ABSTRACT
As Canadian universities seek to attract more international students, there is a need to recognize and respond to the diversity within this group and to question the binary categories of domestic students and international students.
Relying primarily on 116 qualitative interviews with international undergraduates at the University of British Columbia, we utilize American students as a case study from which to explore the complex and blurred boundaries between these two categories. Americans resemble domestic students in some respects and international students in others, yet they are often less prepared to meet adaptational challenges because they have low expectations of cultural and institutional differences. We compare the experiences of Americans and international students from other countries, as well as other groups of students who fall between the cracks of the domestic and international student classifications. We argue that, by targeting services on the basis of these broad administrative categories, categories that were created for financial purposes, the university reduces the take-up of the very services students need.
RÉSUMÉ
À une époque où les universités canadiennes cherchent à attirer de plus en plus d’étudiants internationaux, il est nécessaire de reconnaître la diversité de ce groupe et d’agir en fonction de celle-ci. Cela demande de s’interroger sur la division binaire des étudiants entre les catégories « canadien » et « international ». En nous appuyant sur 116 entrevues qualitatives avec des étudiants internationaux en études de premier cycle à l’Université de la
Colombie-Britannique, nous entreprenons une étude de cas des étudiants américains, afin d’explorer la complexité et l’imprécision des frontières entre ces deux catégories. Sur certains points, le profil des étudiants américains est semblable à celui des étudiants canadiens, mais sur d’autres, il s’apparente plutôt à celui des étudiants internationaux. Pourtant, ces étudiants américains sont souvent moins prêts à faire face à des difficultés d’adaptation, car ils ne s’attendent pas à être confrontés à des différences culturelles et institutionnelles. Nous comparons les expériences des étudiants américains avec celles d’étudiants internationaux provenant d’autres pays, ainsi qu’avec celles d’autres groupes d’étudiants dont la situation ne correspond pas aux classifications « canadien » ou « international ». Nous soutenons que, quand les services d’aide ciblent les étudiants sur la base de vastes catégories administratives conçues pour des raisons financières, l’université contribue à limiter l’utilisation des services dont les étudiants ont précisément besoin.
University Works uses empirical data to report on the outcomes of university graduates in terms of employment levels
and earnings, as well as average debt upon graduation.
University graduates experienced the highest employment growth of any educational attainment group over the last decade.
In order to close the growing achievement gap, higher education institutions need to focus on innovation, scale and
diffusion, according to Bridget Burns, executive director for the University Innovation Alliance, a coalition of 11 public research universities committed to improving graduation rates and sharing best practices. And most important, institutions need to communicate about what works and what doesn't. "Otherwise we are sentencing other universities to repeat our mistakes and our failures — and students deserve better," she exhorted.
Colleges Ontario achieved a number of successes in 2011 to help more students get access to a college education. Highlights of the year included new advertising campaigns promoting the value of college education, and a hugely successful annual conference.
Every higher education institution today faces the complex challenges of serving increased enrollment levels within tight budgets. Adding to the complexity are new student expectations for the when, where and how of learning — where passive listening and doing classwork in isolation are no longer acceptable.
These challenges are prompting many colleges and universities to explore new approaches, especially blended learning, for delivering courses. Blended learning delivers higher levels of learning interactivity and collaboration and
— more importantly for student and institutional success
— higher levels of student engagement.
Think back to your first few years of teaching. If you’re like most educators, you probably made your share of mistakes. To be sure, we all do things differently now than we did when we were first starting out. Thank goodness for that!
When Faculty Focus put out a call for articles for this special report on teaching mistakes, we really didn’t know what to expect. Would faculty be willing to share their earlier missteps for all to see? Would the articles all talk about the same common mistakes, or would the range of mistakes discussed truly reflect the complexities of teaching today? We were delighted at the response, not only in terms of the number of instructors willing to share their stories with our readers, but by the variety of mistakes in the reflective essays. For example, in “You Like Me, You Really Like Me. When Kindness Becomes a Weakness,” Jolene Cunningham writes of her discovery that doing everything you can for your students is not always the best policy.
In “If I Tell Them, They Will Learn,” Nancy Doiron-Maillet writes about her realization that it’s not enough to provide information to students if they don’t have opportunities to then apply what you are trying to teach them.
