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.
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%).
Abstract
The demand for quantitative assessment by external agencies and internal
administrators can leave post-secondary instructors confused about the
nature and purpose of learning outcomes and fearful that the demand
is simply part of the increasing corporatization of the university system.
This need not be the case. Developing learning outcomes has a number
of benefits for course design that go beyond program assessment. This
article clarifies some key aspects of the push toward using learning outcomes
and introduces a tripartite nomenclature for distinguishing among
course outcomes, outputs, and objectives. It then outlines a process for
instructors to use these three categories to develop and design courses
that meet institutional assessment demands while also improving overall
teaching effectiveness.
Résumé
L’évaluation quantitative que demandent les agences externes et les
administrateurs internes peut confondre les instructeurs de niveau
postsecondaires quant à la nature et à l’objectif des « résultats d’apprentissage
», et leur faire craindre que cette demande ne fasse simplement partie de
la privatisation croissante du système universitaire. Ce n’est pas forcément
le cas. La création de résultats d’apprentissage présente de nombreux
avantages sur le plan de la conception de cours, avantages qui vont au-delà
de l’évaluation de programme. L’article clarifie quelques aspects principaux
de la poussée vers l’utilisation de « résultats d’apprentissage » et présente
une nomenclature tripartite pour faire la distinction entre les résultats de
cours, le rendement et les objectifs. Il décrit ensuite un processus pour
Learning (About) Outcomes / R. S. Ascough 45
CJHE / RCES Volume 41, No. 2, 2011
que les instructeurs emploient ces trois catégories afin de concevoir des
cours qui répondent aux exigences en évaluation de l’institution, tout en
améliorant l’efficacité de l’enseignement dans son ensemble.
By enhancing communication with students, ONCAT both increases their awareness of transfer opportunities and facilitates their ability to transfer. ONCAT works with students, through its advisory board, by engaging with student leaders and participating in student fairs, to ensure that there is a better understanding of the transfer and mobility opportunities afforded by our system.
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.
Ask most people who don’t teach online about the likelihood of academic dishonesty in an online class and you will likely hear concerns about the many ways that students could misrepresent themselves online. In fact, this concern about student representation is so prevalent it made its way into the Higher Education Opportunities Act (HEOA).
Passed into law in 2008, the act brought a few big changes to online education, including
a new requirement to “ensure that the student enrolled in an online class is the student doing the coursework.” Although there’s some disagreement as to whether distance education is more susceptible to academic dishonesty than other forms of instruction, what isn’t up for debate is the fact that for as long as there’s been exams, there’s been cheating on exams. The online environment simply opens up a different set of challenges that aren’t typically seen in traditional face-to-face courses.
Promoting Academic Integrity in Online Education was developed to help you understand the latest tools and techniques for mitigating cheating and other unethical behaviors in your online courses. The report features nine articles from Distance Education Report, including:
• Combating Online Dishonesty with Communities of Integrity
• 91 Ways to Maintain Academic Integrity in Online Courses
• The New News about Cheating for Distance Educators
• A Problem of Core Values: Academic Integrity in Distance Learning
• Practical Tips for Preventing Cheating on Online Exams
Online education didn’t invent cheating, but it does present unique challenges. This report
provides proactive ways for meeting these challenges head on.
Christopher Hill
Editor
Distance Education Report
[email protected]
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.
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.
Since 1987, the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) has celebrated the administrative achievements of our members through the Quality & Productivity (Q&P) Awards Program. The simple concept of sharing good ideas has grown
into an established best practices program that celebrates the successes of our members and provides a venue for spreading the word.
CAUBO promotes the professional and effective delivery of services and administration of resources in all facets of higher education. This annual awards program is designed to recognize, reward and share achievements of administrators in the introduction of new services, improvement in the quality of services provided, and the management of human, financial, and
physical resources.
