Social Media Usage Trends Among Higher Education Faculty
The numbers surrounding social media are simply mind boggling.
750 million. The number of active Facebook users, which means if Facebook was a country it would be the third-largest in the world.
90. Pieces of content created each month by the average Facebook user.
175 million. The Twitter accounts opened during Twitter's history.
140 million. The average number of Tweets people sent per day in February 2011.
460,000. Average number of new Twitter accounts created each day during February 2011.
120 million. LinkedIn members as of August 4, 2011.
More than two per second. The average rate at which professionals are signing up to join
LinkedIn as of June 30, 2011.
All of these stats, which come from the respective companies’ own websites, serve as proof points to what we already knew: social media is growing at breakneck speed. Yet the story of social media is still being written as organizations and individuals alike continue to evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of social media in the workplace. When that workplace is a college or university, there’s a cacophony of opinions in terms of the most effective uses, if any.
For the past two years, Faculty Focus conducted a survey on Twitter usage in higher education, this year we expanded the survey to include Facebook and LinkedIn, while changing a number of the questions as well. Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn are considered "the big three" in social media, and we thank those who recommended we take a broader look at the landscape.
All three platforms have their strengths and weaknesses, and are better used for some things than others. But how are the three being used in higher education today? It’s our hope that these survey results provide at least some of the answers while lending new data to the discussion.
Mary Bart
Editor
Faculty Focus
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.
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 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.
Quality learning takes place when students connect with information and can internalize it in a way that alters or enriches their thinking. In a world of rich media, instantaneous connectivity and high expectations, educators must deploy techniques that focus student attention while providing meaningful presentations that encourage and engage. This Special Report focuses on those classroom technologies that enable teachers to more effectively capture student interest, develop lifelong learning skills, deliver content relevant for each student and efficiently assess student understanding.
Chalk and filmstrips don’t cut it anymore. Along those same lines, the classroom must be redefined. Today’s classroom is not only that which is contained within four walls of bricks and mortar. A classroom in the 21st century is any location where a convergence of instruction and learning can take place. These new classrooms can include online sessions, collaborative sessions and other virtual sessions in addition to more traditional settings. Regardless of the setting, students and teachers
expect to have access to pertinent resources that support the learning process.
In this report the term classroom refers to all of these locations. To be an effective learning locale, the site must possess appropriate technology along with other vital resources including subject content, instructional modality and assessment tools.
Overview of the Special Report This Special Report’s prime objective is to help policy decision-makers and educational leaders understand what today’s classroom technologies are evolving toward, and, more importantly, why. It is hoped that examining current classroom technologies will spur conversation as to how the practice of teaching is evolving and why that evolution makes sense.
The most difficult challenge in putting this report together was to adequately address all of the key technologies
deployed in classrooms today. Technologies range from tactile objects in Pre-K to hyper-dense 3D modeling programs in graduate-level science classes at research universities. They involve devices, interactive software and assessment tools.
Ultimately we chose to group technologies by function as they would be used in the classroom, regardless of curriculum subject or grade level.
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.
As Canada’s youth consider their increasingly broad and complex array of post-secondary education (PSE) options, they are faced with potentially costly decisions. Moreover, they often do not have the information they need to make appropriate choices, which can negatively impact their participation and persistence in PSE. For many students, it is a challenge to choose, design and follow a post-secondary pathway to its conclusion without deviating from their original plan. Students are increasingly taking non-linear pathways through PSE. Some may need to relocate and attend a different institution. Many students may decide to change the focus of their study, while others may wish to change their program entirely. Some may shift their goals from academic to applied forms of study, or vice versa. However, the structures of post-secondary systems in our provinces, and the various mechanisms that bind them, do not always provide clearly apparent and unobstructed pathways for students, particularly for mobile students. These problems are exacerbated by shifting mandates, roles, and labels of institutions across the Canadian PSE sector.
Canada does not have a clear framework for understanding the many changes that have occurred within its PSE sector over the past 15 years. This monograph sets out to explain these changes, with a view to clarifying their potential effects on students’ comprehension of, and mobility through, the structures that comprise our current PSE landscape. In the past, Canadian post-secondary education has been described as binary, a term that indicates the presence of two separate institutional sectors: public universities offering academic and professional programming at the degree-level; and public colleges providing diplomas and certificates in programs of a more technical or vocational nature. However, this conceptualization overlooks private post-secondary institutions and, as Marshall (2006) notes, “significant growth in the number and types of degrees offered by a wider variety of Canadian post-secondary institutions” over recent decades.1 As a result, the distinction between the university and college sectors has become increasingly blurred, and the nature of some Canadian post-secondary institutions is no longer made clear by their names. Canada’s PSE sector is now characterized by a broad and complex mix of institutions for which a clear and comprehensive taxonomy has yet to be developed.
