of lifelong learning in the community. To help understand this relationship, CCL developed the CLI Simulator, an online tool that allows individuals to adjust and compare a selection of indicators and witness the effects those decisions can have on a community.
The Accord on the Internationalization of Education emerges from the Association of Canadian Deans of Education (ACDE), a network of deans, directors, and chairs of faculties, colleges, schools, and departments of education from across Canada. ACDE members are committed to “national, public discourse on the importance of public education in developing and sustaining a civil society (ACDE General Accord, 2006a, p.1). This Accord is the product of a shared commitment across members of the ACDE network, and is intended to speak to a diversity of stakeholders and audiences, within and external to the university communities from which it emerged. In particular, the Accord seeks to stimulate discussion of critical issues and institutional responsibilities in the internationalization of education, and to give careful consideration to representations of marginalized individuals, groups, and communities.
One of the primary functions of many Ontario universities and colleges is to provide students with a high quality teaching and learning experience. However, as resources are stretched and postsecondary institutions focus more on research, funding into teaching development and support has been put at risk. A number of additional challenges – including rising student/faculty ratios and class sizes, an aging faculty population, outdated methods of instruction and curriculum design, and uneven access to teaching development for new instructors – are making it even more difficult to develop and maintain quality teaching. Many
student associations, faculty and administrators, the general public, as well as provincial government officials have agreed that the quality of the teaching and learning experience available to students at Ontario’s colleges and universities is increasingly at risk.
Just as the roles and goals of postsecondary institutions have changed over the past few decades, so have the operations and priorities of their teaching and learning centres. These centres first emerged in Canada during the late 1960s and early 1970s, accompanying the rise of student activism and the demand for higher quality teaching. Through teaching and learning centres, institutions hoped to consolidate, expand, and promote professional development programs for college and university faculty, and increasingly for graduate and undergraduate teaching assistants. Most Ontario universities and colleges now have teaching and learning centres; in fact, during the past year alone, five universities and several colleges joined the growing list of Ontario postsecondary institutions that have launched, enhanced, or reorganized their teaching and learning centres and services (Miles & Polovina-Vukovic, forthcoming).
On March 30, 2011, the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) hosted a one day workshop attended by several dozen invited experts from Ontario postsecondary institutions to explore the continuing evolution of – and the challenges and opportunities facing – college and university teaching and learning centres.
This paper is intended for members of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) community, college and university faculty and administrators, government officials, students, and concerned parents, along with other postsecondary stakeholders. The objective is to summarize and expand upon the presentations and discussions that took place at HEQCO’s workshop in order to provide a background and context for the evolving role and impact of teaching and learning centres within Ontario postsecondary institutions, and to suggest options and opportunities for future practice. This report is divided into five sections: following this brief introduction, the first section provides a background portrait of the context for teaching and learning centres and educational development in Ontario’s postsecondary sector. The following three sections reflect the discussions that took place at the HEQCO workshop, and are divided into the same three broad themes that animated the discussions there:
1. Responsibilities, Pressures, and Strategies
2. Assessing Impact
3. New Ideas
The concluding section provides some suggestions and recommendations in regards to what needs to be done “Going Forward” when it comes to Ontario’s expanding network of college and university teaching and learning centres, and the growing emphasis on teaching and learning quality in the province’s postsecondary sector.
@ Issue Paper No. 12 – Teaching and Learning Centres: Their Evolving Role Within Ontario Colleges and Universities
In 2008, the OECD launched the AHELO feasibility study, an initiative with the objective to assess whether it is possible to develop international measures of learning outcomes in higher education.
Learning outcomes are indeed key to a meaningful education, and focusing on learning outcomes is essential to inform diagnosis and improve teaching processes and student learning. While there is a long tradition of learning outcomes’ assessment within institutions’ courses and programmes, emphasis on learning outcomes has become more important in
recent years. Interest in developing comparative measures of learning outcomes has increased in response to a range of higher education trends, challenges and paradigm shifts.
AHELO aims to complement institution-based assessments by providing a direct evaluation of student learning outcomes at the global level and to enable institutions to benchmark the performance of their students against their peers as part of their improvement efforts. Given AHELO’s global scope, it is essential that measures of learning outcomes are valid across
diverse cultures and languages as well as different types of higher education institutions (HEIs).
The purpose of the feasibility study is to see whether it is practically and scientifically feasible to assess what students in higher education know and can do upon graduation within and across these diverse contexts. The feasibility study should demonstrate what is feasible and what could be feasible, what has worked well and what has not, as well as provide lessons and
stimulate reflection on how learning outcomes might be most effectively measured in the future.