Other articles in Teaching Mistakes from the College Classroom include:
• When Expectations Collide
• Things My First Unhappy Student Taught Me
• Understanding My Role as Facilitator
• Don’t Assume a Student’s Previous Knowledge
• What Works in One Culture May Not Work in Another
We thank all the authors who shared their stories and know that the lessons learned will help prevent others from making these same mistakes.
Michael L. Skolnik
University of Toronto
ABSTRACT
Community college systems were established across North America from the early 1960s through the early 1970s. The new systems had two principal models: in one model, the college combined lower-division, university-level general education with technical education programs; in the other, most or all of the colleges were intended to concentrate on technical education. Ontario was the largest of the provinces and states in North America that opted for the second model. Many of the issues that planners confronted when designing these college systems have either persisted or re-emerged in recent years. This article re-examines the debate on the design of Ontario’s colleges that took place when they were founded and considers its implications for the present.
RÉSUMÉ
Depuis le début des années 1960 et jusqu’au début des années 1970, lorsqu’on créait des réseaux de collèges communautaires partout en Amérique du Nord, deux modèles majeurs étaient proposés pour ces nouveaux réseaux. Dans un des modèles, le collège combinait l’enseignement général universitaire de division inférieure avec les programmes d’enseignement technique ; dans l’autre, la plupart des collèges, sinon tous, se concentraient sur l’enseignement technique. L’Ontario était la plus importante parmi les provinces et les États en Amérique du Nord qui ait opté pour le deuxième modèle. Beaucoup des défis
auxquels les planifi cateurs ont été confrontés lorsqu’ils ont conçu le réseau des collèges sont encore présents ou sont réapparus au cours des dernières années. Cet article réexamine l’ancien débat sur la conception des collèges de l’Ontario et considère ses implications actuelles.
Background/Context: Parental involvement is a key ingredient in the educational success of students and an integral component of involvement is teacher-parent communication. One body of research finds that minority immigrant parents face barriers in interacting with schools, and communicate less with schools than native-born White parents. However, we know little of how schools reach out to parents.
Purpose: In this study, I use a nationally representative sample of high schoolers to examine patterns of teachers communicating with parents.
In the past, the term “persistence†was used somewhat interchangeably with “retention†to describe the fact of students remaining in a course of studies from one year to the next, typically at a single institution and sometimes within a particular program. Over the last few years, however, persistence has shifted in meaning to refer to the ability of students to continue their PSE studies and ultimately graduate, regardless of switches between programs or institutions or even temporary absences from PSE altogether. There is a growing recognition in Ontario and across Canada that this system-wide perspective on persistence will help government and institutions manage a highly functional, well-integrated PSE system, one in which students can avail themselves of numerous alternative educational opportunities and pathways to success.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume that these system-wide concerns are the primary arena in which PSE outcomes ought to be managed. Indeed, the concept of persistence as a process whereby students overcome obstacles is of note only in the context of the presence of initial decisions to leave and not return to a particular institution. The central aim of any university ought to be to improve its own retention of students. Indeed, a sustained focus on improving in situ retention outcomes is a vital component of an overall strategy for achieving high system-wide persistence rates. It is in the best interests of government and universities to develop the means by which retention practice efficacy can be reliably assessed, compared amongst institutions and used within institutions to actively improve retention rates.
Unfortunately, two common approaches used to calculate retention rates – the raw rate approach and the natural rate approach – are seriously flawed and cannot be recommended for use by Ontario PSE institutions as tools for managing retention practices.
The raw rate approach is transparently inadequate. The crux of the problem with raw rates is that they are essentially outcome measures unadjusted for variation in inputs. An institution that is in a position to admit students who are highly prepared academically, financially and culturally for university life at that particular institution can expect to be rewarded with relatively high outcome rates, and this without having to innovate or invest much in retention practices. Evaluating retention practice efficacy on the basis of raw rates favours institutions that are able to offload potential retention risks during the admissions process.
