This research project was a two-year study that measured the effectiveness of information literacy models delivered to a sample of convenience, yielding 503 students in college diploma, college applied degree, collaborative degree, and university undergraduate programs at Georgian College, located in Barrie, Ontario. The project differentiates between four information literacy delivery models (Course-based, Embedded, Common Hour, and Online Tutorial) in order to identify best practices to organizations of different nature, size, and scope. Students’ information literacy skills and the benefits and challenges of the information literacy model are examined. This study also explored faculty knowledge and their
perception of the importance of information literacy skill development and application.
The purpose of this qualitative grounded theory study was to assess multilingual models of education by investing how and when to incorporate second and third languages into the curriculum to improve language acquisition.
A college degree has replaced the high school diploma as a mainstay for economic self-sufficiency and responsible citizenship. In addition, earning a bachelor’s degree is linked to long-term cognitive, social, and economic benefits to individuals —benefits that are passed onto future generations, enhancing the quality of life of the families of college-educated persons, the communities in which they live, and the larger society.
To write well, college students need to read to deepen their understanding of language. And they need to write. The 24 essays in this collection will prompt teachers to help their students grasp changes in what is acceptable language, explore the mysteries
of word usage, and learn strategies to improve their writing. The essays are drawn from Lingua Franca, The Chronicle’s free blog about language in academe. Students can read these posts and new ones at chronicle.com/blogs/linguafranca.
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.
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.
In March 2004, a sweeping agenda was unveiled by the Federal government to stimulate the development of “a Canada of success.” The underlying strategy has two fundamental components:
• Support learning by providing young Canadians with tools to success, while encouraging lifelong learning for all; and
• Support innovative Canadian industries and enhance productivity.
Students from a number of groups remain underrepresented in Ontario’s universities and colleges, including low-income students, Aboriginal students, first generation students whose parents did not attend a post-secondary institution, rural and northern students, and students with dependants. Improving access to higher education for these and other underrepresented groups is widely acknowledged as essential to building a more equitable society and to competing in the increasingly knowledgebased economy. Indeed, Premier McGuinty has stated his desire to see 70 per cent of Ontarians complete post-secondary education, and achieving this target will require a concerted effort to reduce participation gaps.
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 report compares eligibility for student financial aid by examining the amount of funds (both repayable and non-repayable) that a student would be eligible to receive in each province, based on their income group (low-, middle- and high-income). Provincial administration of part (or all) of financial aid has resulted in great variability in the type, quantity, and availability of resources offered to students. Individual provinces have demonstrated priorities such as debt reduction strategies, universal grants, and student independence from parental support, to name a few.
Key findings include that:
• The combination of federal, provincial and joint administered student financial aid programs are inherently complex, lack transparency, and thus, remain removed from public scrutiny and discussion.
• Appalling inequities exist in the amount of resources offered to students, based on their province of residence.
• Enormous differences in tuition between provinces are the greatest factor in determining the cost of education and therefore have a great impact on the amount of debt a student may accumulate.
• Provincial grant programs, whether needs-based or universal, are the largest contributor to debt reduction.
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.
In Ottawa on March 30, 2010, the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) presented a stock taking to
parliamentarians from all political parties.
Why a stock taking? As in any field of human endeavour, serious intent to improve in learning demands rigorous, regular and honest assessment of advances made and not made over a defined period of time. That is why schools employ report cards.
During its first iteration, corresponding to the federal funding that supported CCL from its inception in 2004 until March, 2010, CCL performed a unique function. As Canada’s only national organization reporting to residents in every corner of the land on progress in all phases of learning across the lifecycle (from early childhood through K-12 education, post-secondary education, workplace training and adult literacy and learning) CCL served as a catalyst towards a national discussion on the social and economic importance of learning. Taking Stock of Canada’s Progress in Lifelong Learning: Progress or Complaceny? builds on our report to parliamentarians. It brings to Canadians in richer detail and context the information and analysis that we shared with the parliamentary bodies which allocated the funding to CCL that the Government of Canada terminated in March. It is universally acknowledged that learning, as defined broadly to encompass much more than school based education, is a main driver of many attributes that societies value: individual opportunity and development, productivity, innovation, prosperity, and social cohesion. That was the reasoning behind the articulation in 2006 by the Government of Canada of a “Knowledge Advantage” that would provide a “leg up” in a fiercely competitive global environment.