Evolutionary and legislative changes in many Canadian jurisdictions challenge the transparency of current Canadian post-secondary education vocabulary. Students’ ideas about which institutions offer which programs, and which programs lead to which opportunities, may not be aligned with these changes. It is arguable that Canadian PSE has become less transparent in recent years, exacerbating the potential that students make PSE decisions inappropriate to their aspirations. Issues of program choice and fit might be better addressed through the provision of a classification framework aimed at making Canadian PSE more transparent to its users.
Post-secondary education is the great equalizer. It gives us all a chance to reach higher no matter where we come from or whatever our background. Both of my parents came from very modest upbringings and saw a university degree as a ticket to a good job and an entry to Ontario’s middle class. They, in turn, placed a high importance on post-secondary education and encouraged my sister and I to follow in their footsteps.
There is a lot about Ontario’s colleges and universities that we can be proud of, but we need to ensure our
students are getting the best value for their tuition. In Ontario today, we see far too many students graduate
with degrees and deep debts who can’t find a job.
We are spending a lot more money as a province, but we aren’t seeing the results. Government funding has increased by 84% since 2003, yet Ontario universities are slipping in international rankings, tuition keeps rising, new graduates keep heading out West and there are many jobs in the skilled trades that can’t be filled. This has got to change. We need to make the necessary changes to ensure our schools are the best in the world at preparing students for a career. The key will be incenting excellence, harnessing market forces, encouraging specialization and being honest. We cannot ignore the fact that increasingly university students end up in colleges, after accumulating significant student debt. We need a culture shift in our sytem. Promoting a ‘College First’ approach in our high schools will recognize the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the skilled trades and applied learning at risk of going unfilled and will help alleviate pressure on our universities while preparing those students who decide to
continue on to pursue a university degree.
We also cannot ignore the fact that our university rankings on the global stage have been slipping for some time. Our universities should be focused on quality, not quantity. Allowing undergraduate instructors to focus on teaching full time will improve the student experience by incenting excellence in teaching. Let us make no mistake about the promise we can offer our young graduates and the taxpayers who fund the system. A purposeful evolution of post-secondary education has the potential to do more for the long term health of Ontario than any other program or policy imaginable.
Progressive Conservatives Ontario
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 "&!", extensive feedback was received, for which commission members were most grateful. This input has been integrated into this final report.
The Dual Credit and School Within a College (SWAC) programs are both dual enrolment/dual credit programs that address access by creating new pathways to postsecondary education for non-traditional students. The programs allow students who are still in grade 11 and grade 12 to take one or more courses at a local college and earn both a high school credit toward their high school diploma as well as a college credit from the college offering the course. Though these programs have been
offered internationally for over three decades, there is still little research and little conclusive evidence that demonstrate their effectiveness.
This scoping study was conducted as part of a boarder study funded by the Australian Learning and Teaching Council Fellowship (ALTC) on Building Leadership Capacity for Undergraduate Students. The present scoping study is phase one of the project (see aim below).
Before outlining the current study, it is important to briefly summarise the literature on leadership development and theories.
Background information: Literature on leadership development and theories
Since the late 1970s scholars have criticized the traditional theories of leadership (e.g., Greenleaf, 1991). From the literature (see reports from Anderson & Johnson, 2006; Marshall, 2008), these more traditional theories include: personality theories (which propose that leadership depends on traits that are either inherited or emerge in early life development), trait theory (which involves the assumption that there are characteristics for leadership deeply embedded in the personalities of leaders), and finally theories of power and influence (which assume that leaders are people in positions of formal responsibility within an organization).
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
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.
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.
The major assertion of this article is that the present curriculum-development approaches to education are limited in the types of tasks they can address and the level of proficiency they can expect from students. Such approaches may be useful as management tools, allowing the systematic management of instructional activities. However, the approaches may interfere with the quality of the educational process. It seems obvious that one of the goals of teaching reading and mathematics is to facilitate the development of proficiency in these skills. We can contrast mediocre competence with proficient performance of a task. A novice who is trained to achieve mediocre competence can follow rules and procedures with satisfactory levels of speed and accuracy, but has difficulty in applying skills to new situations and in acquiring greater expertise. In contrast, the
attainment of proficient performance implies that a person can perform a skill so well and so efficiently that it can be a building block for the acquisition of additional skills, and is easily extended to unfamiliar tasks. The contrast is between young adults who can read 150-200 words per minute, and get most questions right on comprehension tests, and students who read for enjoyment and view libraries as tools for answering questions. The contrast is between students who can generally follow the steps of a mathematical procedure to get an answer right and students who can recognize which type of mathematical
procedure is needed in order to attack a given problem. Someone who has reached mediocre competence must still concentrate on performing the task correctly. Someone who has achieved proficiency at a task can focus attention on achieving personal and vocational goals.