Depuis 1987, L’Association canadienne du personnel administratif universitaire (ACPAU) souligne les bons coups de ses membres par l’entremise du programme des prix de la qualité et de la productivité. Le concept de départ, qui consistait à
communiquer de bonnes idées, a germé; aujourd’hui, il s’agit d’un programme bien établi qui réunit des pratiques exemplaires, met en valeur les réussites de nos membres et constitue un moyen de diffuser ce savoir.
L’ACPAU s’occupe de promouvoir la prestation professionnelle de services et l’administration effice de ressources dans toutes les facettes de l’enseignement supérieur. Le programme des prix de la qualité et de la productivité vise à récompenser et à faire connaître chaque année les réalisations des administrateurs universitaires, que ce soit pour l’introduction de nouveaux services, l’amélioration de la qualité des services fournis, ou encore la gestion des ressources humaines, financières
ou physiques.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The OCUFA plan aims to dramatically enhance the quality and affordability of university education in Ontario by 2020 through increased government investment. We are also sensitive to the financial constraints the province is facing. As such, our recommendations reflect both the estimated minimum and maximum cost of our proposals. The Government of Ontario can choose to make a smaller investment as finances dictate. The important thing is that reinvestment begin now.
We recommend:
1. Increasing per-student public investment in universities to the national average by 2020.
Cost in 2013-14: A minimum of $120 million and a maximum of $280 million
2. Bringing the student-faculty ratio to the national average by 2020 by hiring new fulltime
faculty.
Cost in 2013-2014: A minimum of $16 million and a maximum of $110 million
3. Freezing tuition fees and consulting with students, faculty, and administrators on a new
funding framework that preserves quality while ensuring affordability.
Cost in 2013-14: $170 million.
4. Increasing research funding to universities by phasing out ineffective tax credits for private sector research and development.
Cost in 2013-14: No additional cost.
5. Respecting faculty collective bargaining rights.
6. Engaging faculty meaningfully in pension reform.
A critical new theme of the 1990’s was how to achieve large scale reform. In the current decade sustainability has been added as a major concern. These twin concepts represent a radical shift from understanding individual school innovation toward establishing system change that generates and supports continuous improvement on a large scale.
In this paper we use literacy and to a certain extent numeracy initiatives as examples of attempts at large scale sustainable reform. We first describe the sources we use from our own and others work — a lively body of multi-year attempts at large scale reform. Second, we offer a tri-level model— school/district/state, along with evidence to demonstrate what is necessary at each of these three levels in the pursuit of system-wide reform. Third, we identify an agenda of unfinished business in order to take us to the next level of sustainable reform.
Among faculty, student evaluations of teaching (SET) are a source of pride and satisfaction—and frustration and anxiety. High-stakes decisions including tenure and promotions rely on SET. Yet it is widely believed that they are primarily a popularity contest; that it’s easy to “game” ratings; that good teachers get bad ratings and vice versa; and that rating anxiety stifles pedagogical innovation and encourages faculty to water down course content. What’s the truth?
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.
Faculty developers and others who specialize in research on teaching and learning recognize that much of the research is convergent. Positive teaching and learning practices do not operate in stand-alone vacuums. A savvy university teacher draws eclectically from a number of sources and resources to design coherent teaching and learning plans. This article will examine symbiotically how cooperative learning and deep learning together can promote greater success both in and out of the classroom.
