The present system of academic credentials awarded by Ontario’s colleges was established nearly a half century ago. It is thus appropriate to consider how well some of those credential titles fit in the global lexicon of academic credentials as it has evolved over the last half century and whether they are still appropriate today.
Presently the term for the credential that is awarded by colleges in Ontario upon completion of a program of two years’ duration is diploma. In 1995, noted community college scholar John Dennison of the University of British Columbia observed that “there is not a clear appreciation of what a diploma means”, and this “results in an undervaluation of the diploma from a CAAT” (Dennison, 1995, p. 13).
Academic dishonesty is a persistent problem in institutions of higher education, with numerous short- and long-term implications. This study examines undergraduate students’ self-reported engagement in acts of academic dishonesty using data from a sample of 321 participants attending a public university in a western Canadian city during the fall of 2007. Various factors were assessed for their influence on students’ extent of academic dishonesty. More than one-half of respondents engaged in at least one of three types of dishonest behaviours surveyed during their tenure in university. Faculty of enrolment, strategies for learning, perceptions of peers’ cheating and their requests for help, and perceptions and evaluations of academic dishonesty made unique contributions to the prediction of academic dishonesty. High self-efficacy acted as a protective factor that interacted with instrumental motives to study to reduce students’ propensity to engage in dishonest academic behaviours. Implications of these findings for institutional interventions are briefly discussed.
RÉSUMÉ
Le comportement académique malhonnête persiste dans les institutions d’enseignement supérieur, et ses implications à court et à long terme sont nombreuses. La présente étude examine l’adoption d’un comportement académique malhonnête par des étudiants de premier cycle, grâce aux données d’un échantillon de 321 participants qui fréquentaient une université publique dans une ville de l’ouest canadien à l’automne 2007. Différents facteurs ont été évalués en fonction de leur influence sur l’étendue du comportement académique malhonnête des étudiants. Plus de la moitié des étudiants échantillonnés ont adopté au moins l’un des trois types de comportements malhonnêtes au cours de leur passage à l’université. La faculté à s’inscrire, les stratégies d’apprentissage, la perception quant au comportement tricheur des pairs et quant à leurs demandes d’aide, et les perceptions et évaluations de la malhonnêteté académique constituent des indices uniques pour ce qui est de prédire le comportement académique malhonnête. Un degré élevé d’auto-efficacité, de même que certains motifs essentiels, avaient un effet protecteur dans la réduction de la propension des étudiants à s’engager dans des comportements académiques malhonnêtes. L’article aborde brièvement les conséquences de ces résultats au cours d’interventions en institution d’enseignement.
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 ex-tracurricular activities, and living on campus have all been shown to make a difference.
Ontario’s universities know how important it is not only to train and equip students for career and life success, but also to reach beyond the walls of campus and lift up communities. Through partnerships that spark service learning, or community-based opportunities that enrich the learning experience and also improve lives, many thousands of students, faculty and staff are actively engaging with the 33 communities where Ontario universities are rooted. Some start their own initiatives, creating
non-profit organizations, outreach programs, or inventing innovative products that solve critical issues around the globe. Students have won hundreds of awards for their work, and often find or create jobs out of these experiences.
The Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress and its research arm, the Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity, were established by the Government of Ontario in 2001 to “measure and monitor Ontario’s productivity, competitiveness and economic progress compared to other provinces and the U.S. states and to report to the public on a regular basis.” The Task Force has issued two annual reports, Closing the Prosperity Gap (November 2002) and Investing for Prosperity (November 2003), and the Institute four working papers: A View of Ontario: Ontario’s Clusters of Innovations (April 2002), Measuring Ontario’s Prosperity: Developing an Economic Indicator System (August 2002), Missing Opportunities: Ontario’s Urban Prosperity Gap (June 2003), and Striking Similarities: Attitudes and Ontario’s Prosperity
Gap (September 2003).
The members of the Principal’s Commission on Mental Health are pleased to submit their final report to Principal Daniel Woolf.
