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.
What’s working in adult learner recruitment and marketing and which practices are most widely used? To find out, Ruffalo Noel Levitz conducted a 72-item, web-based poll in April 2015 as part of the firm’s continuing series of benchmark polls for higher education. Because undergraduate and graduate programs often employ similar practices to attract adult learners, this report combines its findings across undergraduate and graduate levels. For a profile of the poll respondents, please refer to the Appendix, page 41. Note that all respondents in this study had at least one adult-focused degree program.
What is Student Development Theory?
Student development is the way that a student grows, progresses, or increases his or her developmental capabilities as a result of enrollment in an institution of higher education. There are three types of development:
• Change is an altered state, which may be positive or negative and progressive or regressive.
y Growth is an expansion, but may be positive or negative to overall functioning.
i Development is positive growth.
In 2011 Ontario joined the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) feasibility study. The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) led the project on behalf of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) and in cooperation with the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC).
Initiated in 2006, AHELO was a feasibility study to determine if standard generic and discipline-specific tests could be used in different countries to measure what university students know and are able to do. Intending to contribute to the international conversation on establishing better indications of learning quality, the study aimed to develop common learning outcomes and assess student performance at the end of a bachelor’s degree (first cycle) in a variety of educational cultures, languages and institutions through standard tests. The feasibility study developed three assessments: one for generic skills and two for discipline-specific skills in economics and civil engineering.
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.
The structure of education on reserve
Unlike in our provincial education systems, there are no minimum legislated education standards for on-reserve First Nations students. Canadian taxpay-ers are funding an education system in First Nations communities that has no legislated mandate for a core curriculum meeting provincial standards, no requirement that educators in First Nations schools have provincial certifi-cation, and no requirement for First Nations schools to award a recognized provincial diploma. This has resulted in “situations where First Nation youth graduate from education institutions on reserve but cannot demonstrate a recognizable diploma to a workplace or post secondary institution” (Canada, AANDC, 2014c). This system is clearly failing First Nations children.
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.
The Alternative to Academic Suspension Program (AASP) ran as a pilot program in fall 2009 to address the skill development of students facing suspension at Brock University. Initial results of the program indicate positive results with students persisting in their programs. In total, there were 445 students facing academic suspension, and 42 per cent of those students participated in the AASP pilot. Participants in the AASP were required to successfully complete the program,pass all credits taken during the academic year (maximum of three) and achieve an overall session average of at least 60 per cent to be eligible to continue studies. Failure to meet any of the conditions resulted in academic suspension at the end of the academic year. Of the 187 students participating in the AASP pilot, 50 per cent returned to studies in the fall of 2010, compared to only 17 per cent of those students facing suspension who did not to participate. When considering all students facing suspension, AASP participants represented over two-thirds of the returning students in fall 2010. Not only are the participants persisting with studies, but the participants are improving their overall averages as well.
While overall academic averages can be difficult to change, of the 94 AASP participants returning to studies in 2010, 92.5 per cent of them were able to increase their overall average. Considering that AASP participants were limited to a maximum of three credits, it is encouraging that so many of the returning AASP participants were able to achieve this result. The participants are moving from being at risk of not completing their programs to completion with improved overall averages.
The current analysis reflects a positive short-term impact on retention. Continued analysis would examine a long-term assessment of the program and whether students can maintain their initial success as they continue in their studies at Brock. Other key findings from the report include:
• In 2009, students within two years of entry into Brock and facing suspension participated at a higher rate than those students facing suspension who had entered prior to 2007.
• Although 94 AASP participants returned to studies in 2010, there were 116 AASP participants (62 per cent of total AASP enrollment) eligible to continue studies at Brock University in 2010. We are unable to track whether the eligible participants not returning to Brock have gone to other institutions or chosen to end their postsecondary studies.
Surveys and focus groups from eligible AASP participants not returning to studies at Brock would be beneficial to understand what choices these students made and why they made them.