The education of students with Special Needs (SN) has been well researched at the school level (K-12) and a growing number of studies have been conducted at the postsecondary education (PSE) level. However, there is little research on transitions of SN students between the two systems. Inclusive policies at both the school and postsecondary level are designed to encourage students with SN to continue with their education. However, relatively few do so. Some students with SN fail to complete their schooling and drop. Others graduate from high school but decide against enrolling in a college or university program. While some of these students may prefer direct entry to the labour market others have postsecondary aspirations for which they are not adequately prepared or supported. The social goal of inclusive education is to accommodate the aspirations of all students, including those designated as SN. The existing research on college and university access suggests that students with SN who aspire to PSE face significant barriers. How effectively they meet these challenges requires a better understanding of the basis for their post-high school pathway choices. Socio-demographic factors like gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status have long been recognized as influencing access to PSE, whether or not the individual is a student with special needs. Whatever their background, high school students who aspire to PSE must meet the academic entrance requirements of the institution (college or university) and, at the same time, develop the self-confidence and dispositions to study that are needed to succeed in a
postsecondary program. Acquiring the necessary capabilities can be especially challenging forat-risk students – those with low levels of achievement and those with special needs. Many, nevertheless, display the resilience needed to plan for, invest in, and realize their PSE aspirations. Schools play a key role in developing these resilient qualities in adolescents. Inclusive policies that emphasize students’ “strengths” rather than “deficits” have led to greater integration into mainstream classrooms. Learning in integrated settings is assumed to enhance opportunities for school engagement that complement and contribute to key student beliefs and behaviours – specifically, their sense of personal competence, dependability, and capacity for self-regulation.
Over the past decade there has been an upsurge of interest in the quality of postsecondary education, with a particular focus on learning, engagement, and other student outcomes. Instructors, administrators, and other staff across the postsecondary sector have been investigating innovative approaches and services, while many institutions, faculties, departments, and professional associations have established teaching and learning centres or offices to help enhance student success. Governments and governmental organizations have provided support for new approaches and for research projects evaluating them.
This guide, co-sponsored by the McMaster Centre for Leadership in Learning (CLL) and the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), and endorsed by the Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education (STLHE) and the Canadian Association of College and University Student Services (CACUSS), is intended to assist researchers and evaluators of postsecondary educational outcomes. The intended audiences for this document include, but are by no means restricted to, the following:
• faculty members and educational developers investigating innovative approaches or technologies designed to enhance learning in postsecondary contexts;
• faculty members and administrators leading initiatives for students enrolled in programs or courses that are considered particularly challenging;
• anyone involved in professional development initiatives for faculty, graduate students, and others intended to enhance teaching and learning effectiveness;
• student service providers at postsecondary institutions; and
• students and student associations focusing on effective teaching, learning and student success.
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?
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.
College prices have increased by 45 percemt on average over the past decade, while household income has declinded by 7 percent in the same period.
ABSTRACT
Student parents are a significant minority population on Canadian post-secondary campuses. As research exploring this population has been extremely limited to date, this study provides the first national profile of Canadian student parents. We explore student parent enrolment patterns over time and examine current demographic characteristics. The data for this study were drawn from two datasets collected by Statistics Canada: the Labour Force Survey 1976–2005 and the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics 2004 cross-sectional data file. Student parents accounted for between 11% and 16% of all post-secondary enrolment between 1976 and 2005. Further analyses explore participation patterns based on type of institution college/university), study status (full-/part-time study), age, gender, and marital status. Future research directions and implications for policies and institutional practice are discussed.
RÉSUMÉ
Les étudiants qui sont aussi parents représentent une population minoritaire d’importance sur les campus postsecondaires canadiens. Puisque la recherche portant sur cette population demeure extrêmement limitée à ce jour, l’étude qui suit constitue le premier profil national d’étudiants canadiens qui sont aussi parents. On y explore les modèles d’inscription de ces étudiants au fil du temps et on y examine les caractéristiques démographiques actuelles. Les données de cette étude ont été prises de deux sources recueillies par Statistique Canada : la « Labour Force Survey 1976-2005 » et la « Enquête sur la dynamique du travail et du revenu, 2004 [Canada]: Fichier d’enquête transversale principale ». Les étudiants qui sont aussi parents représentent entre 11 % et 16 % de toutes les inscriptions postsecondaires entre 1976 et 2005. D’autres
CJHE / RCES Volume 41, No. 3, 2011
analyses explorent les modèles de participation fondés sur le type d’institution (collège ou université), le statut de l’étudiant (temps plein ou temps partiel), l’âge, le sexe et le statut familial. On y discute également de la direction des recherches futures, ainsi que des implications pour la rédaction de politiques et pour la pratique en milieu institutionnel.