Another common approach used to calculate retention rates is to calculate the differences between raw rates and “expected†or “natural†rates and then to base evaluations and comparisons on these differences. Natural institutional rates are averages of the estimated probabilities of an event occurring (e.g., being retained after one year, graduating within four years) for each member of a cohort of students at an institution. One key feature of the statistical models upon which the probability estimates are based is the fact that they are system-wide models, pooling data across all institutions in the study and delivering a single set of model coefficients that is applied to all institutions. Another key feature is the fact that probability estimates are based on predictor variables that usually include only pre-entry characteristics of students and sometimes include environmental characteristics such as institution size, the field of study and whether the school primarily serves urban commuters. An institution with a raw rate that exceeds its natural rate is deemed to be performing well at
2 –Shifting from Retention Rates to Retention Risk: An Alternative Approach for Managing Institutional Student Retention Performance retaining students, whereas an institution with a raw rate that is lower than its natural rate is evaluated as performing poorly. This approach has been implemented in the United States but not in Canada.
Three interpretation problems are ingrained in the natural rate approach that impede its meaningful application: normative interpretations given to natural rates are unwarranted; attributions of causation – to students in the case of natural rates and to institutions in the case of differences between natural and raw rates – are also unwarranted and potentially misleading; and a single set of system-wide coefficients is not likely to provide useful characterizations of the realities in play at individual institutions. A large and growing body of research embeds retention processes within the local context of individual institutions and indeed individual students. As research findings accumulate, there is a deeper and growing appreciation of the fact that the PSE system is not homogeneous in terms of the magnitude or direction of relationships between factors influencing retention event occurrence and the actual occurrence of those events. Rather, processes generating retention events operate locally and with considerable variation in form and intensity amongst locales, so system-wide characterizations do not give meaningful summaries of local conditions. The natural rate approach looks like a more sophisticated, finely tuned analysis, but its looks are deceiving.
An alternative to the raw and natural rate approaches is to move away from retrospective analyses of retention rates in favour of prospective analyses of retention risks. According to this approach, institutions use historical data to develop statistical models of retention risk at the individual student level. These models are then employed to estimate for each student in a currently enrolled cohort the “risk†(expressed as a probability) of continuing with their studies beyond a certain length of time.
In the Postsecondary Review announced by the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Mary Anne Chambers, on June 8, 2004, The Hon. Bob Rae, former Premier of Ontario, with the assistance of an Advisory Panel, has been asked by the Government of Ontario to examine the structure and funding of Ontario's postsecondary education system.
Our main focus continues to be the three government priorities, including the Course-to-Course Transfer Guide, principles for credit transfer policies and procedures, as well as diploma-to-diploma and degree-to-degree path- ways. On our student
website, ONTransfer.ca, students can now use the Course-to-Course Transfer Guide, which was launched last January, as well as search institutional profiles that highlight credit transfer policies and procedures.
SYNTHESIS: WHAT THIS REPORT TELLS US
The 2009–2010 State of Learning in Canada provides the most current information on the Canadian learning landscape, contributing to a comprehensive understanding of how Canadians are faring as lifelong learners. As in previous State of Learning reports, this update reflects CCL’s vision of learning as a lifelong process. Our research affirms time and again that the skills and knowledge that citizens bring to their families, their workplaces and their communities help determine a country’s economic success and overall quality of life. It is this core value that continues to guide our research and our commitment to fostering a learning society, in which all members can develop their full potential as active, engaged learners and contributing members of their community.
This update takes a life course approach, beginning with learning in the early childhood learning and school-based education through to the formal and informal learning of adults. Highlights from the recently released report on the State of Aboriginal Learning in Canada: A Holistic Approach to Measuring Success (2009), which introduced the first application of a comprehensive approach to measuring Aboriginal Learning in Canada, are also included.
The Association of Registrars of the Universities and Colleges of Canada (ARUCC) and the Pan-Canadian Consortium on Admissions and Transfer (PCCAT) have collaborated to lead an extensive study to understand current transcript and transfer credit nomenclature practices in Canada. These findings will ultimately inform a comprehensive update and expansion of the 2003 ARUCC National Transcript Guide and potentially result in a searchable database of transcript practices and Canadian transfer credit nomenclature. The ultimate goal is to enhance the clarity, consistency and transparency of the academic transcript and transfer credit resources that support student mobility. The specific deliverable for this phase was to identify and summarize Canadian transcript and transfer credit nomenclature practices, review four international jurisdictions as a means to highlight promising practices related to these two areas and, finally, to provide both an overview of systems and an initial examination of emergent perspectives and themes. The report purposefully avoids suggesting prescriptive solutions or outcomes; however, the findings from this study will provide a solid foundation from which to move forward the standards and terminology discourse in Canada. This report collates the findings from the supporting research conducted from January through to April 2014.