Further study needs to be completed to understand the longer-term impact of the AASP. In addition to driving internal program improvements, further study could also help develop strategies to identify and support at-risk students at other universities.
Ontario firms and organizations are being challenged to increase productivity through innovation in order to compete on the fiercely competitive world stage and improve the quality of life of Ontarians. Yet, Ontario suffers from innovation gaps
that place its productivity and prosperity goals at risk.
Ontario’s 24 Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology have long been recognized for their contributions to career-oriented education and training programs that have strengthened the Ontario economy throughout the latter part of the 20th century.
Poised on the threshold of the 21st century, college-based applied research and development (R&D) and business and industry innovation activities are of ever increasing importance to the achievement of Ontario’s productivity and prosperity
goals.
“Pop leadership” philosophy abounds in our culture today. Book stores have shelves full of books on leader ship. Leaders and leadership are discussed daily on tele vision, radio, newspapers, magazines and on the web. As a result, many mixed messages about leadership are expressed. So – how do you decide what is accurate?
Many higher education institutions use student satisfaction surveys given at the end of a course to measure course and instructor quality. But is that really a true measure of quality? All things being equal, an instructor who teaches a rigorous course will likely score much lower than an instructor whose course is a little less demanding. Then there’s the whole timing of the satisfaction surveys. For the most part, students are simply glad the course is over (even if they liked it) and put little thought or time into completing the survey. Unless of course they know they failed, in which case you will get a detailed assessment of how you are boring, inflexible, out of touch, or otherwise unfit to teach.
No wonder surveys get such a bad rap. If end-of-course evaluations are the only surveys you use, there’s a lot more you can, and should, be doing. Done correctly, surveys can deliver tremendous insight into what’s working, what’s not, and why. This special report features 10 articles from Online Classroom, including a three-part and a five-part series that provides stepby-
step guidance on how to use surveys and evaluations to improve online courses, programs, and instruction. You’ll learn when to use surveys, how to design effective survey questions, why it’s important to ensure anonymity, and the advantages and disadvantages of Web-based surveys.
Articles in Online Course Quality Assurance: Using Evaluations and Surveys to Improve Online Teaching and Learning include:
• Online Teaching Fundamentals: What to Evaluate, parts 1-3
• Course and Instructor Evaluation: If It’s So Good, Why Does It Feel So Bad?
• Getting Evaluation Data through Surveys: What to Consider before Getting Started
• Using Surveys to Improve Courses, Programs, and Instruction, parts 1-5
If you’re dedicated to continuous improvement, this special report is loaded with practical advice that will help you create more effective surveys before, during, and after your course ends.
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.
Why do we study student technology choices and preferences? With the first student study launched in 2004 we had an instinctive sense of why the exercise was valuable. Several campuses had been collecting data on student technology use - some of them for quite a while - but this included little broad and generalizable data about how students in higher education were adapting to and using technology.
This paper examines the role of affiliated and federated universities in Ontario’s higher education system. It addresses the question: Do affiliated and federated institutions make a distinctive contribution to the differentiation of postsecondary education in Ontario?
Ontario has 16 affiliated and federated universities that historically were church-governed and that became associated with one of the publicly supported universities. Each of them offers primarily secular academic programs today. Carleton, Laurentian, Ottawa, Toronto, Waterloo and Western each have one or more federated or affiliated university.
Ensuring access to postsecondary education (PSE) for all qualified individuals is key to Ontario’s future competitiveness and equally critical from an equity perspective. This paper provides an empirical analysis of access to PSE among a number of under-represented (and minority) groups in Ontario, including comparisons to other regions. Having parents that did
not attend PSE is the most important factor across the country, and the effects are even greater in Ontario than in some other regions. Being from a low-income household is considerably less important than parental education, and the income effects are even smaller in Ontario than in certain other regions. Aboriginal and disabled youth are also strongly under-represented groups in PSE in Ontario, driven entirely by their lower university participation rates, offset to different degrees by higher college participation rates . Rural students are also significantly under-represented (though to a lesser degree) in university, but again go to college at somewhat higher rates. Furthermore, for these latter groups, Ontario does not compare favourably to other regions. The children of immigrants are much more likely to go to university but somewhat less likely to attend college almost everywhere.