When teachers think the best, most important way to improve their teaching is by developing their content knowledge, they end up with sophisticated levels of knowledge, but they have only simplistic instructional methods to convey that material. To imagine that content matters more than process is to imagine that the car is more important than the road. Both are essential. What we teach and how we teach it are inextricably linked and very much dependent on one another.
This special report features 11 articles pulled from the pages of The Teaching Professor to help you discover new ways to build connections between what you teach and how you teach it. The report offers tips on how to engage students, give feedback, create a climate for learning, and more. It also provides fresh perspectives on how faculty should approach their development as teachers.
It’s been said that few things can enhance student learning more than an instructor’s commitment to ongoing professional development. Here’s a sample of the articles you will find in Effective Strategies for Improving College Teaching and Learning:
• Faculty Self-Disclosures in the College Classroom
• A Tree Falling in the Forest: Helping Students ‘Hear’ and Use Your Comments
• Understanding What You See Happening in Class
• Can Training Make You a Better Teacher?
• Striving for Academic Excellence
Although there is no single best teaching method, approach, or style, this special report will give you a variety of strategies to try. Those that work effectively with your students
you should make your own.
Many immigrant youth view postsecondary education (PSE) as an important, even essential, means of economic mobility and social integration (Cheung, 2007). Gaining access to a PSE program builds on a record of academic engagement and achievement in high school. There is, however, mounting evidence of considerable variability in the preferences, performance, and eventual post-high school (PHS) pathways of immigrant students (Anisef et al., 2008; Thiessen, 2009). Many high school graduates enrol in a college or university while others either delay PSE entry or move directly to the labour market and a significant number leave before graduating. The PHS pathways of immigrant youth, then, can involve transitions to the
postsecondary system, the labour market, or both. The bases for these decisions are complex and include personal characteristics, family resources, and community support factors as well as the individual’s school and classroom experiences (McAndrew et al., 2009).
Previous research on the high-school transitions of immigrant youth in Canada has several limitations (Boyd, 2008). First, studies on school achievement and educational aspirations of immigrants have compared 'immigrant' versus 'non-immigrant' groups. These studies have found few aggregate differences between those born in Canada and those born outside Canada. Such comparisons conceal significant variations among immigrant students that affect the likelihood of PSE participation. Second, PHS planning and preparation are made relatively early in adolescents' educational careers yet most studies have employed cross-sectional or retrospective designs that did not adequately consider the effects of important antecedents on students' PHS pathway choices. Third, previous comparative research has not considered differences in immigrant generational status. First generation immigrant youth1 are those born outside Canada while those considered to be second generation were born in Canada of immigrant parents. To the extent that the school experiences and PHS aspirations of each differ, it is important to distinguish first, second (and third) generations. This is especially the 1 Please note that this term should not be confused with ˜first generation students", which refers to those who are the first in their family to attend and/or complete PSE, regardless of immigration status.
2 – Post-High School Pathways of Immigrant Youth case in the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) where 42 per cent of students are foreignborn and 38 per cent are born in Canada of immigrant parents. Only 20 per cent of TDSB students have both parents born in Canada. These students comprise the third generation, sometimes referred to as the ‘third plus’ generation, and frequently employed as a reference group in comparative research. (Yau and O’Reilly, 2007).
In this paper we disaggregate the "˜immigrant" designation by source country (region-of-origin) and generational status to examine the PHS pathways of a cohort of TDSB youth who began high school (Grade 9) in September 2000 and were tracked through the high school system until Fall, 2006.
The specific purposes of the study were to:
1. Construct profiles of the various immigrant (and non-immigrant) groups comprising the 2000 TDSB cohort.
The elements of each profile include information on students, their school, and neighbourhood characteristics as well as the reported PHS pathways they followed between 2004 and 2006.
2. Predict PHS pathway choices based on this profile information.
The PHS pathway decisions predicted were defined by: (a) those respondents that confirmed university acceptance; (b) those that confirmed community college acceptance; (c) those that graduated high school but either did not apply to PSE or did not confirm an application; and (d) those that left high school early and did not apply toPSE.
The cultural and social composition of Ontario is undergoing dramatic change as a consequence of immigration. This is most obvious in its larger metropolitan areas, particularly Toronto. In many ways, Toronto is a precursor of the demographic change the rest of the province (and Canada) will experience within a few years as immigrant youth become the majority of the school-age population. Our aim in studying TDSB immigrant youth as they prepare for the transition from high school is to extend the literature on immigrant settlement and contribute to informed educational policy and practice.