ABSTRACT
Do students know the level of education required to achieve their career objectives? Is this information related to their education pathways? To address these questions, I compare high school students' perceptions of the level of education they will require for the job they intend to hold at age 30, with the level required according to professional job analysts. About three out of four students intending to work in a job requiring a university degree know the level of education that is required to obtain the job. Moreover, students who know that a university degree is required are more likely to attend university. Finally, higher university attendance rates are observed when students learn earlier (rather than later), that a university degree is required for their intended job.
RÉSUMÉ
Les élèves savent-ils quelles études leur permettront d’atteindre leurs objectifs de carrière? Ces renseignements sont-ils associés à leur parcours scolaire? Afi n de répondre à ces questions, je compare, d’une part, la perception qu’ont les élèves du secondaire quant au niveau d’instruction qui leur est requis pour travailler dans la profession qu’ils souhaitent exercer à l’âge de 30 ans avec, d’autre part, le niveau réellement requis selon les analystes du marché professionnel. Ainsi, environ trois étudiants sur quatre ayant l’intention d’exercer une profession qui nécessite un grade universitaire sont conscients du niveau d’instruction requis. Par ailleurs, les élèves qui sont conscients de la nécessité d’un grade universitaire ont plus de chances de fréquenter l’université. Enfi n, on observe un taux de fréquentation universitaire plus élevé chez les élèves qui ont pris conscience, plus tôt dans leur parcours, de la nécessité d’un grade universitaire pour réaliser leur aspiration professionnelle.
This paper explores general issues relating to globalization and higher education; the internationalization of higher education, and particularly the recruitment of international students. This subject is examined through a range of topics around the global development of the market approach to the recruitment of international students and a focus on the current situation regarding the recruitment of international students in the Colleges of Applied
Arts and Technology in Ontario (CAATs). As the number of international students seeking educational opportunities grows to 7 million over the next 20 years, the ability of the CAATs, the Canadian educational system, and the governments of Ontario and Canada to market the welcoming and safe multicultural Canadian experience, and the excellence of the educational offerings and opportunities in CAATs to potential international students will, in great measure, determine their success and their survival in an increasingly globalized world.
The ability of students to move between colleges and universities is an activity, often expected by students, intended to combine the strengths of both sectors and support the pursuit of continuous lifelong learning. Students in Ontario have been ahead of educators and planners in “discovering the value of combining the strengths of the colleges in hands-on learning with the
strengths of the universities in academic education” (Jones & Skolnik, 2009, p.22). The College University Consortium Council (CUCC), established in 1996, was created, in part, to facilitate such activity. The Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education produced a report, Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility, which endorsed the CUCC as the objective body that would facilitate “province-wide information collection and comparative analysis” to assist all stakeholders in decision-making affecting postsecondary education (Smith et al,1996, p.48). The Investing in Students Task Force cited the CUCC in its 2001 report, advocating, among other things, for the body to “assess and evaluate the existing mechanism” of transfer
between the college and university systems (Investing in Students Task Force, 2001, p.20). Traditionally, Ontario has not held a coherent postsecondary education system with collaborative sectors, but rather two systems, college and university. The colleges were established to be comprehensive institutions that were occupation oriented and designed to meet the needs of the local community. These institutions were an alternative for those who were not inclined to purely academic pursuits and who did not have the qualifications to gain entry to university.
In 2004, in the discussion paper launching the Ontario Postsecondary Review, a student expressed his desire for “the freedom to move between programs or institutions with recognition of my previous work so that I can obtain an education as unique as I hope my career will be” (Rae, 2004, p.19). However, the paper continued by describing the existing situation as a
patchwork of institutional agreements that “cover only a fraction of existing programs”; therefore,in order to “ensure that its public institutions can meet the growing expectations of students and employers, and operate as a coherent system”, Ontario would need to establish a system to set “standards for credit recognition and student transferability between institutions” (p.21).
Attempts to formalize seamless pathways, however, have been confounded by a lack of data to support claims of student demand and actual movement, particularly from college to university.
Ontario colleges were not established to facilitate transfer, but the pursuit of articulation agreements by the institutions themselves and the historic movement of students into universities have legitimized this function as one of its main activities.