But have we made the progress anticipated by government in building a “knowledge advantage?” Are there domains in which we are surpassing other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)? Where are we falling behind?
CCL emphasizes that past results do not guarantee future success. The fundamental issue is whether Canada is establishing conditions for future international competitiveness in knowledge and learning. Is Canada making the progress in lifelong learning that will differentiate societies that flourish from those that flounder; or have we—at our peril—become complacent?
It appears common in Canadian discourse on issues of education and learning to begin with an assertion to the effect that Canada is doing well; followed by the usual admission that improvement is, of course, desirable and necessary. This report does not dabble in polite niceties because such misleading pleasantries merely mask the current reality that is CCL’s task to set before Canadians. When we stood before parliamentarians in March, 2010, to elucidate our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations, our goal was to provide decision-makers with the information and analysis they need to develop effective approaches to learning. These approaches are the only means of keeping Canada competitive in the global, knowledge-based economy. We gave them some good news, but we were also frank about the bad news. This included the fact that Canada, unlike many OECD countries, possesses no coherent, cohesive or coordinated national approach to education and lifelong learning. Yet, our international competitors either already have one, or they are working diligently to create one.
That means that as we stand still, we are losing ground. We insisted bluntly that Canada put its house in order. We described the consequences of failing to recognize the urgency to act, as well as some attractive alternatives leading to improvement in learning outcomes, that are open to this country.
This Taking Stock report is intended to provide more than a summation of CCL’s research and analysis. It offers an opportunity to translate the rhetoric of lifelong learning into action that can make a difference.
There still remains time for Canada to establish the conditions required for success in the future. Will we
seize that opportunity?
It seems that nearly every major media publication in the United States these
days wants to rank colleges. The latest outlet to get on board? The Economist
A College-Rankings World
The proliferation of such lists could mean more choice for students—or just
more confusion.
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.
In November 2005, the province of Ontario and the federal government signed two historic agreements – the Canada-Ontario Labour Market Development Agreement and the Canada-Ontario Labour Market Partnership Agreement. One year later, on Nov. 24, 2006, key labour market stakeholders, including users, delivery agents and government came together to collectively take stock of progress and to explore how partners can help governments move forward with successfully
implementing the agreements.
The symposium, Developing Skills through Partnerships, was co-hosted by Colleges Ontario, the Ontario Chamber of
Commerce, ONESTEP, and the Canadian Policy Research Networks.
In June 2008, the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) released a Request for Proposals (RFP-006) offering funding for Ontario universities and colleges to evaluate existing programs or services intended to promote access, retention and educational quality among postsecondary students. Brock University was successful in their proposal to evaluate two services offered through the Student Development Centre’s Learning Skills Services:
1. the Online Writing Skills Workshop (OWSW) (later known as Essay-Zone (EZ), an online writing course designed and operated by Learning Skills Services; and 2. the learning skills workshops and one-on-one/drop-in services offered by Learning Skills Services. The evaluation of the Online Writing Skills Workshop was completed in fall 2010 with the assistance of Higher Education Strategy Associates (HESA), formerly Education Policy Institute (EPI) Canada. This report, published separately by the HEQCO, is based on the evaluation of other learning skills services, including workshops on critical thinking, math, science and essay writing skills (see Appendix A), as well as the individualized assistance provided through the one-on-one/drop-in service. In evaluating these services, we have sought to answer two broad questions. First, are the services offered being delivered effectively and what improvements can be made? Second, what effect do the identified learning skills services have on academic outcomes? The responses to these questions will be presented in two parts: first, a formative evaluation of program delivery and second, a summative evaluation focusing on student outcomes.
The formative evaluation will examine the delivery and image of the learning skills services. Using student survey and focus group data, we will evaluate the perceived efficacy of the services among participants, participants’ satisfaction with aspects of the services and the success of overall communication about the services, as well as recommending changes. The evaluation of communications will examine how students learn about services offered and why students decide not to enroll in the services.
The summative evaluation focuses primarily on the impact of the learning skills services provided. Two measures of academic success will be examined: academic performance (i.e., marks) and student retention. The administrative data concerning three cohorts of students will be used to determine whether participants in learning skills workshops and other learning skills services experience greater academic performance and higher levels of retention compared to other students. In addition, we will examine whether certain categories of services are more effective and whether frequency of service use affects outcomes. As the learning skills workshops and other services are very limited interventions requiring little time of students,strong results were not expected; however, even minor improvements would be impressive given the relatively small time investment required of students.
The Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario (CAATs) are engaged in a wide range of international activities which have not previously been the subject of any in-depth study. This thesis provides the first comprehensive examination of the international student recruitment and educational export activities of the CAATs. This study, relying on literature reviews, a survey of the colleges and interviews with college administrators, explores the historical evolution of recruitment and export activities, the motivation behind participation in these activities and the financial implications of export and recruitment. The study also reviews some of the linkages between international student recruitment and export and internationalization and globalization.
The Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO)’s Third Annual Review and Research Plan provides a comprehensive evaluation of the postsecondary education (PSE) system in Ontario. In doing so, it contributes to a discussion on a new PSE strategy for the province following the completion of Reaching Higher: The McGuinty Government Plan for Postsecondary Education (Reaching Higher) initiated in 2005. This is a critical juncture in PSE; Reaching Higher ends this fiscal year, as do the current tuition framework and the Multi-Year Accountability Agreements (MYAAs) with postsecondary institutions. Successor strategies must address a new set of priorities and a new economic reality. Reaching Higher was generally well received by the PSE sector and by the public, and much progress has been made in realizing the stated objectives in the plan.
The Third Annual Review and Research Plan recommends that a new PSE strategy should build directly on Reaching Higher. To this end, it proposes a reformulation of PSE objectives to give emphasis to meeting human capital needs, improving accessibility
and educational quality, and stimulating research and innovation.
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.
I. Introduction
Entering a (first) postsecondary education (PSE) program represents a critical transition in a person’s life, but it is just the beginning of a whole new set of dynamics that can take many different forms. Some students continue in their programs until graduation, proceeding at faster or slower rates. Others switch to another program at the same institution, at an institution of the same kind (college or university) or at a different level of study. Still others abandon their studies, some to return at a later date.
Those who persist in their initial programs directly through to graduation could be considered cases where the system has successfully helped students realize their PSE aspirations and then move into the labour market, go on to further schooling or pursue other life goals. In short, they could be considered student “success” stories as far as the PSE system is concerned.
Those who obtain a diploma/degree after moving across different programs, institutions or levels of study
– perhaps with a break in their studies along the way – may have taken, to some extent, a wasteful diversion on the path to their preferred postsecondary credential. This may result from an initially flawed program choice or a PSE system that has somehow not served these students as well as it could have.
However, such pathways could also represent the student’s acquisition of necessary learning about different programs and the careers they lead to, or they could reflect developments in the student’s personal life apart from his or her schooling, or they may result from an individual’s change of plans. In at least some of these cases, the postsecondary system and the postsecondary institutions with which the individual was involved may have performed as well as could be expected despite the time required and the circuitous pathway that the student took to complete the program. Finally, although individuals who fail to complete their postsecondary studies may be regarded as being part of a system that is not working as it should, such pathways may again represent necessary learning experiences or be related to personal factors that have little to do with the PSE system. In fact, the system may have performed as well as could be expected, including providing an initial opportunity for the individual to pursue or explore their PSE ambitions.
Underlying many of these dynamics are policy issues relating to ways in which these pathways and outcomes could be improved. Could better information provided in more effective ways help students make more informed and appropriate program choices at an earlier point during their studies? In the case of students who struggle in their PSE studies, could certain interventions help these individuals or targeted groups of students overcome those challenges and complete their programs in a more timely fashion? Are there means of reducing the need for some students to take breaks from their studies or are such pauses a necessary part of the PSE experience for at least some individuals? Answering such questions, and developing the appropriate policy response, could potentially result in more satisfied students, reduced costs for the PSE system and higher graduation rates. Before addressing these issues, however, more information on PSE pathways is needed, including program retention, drop-out and completion rates and student transfers within, between and across programs, institutions and levels of study.
The general objective of this report is to provide new and unique empirical evidence concerning the patterns of “persistence” (or what is sometimes alternatively referred to as “retention,” especially when viewed from the perspective of individual institutions), as well as educational pathways more generally, of PSE students in Ontario. We present an analysis of the frequency of various trajectories and graduation rates and use both descriptive statistics and econometric modelling to show how pathways and outcomes vary by students’ individual characteristics, family background and educational outcomes at the high school and PSE levels.1 Throughout, the focus is on Ontario, but comparisons are made with the rest of Canada.