Being from a single parent family has little independent effect on access to PSE, as is also the case for being a Francophone outside of Quebec, the latter effect in some cases actually being positive. Intriguingly, although females generally have significantly higher PSE (especially university) attendance rates than males, females in under-represented groups are generally more disadvantaged than males. This research was funded by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), which also provided useful feedback throughout the project. This work is based on earlier research carried out for the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation through the MESA project, including a series of papers involving Richard Mueller. The authors gratefully acknowledge the ongoing support provided for the MESA project by the University of Ottawa.
Motivating students to be enthusiastically receptive is one of the most important aspects of mathematics instruction and a critical aspect of any curriculum. Effective teachers focus attention on the less interested students as well as the motivated ones. Here are nine techniques—based on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation—that can be used to
motivate secondary school students in mathematics.
Education is undergoing a dramatic transformation. Technology plays a powerful role in the life of today’s students and institutions can no longer meet their needs through classroom-based instruction alone.
Blended learning is one way institutions can prepare themselves for the next era in education. It combines face-to-face and online instruction by integrating technology into their curriculum.
Many educators agree that the blended approach is benefi cial. It delivers a fl exible experience and supports learning by allowing students to learn at their own pace. Meanwhile, use of this model helps maximize instructor efficiency, increasing engagement inside the classroom while simultaneously enabling them to reach more students. Institutions see the benefi ts as well. Retention rates increase, recruitment efforts improve and early evidence suggests that use of this approach can improve grades. The ME2U research project, conducted at the University of Sussex1, found that students using blended learning technology to view recorded content prior to assessment often produced higher scores.
With these advantages, it’s no surprise that blended learning is experiencing a dramatic upsurge
in popularity. Today, student demand for blended learning courses continues to outpace most institutions’ ability to meet the growing need. Eighty-four percent of surveyed students would like blended learning technology offered in more of their courses.
institutional context, a variety of priorities and issues will be identified by participants and a variety of solutions will be proposed and attempted. It is appropriate then that support for distributed leadership allows for a variety of situations rather than providing a single prescription.
This Resource Portfolio for the P.A.C.E.D Distributed Leadership Model provides support for a range of elements of distributed leadership through the provision of resources that will assist in actioning initiatives. These resources include templates for role identification, reflection, provision of feedback, presentations, posters and websites. The Resource Portfolio provides integrated examples of distributed leadership in action, based on experience in the RMIT Student Feedback and Leadership Project.
The examples reinforce the diversity possible when a single project is actioned through distributed leadership.
The mission of America’s community colleges is focused on three areas of commitment: access, responsiveness to community need, and equity. The commitment to access is exemplified by the open admissions policies of community colleges and the multiple ways colleges remove financial, physical, and academic barriers to entry. That access has resulted in entry into higher education by first generation, low-income, minorities, dropouts, working adults, and others who lacked the financial, academic, time, or location means to participate in traditional higher education systems. Looking at multiple college mission statements as well as scholarly definitions, the essential core of agreement is that community colleges provide access to the education necessary for both a productive life for individuals and healthy and successful communities they serve. Access to higher education is essential to a democratic society and a strong middle class.
In a traditional face-to-face class, students have many opportunities to interact with their instructor and fellow students. Whether it’s an informal chat before or after class, or participating in the classroom discussion, interaction can be an important factor in student success.
Creating similar opportunities for participation and collaboration in an online course is one of the biggest challenges of teaching online. Yet, opportunities for meaningful interaction online are plentiful, provided you design and facilitate your course in the correct manner and with the proper tools.