In the area of developing and maintaining their talent supply chain—how employees are hired, developed and deployed to optimally support business strategy—too many companies are neglecting the all-important entry-level positions from which many of their top-performing employees will emerge.
That’s one of the important implications of the Accenture 2014 College Graduate Employment Survey, which compares the expectations and attitudes of this year’s university graduates with the realities of the working world according to 2012 and 2013 grads. When it comes to talent development, to jobs that match an employee’s education, and even the quest for full-time work, the slightly older peers of today’s graduates tell a cautionary tale about what the job world is really like.
It’s a story that is cautionary for companies, too. If organizations are to attract and retain top talent, as well as ensure their talent supply chain is developing and deploying the people with the right skills, their management of entry-level positions needs to improve.
The following Guidelines are intended for use in planning, implementing, and/or judging the benefits and contributions of campus-based assessment efforts. The Guidelines were developed through conversations with institutional researchers, faculty, practitioners, and assessment scholars that focused on which aspects of the assessment process were most important in optimizing the utility ofassessment efforts on college campuses. Additionally, the authors of the Guidelines reviewed the major publications focused on assessment utilization and drew from their collective experience of over 50 years working in the area of higher education assessment.
ABSTRACT
Creativity is widely accepted as being an important outcome of schooling. Yet there are many different views about what it is, how best it can be cultivated in young people and whether or how it should be assessed. And in many national curricula creativity is only implicitly acknowledged and seldom precisely defined. This paper offers a five dimensional definition of creativity which has been trialled by teachers in two field trials in schools in England. The paper suggests a theoretical underpinning for defining and assessing creativity along with a number of practical suggestions as to how creativity can be developed and tracked in schools. Two clear benefits of assessing progress in the development of creativity are identified: 1) teachers are able to be more precise and confident in developing young people’s creativity, and 2) learners are better able to understand what it is to be creative (and to use this understanding to record evidence of their progress). The result would seem to be a greater likelihood that learners can display the full range of their creative dispositions in a wide variety of contexts.
RÉSUMÉ
La créativité est largement acceptée comme étant un résultat scolaire important. Pourtant il y a beaucoup d’opinions différentes sur ce qu’elle est, comment on peut la cultiver chez les jeunes gens, et si et comment on devrait l’évaluer. De plus, dans beaucoup de programmes scolaires, la créativité n’est reconnue que de manière implicite et rarement définie de manière précise. Ce document offre une définition de la créativité reposant sur cinq dimensions, qui a été testée par des enseignants durant deux expériences de terrain dans des écoles en Angleterre. Le document propose un soubassement théorique pour définir et évaluer la créativité ainsi que nombre de suggestions pratiques sur le développement et le suivi de la créativité à l’école. Deux bénéfices clairs d’évaluer le progrès dans le développement de la créativité sont identifiés : 1) les enseignants peuvent être plus précis et confiants lorsqu’ils développent la créativité des jeunes gens, et 2) les apprenants sont davantage en mesure de comprendre ce que « être créatif » signifie (et à utiliser cette compréhension pour documenter et relater leur progrès). Le résultat semble être une plus grande probabilité que les apprenants témoignent de toute l’étendue de leurs dispositions à la créativité dans un large éventail de contextes.
Effective Practices to Enhance the Educational Quality of Structured Work Experiences Offered through Colleges and Universities
One of the most challenging issues post-secondary campuses face today is mental health. Unlike most other health issues, mental illness still has a stigma attached to it, so the temptation is to cover up the problem—but this can lead to serious, and sometimes tragic, consequences.
Addressing this challenge is a priority for colleges and universities, whose leaders are committed to providing help for everyone who needs it. While much has been done to more effectively deliver these services, there is still more to do. This task is particularly important at post-secondary institutions, since young people age 15 to 24 are the least likely to seek assistance.
Michael L. Skolnik
University of Toronto
ABSTRACT
Community college systems were established across North America from the early 1960s through the early 1970s. The new systems had two principal models: in one model, the college combined lower-division, university-level general education with technical education programs; in the other, most or all of the colleges were intended to concentrate on technical education. Ontario was the largest of the provinces and states in North America that opted for the second model. Many of the issues that planners confronted when designing these college systems have either persisted or re-emerged in recent years. This article re-examines the debate on the design of Ontario’s colleges that took place when they were founded and considers its implications for the present.