In the emerging knowledge-based economy, employers are requiring new levels of skill from labour market entrants. As employers’ expectations of postsecondary graduates increase, Ontario’s publicly funded colleges and universities are working to provide students with much of the knowledge, skills, and training needed for success in the community and in the changing workplace. As a result, there has been a movement within the postsecondary education (PSE) sector to provide a closer integration of learning and work as a strategy for workforce skills development (Fisher, Rubenson, Jones, & Shanahan, 2009).
In particular, work-integrated learning (WIL) programs such as co-operative education, internship, and apprenticeship are frequently endorsed as educational modes of delivery to support such integration. Offering work-integrated learning experiences for students requires a significant investment of human and financial resources to be effective. Faculty in particular play an important role in designing, supporting, and implementing WIL opportunities for students. Despite a growing recognition of the essential role played by faculty, very little is known about their perceptions of and experiences with WIL. To shed light on this issue, this report provides the results of the WIL Faculty Survey conducted by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) in partnership with 13 Ontario postsecondary institutions.
The report is part of a broader multi-phase project being undertaken by HEQCO on WIL in Ontario’s PSE sector.
The WIL Faculty Survey was designed to better understand faculty experiences with and perceptions of WIL as an element of postsecondary curriculum. Guided by a Working Group comprised of representatives from the 13 participating postsecondary institutions, the study sought to address four primary research questions:
1) How do faculty perceive the value and benefits of WIL to students, faculty members, and postsecondary institutions?
2) Do faculty views about WIL differ by employment status, program, gender, years of teaching, previous employment experience, or their own past WIL experience?
3) How do faculty integrate students’ work experiences into the classroom?
4) What concerns do faculty have about introducing or expanding WIL opportunities in postsecondary institutions?
The survey instrument was developed in consultation with the Working Group and was pre-tested with 25 faculty members. The survey was administered online from March to May, 2011, with e-mail invitations to participate sent to 18,232 faculty from the 13 partner institutions (6,257 college faculty and 11,975 university faculty). In total, 1,707 college faculty and 1,917 university faculty completed the survey to an acceptable cut-off point, for an overall response rate of 19.9%. Close to two-thirds of college faculty and roughly half of university faculty respondents reported having experience teaching in a program in which students participate in a co-op or apprenticeship. Fewer faculty had experience personally teaching a course with a WIL component, with 47.5% of college faculty and 28.9% of university faculty currently or previously having taught a course involving WIL. Among those who had taught a course with a WIL component, field placements were the most common type of WIL among college faculty, followed by mandatory professional practice (student placements required for licensure or professional designation). For university respondents, mandatory professional practice was the most common type of WIL taught, followed by applied research projects.
What sources and resources do college students utilize to assist them in the transfer process? What factors influence students’ transfer decisions? What information do students possess about transfer and of what quality is the transfer information students receive? This investigation interviews students of two-year College of Applied Arts and Technology (CAAT) and Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning (ITAL) programs in the province of Ontario, Canada who identify intentions to transfer to university within their first semester in college. Grounding all analysis in Spence (1973), Akerlof (1970) and Stiglitz’s (1990) work on asymmetric information, adverse selection and signaling, this study examines students’ knowledge of transfer and their attainment of that knowledge. Policy recommendations for the further development of transfer assistance mechanisms and timing of implementation are provided.
Keywords: transfer credit; seamless education; asymmetric information; signalling.
What research direction is needed in the scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education? Over a decade ago, Windschitl (1998) advocated for more research on in- creasing student inquiry through the World Wide Web and illuminating web-based stu- dent communication. The release and then extensive development of a model of online communities of inquiry (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) responded to Windschitl’s call. In addition to continued work in these two areas, a stronger research focus on learn- ing theory and everyday use of Web 2.0 technologies is required (Greenhow, Robelia, & Hughes, 2009; Zawacki-Richter, Anderson, & Tunca, 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 upperdivision 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.
Maryellen Weimer
Editor
The Teaching Professor
The internationally recognized NMC Horizon Report series and regional NMC Technology Outlooks are
part of the NMC Horizon Project, a comprehensive research venture established in 2002 that identifies and describes emerging technologies likely to have a large impact over the coming five years in education around the globe. This volume, the NMC
Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition, examines emerging technologies for their potential impact on and use in teaching, learning, and creative inquiry within the environment of higher education. While there are many local factors affecting the practice of education, there are also issues that transcend regional boundaries and questions common to higher education; it was with these questions in mind that this report was created. The NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Edition is the
11th in the annual higher education series of reports and is produced by the NMC in collaboration with the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI).
Efforts to reduce harmful alcohol use by university students require a concentrated examination of the culture of alcohol use on campus and within the broader community. Drinking heavily among young people, even before university, is often viewed as normal and expected behaviour by youth and frequently condoned by their parents and the community because it is viewed
as a rite of passage. Adults can turn a blind eye to the practice, frequently hoping or feeling relieved that their
children aren’t using something “worse”.