The Ontario government’s mandated collection of key performance indicators (KPIs) provides one opportunity to analyze provincial data that is systematically collected in a consistent manner. The Graduate Satisfaction Survey is used to calculate the results of two of the KPIs1, employment rate and graduate satisfaction. Additionally, the survey asks graduates if they have enrolled in an educational institution; students identify which institution and program. In 2005,the colleges and the MTCU decided to expand the survey for those who indicated that they had continued their education after graduation. Therefore, in 2006-07 a modified Graduate Satisfaction Survey with new transfer related questions was introduced. These additions and changes have enabled a deeper analysis of student movement between and within institutions or sectors.
The new questions were included to capture data that could better inform colleges about the students who graduate from their respective institutions. The questions on transfer were also intended to assist the government on matters that could affect policy with respect to student movement, particularly between postsecondary sectors. In addition to documenting the program and institutional destination of graduates seeking further education, the graduate survey now gathers information on the motivation for continuing, the source of transfer information, the amount of transfer credit received, the timing of notification for credit, the relationship to the previous program, the satisfaction with the transfer experience and the satisfaction with college preparation for further studies. This report is the first comprehensive analysis of the new questions from the first year of administration (2006-07).
This study investigates the validity, within an Ontario college, of the U.S.-based Community College Survey of Student Engagement (CCSSE) benchmarks of effective educational practices, formally referred to as the Model of Effective Educational Practices (MEEP). MEEP factors include active and collaborative learning; student effort, academic challenge, studentfaculty
interaction, and support for learners. The validity of CCSSE was explored for this study through analysis of the model fit of MEEP and analysis of its correlations and capacity to predict five academic outcomes based on a sample of Ontario students that completed CCSSE during the Winter 2009 semester. Results of the analyses reveal that MEEP exhibits good model fit and that three of the five benchmarks were consistently correlated with the five selected academic outcomes (self-reported GPA, semester GPA, cumulative GPA, cumulative credit completion ratio, and percentage of courses completed with a grade of 70 per cent or higher). After controlling for subject characteristics, two of the five benchmarks, active and collaborative learning and academic challenge were identified as predictors of most of the academic outcomes.
In 2007, Colleges Ontario prepared a report for Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) that examined existing occupation-specific language training in Ontario colleges.1 The findings from that report formed the basis of the Occupation-specific Language Training (OSLT) initiative. CIC funded Colleges Ontario, in partnership with ontario colleges and ConneCt strategic alliances, to undertake the oslt initiative to develop curriculum and work with ontario colleges to conduct pilot deliveries of language training for newcomers. This report summarizes the activities conducted from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2011.
Ontario’scolleges are highly experienced in meeting the language needs of immigrants and have a strong track
record in designing and delivering occupation-specific language training. For the OSLT initiative, the target participants were defined as newcomers who were permanent residents or protected persons with Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) 6 to 8 (or Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens 5/6 to 8).These newcomers were working in or wanted to re-enter an occupation related to their training and experience, or they wanted to take a related program of study to bridge to employment.
Abstract
The demands on academic staff in all sectors to adopt best ODL practices to create effective and efficient models of learning in the face of increasing external pressures show no signs of abating. The massification of higher education, diversified access, and pressures to meet institutional visions and research objectives demand of teaching staff an increasingly public design process subject to peer review in numerous forms. Expectations of systematized pedagogical planners and embedded templates of learning within the institutional virtual learning environments (VLEs) have, so far, failed to deliver the institutional efficiencies anticipated. In response, a new model of learning design is proposed with a practical, accessible, and freely available “toolkit” that embodies and embeds pedagogical theories and practices. The student-owned learning-engagement (SOLE) model aims to support professional development within practice, constructive alignment, and holistic visualisations, as well as enable the sharing of learning design processes with the learners themselves.
Keywords: Learning design; constructive alignment; pedagogical planners; toolkit
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning
Embodied and Embedded Theory in Practice: The Student-Owned Learning-Engagement (SOLE) Model
Simon Atkinson
London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Take a quick look at any non-fiction best-selling book list and you’re sure to find at least one title devoted to success…success in business, education, personal relationships or health and fitness. Almost without exception, the common thread running through all these “seeking success” books is the importance of setting personal goals. The value of goal setting has been measured, documented and espoused in self-help programs ranging from weight-control and addictions to achieving financial security. The topic has far-reaching interest in the academic community as well. Hundreds of academic studies have confirmed the efficacy of goal setting, demonstrating just how important goals are in improving performance.