This report is the result of a year-long process embedded in comprehensive input from the Queen’s and broader communities. Commissioners Lynann Clapham, Roy Jahchan, Jennifer Medves, Ann Tierney and David Walker (Chair) heard from students, faculty, staff, parents, alumni, mental health professionals and community members, all of whom generously gave their time to provide valuable insight and expertise.
Following the release of a discussion paper in June 2012 extensive feedback was received, for which commission members were most grateful. This input has been integrated into this final report.
In the traditional college classroom today, faculty and students arrive with a certain set of expectations, shaped largely by past experiences. And although students may need the occasional (or perhaps frequent) reminder of what’s required of them, there’s usually something very familiar about the experience for both faculty and students alike. In the online classroom, an entirely new set of variables enters the equation. It’s a little like trying to drive in a foreign country. You know how to drive, just like you know how to teach,but it sure is hard to get the hang of driving on the left side of the road, you’re not quite sure how far a kilometer is, and darn it if those road signs aren’t all in Japanese. This special report explains the “rules of the road” for online teaching and learning and features a series of columns that first appeared in the Distance Education Report’s “Between
the Clicks,” a popular column by Dr. Lawrence C. Ragan, Director of Instructional Design and Development for Penn State’s World Campus.
The articles contained in the report will help you establish online instructor best practices and expectations, and include the following principles of effective online teaching:
• Show Up and Teach
• Practice Proactive Course Management Strategies
• Establish Patterns of Course Activities
• Plan for the Unplanned
• Response Requested and Expected
• Think Before You Write
• Help Maintain Forward Progress
• Safe and Secure
• Quality Counts
• (Double) Click a Mile on My Connection
These principles, developed at Penn State’s World Campus, outline the core behaviours of the successful online instructor, and help to define parameters around the investment of time on part of the instructor. In his articles, Ragan identifies potential barriers and limitations to online learning, and specific strategies to assist instructors in achieving the performance expectations.
Teaching is a science, an art, and a craft.
Over the next several years, more than 500 Aboriginal communities across Canada will find themselves living right in the heart of some of the biggest oil, gas, forestry and mining projects Canada has seen in decades. Debates over pipelines, accelerated foreign investment, and the push for a national energy strategy have turned a spotlight on the central role that Aboriginal communities can play in resource development.
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.
This paper reports the results of a study of provincial level arrangements for coordination of planning and operations between university and college sectors in Canada. The data are drawn from a survey of senior government and sector officials in which respondents were asked to describe existing arrangements for coordination and to comment upon the importance attached to, and priority issues for, coordination; characteristics of effective structures for coordination; and their satisfaction with existing arrangements. The findings indicate that inter-sector coordination is perceived as an important issue; that coordination structures are most developed in the provinces in which there is the strongest mandate for articulation between sectors; and that efforts are under way in most provinces to refine and improve structures for inter-sector coordination.
Cet article prisente Les risultats d'une itude sur Les modes de coordination, d l'ichelle provinciale, de la planification et du fonctionnement intersectoriels des universitis et des colleges au Canada. Les informations utilisies pour les fins de cette analyse ont iti obtenues d partir d'une enquete effectuie aupres des hauts fonctionnaires des gouvernements provinciaux et aupres des institutions d'enseignement postsecondaire. L'objet de cette enquete a porte sur Les modes de coordination en place, sur /'evaluation de /'importance attribuee a ces activites, sur Les questions prioritaires necessitant la coordination, sur Les caracteristiques des structures de coordination qui s'averent Les plus efficaces, et en.fin sur le niveau de satisfaction en regard des structures existantes. Les resultats de l'enquete indiquent qu 'on attache generalement une grande importance aux structures de coordination intersectorielles; que Les provinces possedant Les structures Les plus developpees sont celles ayant etabli un mandat clair de coordination; et en.fin, que toutes Les provinces sont deja engagees dans un processus qui vise a developper et d ameliorer Les structures existantes.