RÉSUMÉ
Depuis le début des années 1960 et jusqu’au début des années 1970, lorsqu’on créait des réseaux de collèges communautaires partout en Amérique du Nord, deux modèles majeurs étaient proposés pour ces nouveaux réseaux. Dans un des modèles, le collège combinait l’enseignement général universitaire de division inférieure avec les programmes d’enseignement technique ; dans l’autre, la plupart des collèges, sinon tous, se concentraient sur l’enseignement technique. L’Ontario était la plus importante parmi les provinces et les États en Amérique du Nord qui ait opté pour le deuxième modèle. Beaucoup des défis
auxquels les planifi cateurs ont été confrontés lorsqu’ils ont conçu le réseau des collèges sont encore présents ou sont réapparus au cours des dernières années. Cet article réexamine l’ancien débat sur la conception des collèges de l’Ontario et considère ses implications actuelles.
In this article, which is grounded in my own experiences, I discuss the responsibilities of new immigrant teacher educators when teaching courses related to diversity and multiculturalism in Canada. I highlight the complexities that underlie discourses of multiculturalism in teacher education, and the important role that new immigrant teacher educators have in locating themselves
within the frame of settler colonialism in Canada. I argue that there is a need for genuine dialogue and critical reflexivity that encourage teacher educators and teacher candidates to locate themselves within a complex web of privileges and oppressions, and I explore possible new directions for teaching
multiculturalism and Indigenous content in teacher education.In this article, which is grounded in my own experiences, I discuss the responsibilities
of new immigrant teacher educators when teaching courses related
to diversity and multiculturalism in Canada. I highlight the complexities that
underlie discourses of multiculturalism in teacher education, and the important
role that new immigrant teacher educators have in locating themselves
within the frame of settler colonialism in Canada. I argue that there is a need
for genuine dialogue and critical reflexivity that encourage teacher educators
and teacher candidates to locate themselves within a complex web of privileges
and oppressions, and I explore possible new directions for teaching
multiculturalism and Indigenous content in teacher education.
Technology’s potential to transform education has become a mantra of the 21st century. Much has been said about the tools and solutions that can provide opportunities for enhanced student learning. Frequent discussions have focused on the need for schools to have a robust infrastructure that supports continually evolving educational models. However, not as much has been written about the teacher’s role in this dynamic environment and the fundamentally new and different functions teachers
may have. The days of teachers covering a defined number of pages in a textbook and assigning work at the end of a chapter are quickly disappearing. Instructors are leveraging technologies that give students access to interactive content from myriad sources. In this digital classroom, the teacher is more than a static oracle of information who delivers lectures. Instead, he or she is an active participant and facilitator in each student’s path of discovery and exploration.
Fifteen of Ontario’s 24 community colleges participated in a survey conducted during the 2009/10 academic year in which data was collected to determine the frequency of mental illness, mental health problems and academic challenges in students accessing campus-based counselling and disability centres. In this study, 3,536 completed surveys based on 1,964 individual students were received, representing each of the four geographic sectors of the province; the average age of the students was 28. Of all students accessing college counselling and disability services in this study, 60.9% reported having a diagnosis of one or more mental disorders. Mood (37.5%) and anxiety (24.6%) disorders were the most prevalent individual diagnoses, followed by comorbid diagnoses (24.4%). The number of sessions students attended appeared to be related to the number of diagnoses. The mental health problems of this sample were typically stress related or interpersonal in nature. College service providers reported that 67.7% of students exhibited academic challenges (most frequently difficulties maintaining concentration), although the academic challenges reported for students with diagnoses varied. In this final report, the implications for college staff training and practices are reviewed, and directions for future research are discussed.
As the world continues to change at a rapid pace, the future remains bright for university graduates. With a growing need for a skilled and adaptable workforce to contribute to the betterment of our businesses, our communities and our province, university-educated graduates are using the advanced knowledge and skills they learn at university to get well-paying jobs in their fields soon after graduation.
The latest Ontario government survey of graduates from undergraduate programs shows that almost 94 per cent have secured employment two years after graduation. The average salary for university bachelor’s degree graduates in full-time jobs was $49,170 two years after graduation, up from the average salary of $41,839 six months after graduation.
The survey of Ontario university students who graduated in 2013, conducted for the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development, concludes that university graduates get jobs related to their education. By giving graduates the advanced skills they need, Ontario’s universities are helping the province unlock the full potential of Ontario’s future and all who live here.
Students are more likely to strive for and achieve success when they believe that their personal effort matters—when they think they can exert significant influence or control over the outcomes of their life and their future success (Bandura, 1997; Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Elias, & Loomis, 2002; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991; Solberg, et al.,
1993).
Joe Cuseo
Professor Emeritus, Psychology; Educational Consultant, AVID
([email protected])