Launched in 2005, the SFD program enabled university students to enrich their learning experience and contribute to international development, while strengthening links between institutions in Canada and overseas. SFD interns not only grew personally and professionally, they also contributed to the key development challenges of improving the lives of children and youth, ensuring food security and strengthening sustainable economies.
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.
ALGONQUIN COLLEGE KEY AREAS OF DIFFERENTIATION
Algonquin College delivers a comprehensive range of applied education and training experiences to
serve the diverse learner choices and the breadth of employer labour demands across Eastern Ontario
and the province.
Algonquin College works with industry partners to:
• Develop labour-market informed programs and services;
• Provide opportunities for work-integrated learning, and experience inside and outside the
classroom; and
• Engage in applied research and commercialization activities that support student success,
employee growth, and social and economic development in the region and beyond.
Algonquin College employees are engaged in the strategic direction of the College to:
• Lead the transformation of Ontario’s postsecondary system;
• Deliver high-quality teaching methods and modalities that leverage technology to enhance the
educational experience; and
• Improve student learning outcomes for career and life success.
Algonquin College broadens learner access to applied postsecondary education and training in
Ontario, demonstrating leadership through:
• Alternative learning modalities and options to suit multiple learning styles and learner
preferences;
• New, targeted approaches to programs and services that improve pathways for learners of diverse
demographic characteristics; and
• Smart investments in technology that enhance the Algonquin learner experience.
Approaches to higher education have been evolving at an increasingly rapid pace over the past decade, and graduate education is a critical part of that evolution. In Ontario alone, the number of new programs offered at our institutions has increased dramatically since 2004, and between 1999 and 2009, the number of PhD students enrolled in Ontario universities has nearly doubled (Maldonado, Wiggers, & Arnold, 2013). Students are coming to graduate school at different stages of their lives (Wiggers, Lennon, & Frank, 2011) and, in today’s economy, many are leaving graduate schools with increased uncertainty and anxiety about their career prospects (Maldonado et al., 2013; Patton, 2012).
Whereas in the past it was considered the norm for graduate students to move on to careers in academia, recent studies have confirmed what is apparent to most casual observers: the standard path is no longer into academia. For example, a 2010 study estimated that about 50 per cent of US PhD graduates now take positions outside of academia (Wendler, Bridgeman, Cline, Millett, Rock, Bell, & McAllister, 2010), and those who end up in academia are less likely to hold full-time tenure-stream positions. From 1975 to 2009, the proportion of full-time tenured and tenure-track faculty positions decreased as a proportion of the total number of instructional staff at US universities from approximately 45 to 24 per cent (AAUC), with part-time faculty positions comprising the majority of instructional positions (41%) by 2009. Within the Canadian context, current estimates suggest that less than 25 per cent of PhD students will end up in full-time tenure-stream research and teaching positions (Charbonneau, 2011; Tamburri, 2010).
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.
Writing assignments, particularly for first- and second-year college students, are probably one of those items in the syllabus that some professors dread almost as much as their students do. Yet despite the fact that essays, research papers, and other types of writing assignments are time consuming and, at times, frustrating to grade, they also are vital to furthering student learning. Of course part of the frustration comes when professors believe that students should arrive on campus knowing how to write research papers. Many do not. With as much content as professors have to cover, many feel they simply can’t take time to teach the research skills required to write a quality, college-level term paper. But as teaching professors who support the writing across the curriculum movement would tell you, improving students’ writing skills is everyone’s business, and carries with it many short- and long-term benefits for teachers and students alike. Further, many instructors are finding ways to add relevance to writing assignments by aligning them with the type of writing required in a specific profession as an alternative to the traditional, semester-long research paper. This special report was created to provide instructors with fresh perspectives and proven strategies for designing more effective writing assignments. It features 11 articles from The Teaching Professor, including:
. Revising the Freshman Research Assignment
. Writing an Analytical Paper in Chunks
. Designing Assignments to Minimize Cyber-Cheating
. Chapter Essays as a Teaching Tool
. Writing (Even a Little Bit) Facilitates Learning
. How to Conduct a ‘Paper Slam’
Executive Summary
The significance of literacy for postsecondary success has been demonstrated in numerous
research reports showing that attrition and underachievement are strongly linked to low levels of language proficiency (Jennings and Hunn, 2002; Perin, 2004). It has also been shown that Canadian adults with lower literacy levels have significantly lower employment rates and incomes, higher rates of unemployment, and are less likely to be engaged in their community than Canadian adults with higher literacy levels (Statistics Canada, 2005). On a national scale, literacy is a key factor in economic growth, productivity and innovation (Coulombe, Tremblay and Marchand, 2004).
Graduating over 71,000 students per year (MTCU, 2011), colleges play a central role in preparing Ontario adults with varying literacy levels for the labour force. A recent review of literacy-related practices at Ontario’s colleges demonstrated that there is currently a wide range and diversity of activities and models being used to address the language needs of students (Fisher and Hoth 2010). Without the appropriate supports, literacy and language challenges are barriers that prevent students from achieving success in their chosen program of study and subsequent career. All post-secondary institutions struggle with finding workable models to support these students, yet there has been little rigorous research evaluating the effectiveness of various remediation approaches (Levin and Calcagno 2008).
In fall of 2008, George Brown College piloted an innovative remedial approach in the Practical Nursing program that targets reading, writing, speaking and listening skills while integratingcontent from select core courses, termed the Communications Adjunct Model (CAM). The goal of this research project was to assess the impact of CAM on adult learners with diverse remedial
English language needs in order to provide important lessons for post-secondary institutions. To assess the program’s effectiveness, the academic performance of students placed in CAM was examined in relation to two comparison groups. The first comparison group consisted of students in the same cohort as the CAM group (2008/2009) who were not placed in CAM. The second comparison group included students from two academic years prior to the introduction of CAM (2005/2006 and 2006/2007) who fell below the entrance score cut-offs for selection into the adjunct program.
The analysis undertaken suggests that CAM did not have a strong effect on overall grade performance (GPA). While two out of the four evaluations of the effectiveness of the program showed that CAM had a positive effect on students’ GPA, the results were weak and did not prove to be reliable across comparison groups. It is important to remember, however, that the analysis assessed the impact of CAM solely on GPA performance. CAM has a number of additional objectives, such as general language skill development, that would require additional data collection and analysis to better determine the effectiveness of the program. Nonetheless, there are many important learnings that can be gleaned from the project based on George Brown
College’s experience of developing and administering CAM.
This sixth annual Going Greener report demonstrates those results through campus case studies about food sustainability, conservation efforts, and partnerships that are building a greener community. The report details how university communities are becoming more sustainable in their operations and policies, developing academic programming that seeks to create knowledge leaders in emerging fields, and broadening their understanding of environmental issues so that partners can work together to develop solutions to one of society’s most pressing problems.
The HEQCO research program in Knowledge Mobilization for Exemplary Teaching and Learning in higher education was launched with a research project and report in 2007-2008. This report introduced the term Faculty Knowledge Exchange Network for the emerging technical and social infrastructures, which enable communities of higher education teachers to access, share, extend, and mobilize knowledge representations and resources to enhance teaching and learning. The report included an analysis of existing models and specific recommendations for research to evaluate new faculty collaborations across Ontario institutions of higher education. Since then, new evidence has been generated by the HEQCO program and by complementary efforts beyond. The current state of knowledge is reflected in Figure 1, which traces the causal
factors from the high level outcome through a set of intermediate drivers to long-term factors which would support lasting change.
In this initial section we update the content of the 2008 HEQCO report with the issues arising from the pilot studies in the HEQCO research program and from parallel research initiatives elsewhere. In the next section, we outline the particular contribution to addressing these issues made by faculty Knowledge Exchange Networks, the approach taken in the two HEQCO pilot studies for 2010-2011. We next consider what has been learned about the long-term developments required to fully engage faculty in more transformative teaching practices. We then review the HEQCO 2010-2011 research, to analyze how factors in those projects contributed to their outcomes, and how shortcomings from missing elements could be addressed in future initiatives.