The digital revolution is transforming our work, our organisations and our daily lives. Driverless cars are now legal in three American states. One third of payments in Kenya are made via mobile phones. Wearable computing will soon mean that your jacket will monitor your heart rate (should you want it to). I have seen a violin - played beautifully - that was 3-D printed.
This revolution is already in homes across the developed world and increasingly in the developing world too. And there, it is transforming the way children and young people play, access information, communicate with each other and learn. But, so far, this revolution has not transformed most schools or most teaching and learning in classrooms.
Ontario has launched a review of its university funding model. The “funding model” is the rule set by
which the province’s operating grant, managed by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities
(MTCU), is distributed to the province’s 20 publicly assisted universities to support their teaching,
research and service missions.
The government’s recently released University Funding Model Reform Consultation Paper defines the scope of the review as:
“The annual operating grants to universities provided through the university funding
model. This represents about $3.5 billion of government investment.” (MTCU)
The review encompasses the entire amount of annual (and, in recent years, annually increasing) MTCU direct operating support to universities. It includes the variously named “basic operating,” “general purpose” or “enrolment driven” grant universities may expend on their general operations. It includes all of the “special purpose” grants MTCU provides to drive identified policy or programmatic priorities.
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.
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.
She has been contributing to the field of counseling and sociology since the early 1950’s.
Bachelors of Arts in Sociology in 1951 from Barnard College in 1951.
Ed.D in Counseling in 1961 from Teachers College, Columbia University.
Served on the faculties of Wayne State University, Howard University and Pratt University and at the University of Maryland, College Park.
Currently she is a professor emeritus in the Department of Counseling and Personnel Services, College of Education, and Director of Counseling of the Center of Human Services Department, University of Maryland, College Park
(Schlossberg et al., 1995).
It’s 4 a.m. in Alaska — not a time when you expect many people, much less teenagers, to be awake. Yet, about 100 eager sophomore world history students are gathered in three high schools spread across the Kenai Peninsula on Alaska’s southern edge, excitedly looking at video screens mounted on their classroom walls. The teens are here to connect with students from the Arab Minority school in Nazareth, Israel. They are joined by students in schools in Louisiana and South Dakota.
For an hour, a moderator in Manhattan bounces the conversation back and forth, pinging questions from school to school as the students get to know a little more about each other and the different — and similar — worlds in which they live.
”It was so cool,” says Emily Evans, a 16-year-old in Greg Zorbas’ world history class at Kenai Central High School. The students from Israel ”thought so highly of us because we were from America.”
Now, says Evans, when the Middle East is a topic in school, ”it’s a lot more interesting. Before it was just, we’re reading a book on it and it’s not very real to us. But it’s real and you can see them and talk to them and see firsthand how it is. Now I pay more attention in history class.”
The videoconferencing session Evans and the other students experienced is the type of video communication that is becoming more common in education at all levels around the world, as the walls between classrooms disappear. This Center for Digital Education white paper shows how video collaboration is an essential part of the K-20 education environment that enables cost savings, engages students and creates a more productive learning experience. It prepares students with the skills to thrive in a future workforce that will depend on video collaboration technologies. Indeed, today’s video collaboration is rapidly moving from a ”nice to have” classroom enhancement to a ”must have” necessity.
Toronto, January 29, 2013 – Students who transfer from college to university to complete their undergraduate degree are likely to save themselves and the government money, and they often earn grades equivalent to students who go directly into university from high school, according to a new study from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO).
finds that in most jurisdictions examined outside Ontario, the total cost to students and the government of a degree earned through two years at college followed by two years at university (2+2) is lower than the cost of a four-year university program, with potential savings of from 8-29% per student over the course of four years. Study author David Trick notes that the 2+2 model is rare in Ontario, with most college-to-university transfer arrangements requiring additional courses that reduce or eliminate the potential financial savings.
The study uses published data on the transfer experiences in Alberta, British Columbia, Australia, New Zealand, Scotland and nine U.S. states, supplemented by interviews with higher education officials, and compares these experiences with recent data for Ontario. Trick says that better college-to-university pathways could make an important contribution to meeting the growing demand for baccalaureate education at an affordable cost. His study identifies three pathways for consideration:
· Creating two-year university transfer programs at colleges in arts and business.
· Expanding pathways from college career-oriented programs to university.
· Expanding pathways from college career-oriented programs to college degrees.
These pathways are not mutually exclusive, according to Trick, and they could be combined into a system where every graduate from a two- or three-year college program with adequate marks would be guaranteed admission to a baccalaureate program in his or her region.
The study notes that transfer policies are part of a broader framework involving institutional structure, academic standards, accessibility, financial assistance and student services. Trick cautions that the transfer policy goals of other jurisdictions -- such as student choice, more spaces, less duplication of credits or smoother administration -- may differ from Ontario’s goals. “The experience of other jurisdictions suggests that policymakers need to establish clear and quantifiable goals, including appropriate deadlines and accountability,” says Trick, a former Ontario assistant deputy minister for postsecondary education and now a consultant in higher education strategy and management.
Students spend an average of 10 days out of the school year taking district-mandated tests and nine days taking state-required tests, according to the Center on Education Policy. Over 12 years of schooling, that adds up to nearly four months of a young person’s life. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. That number does not include teacher-made tests, quizzes, final exams, many college-admissions tests and pretests; nor does it account for the number of time teachers spend preparing students to take all those exams.
The BYOD Concept
The days of students carrying heavy, book-laden backpacks to school are numbered. Increasingly, students at all
levels expect to access learning materials electronically. And students expect their school to support access to the Internet from anywhere, not just from a classroom computer with a wired connection.
The push for mobile learning options isn’t just coming from students. Teachers also have high opinions of the educational value of these new tools. A PBS/Grunwald survey in 2010 reported that teachers view laptops, tablets and e-readers as having the highest educational potential of all portable technologies. The movement to mobile and digital learning reflects the exploding popularity of mobile devices among consumers and the parallel growth in wireless network services to support them. Instead of using shared or enterprise-owned computers at work, school or libraries, people now want to use their personally owned mobile devices everywhere, a trend called bring your own device (BYOD). In fact, personal computing devices are fast becoming not just a luxury in both primary and secondary education, but a necessity. The growth of more virtual, personalized learning experiences throughout the educational spectrum is engaging students like never before.
The 2010 ”Speak Up” education survey conducted by Project Tomorrow found that more than one quarter of middle school students and 35 percent of high school students use online textbooks or other online curricula as a part of their regular schoolwork. The survey also found that nearly two-thirds of parents of school-aged children see digital curriculum as a key component of the ”ideal” classroom for their student, making access to computing devices a key part of today’s educational experience.²
This trend is creating tremendous new demand levels for wireless networks. For example, one market research firm reports growth of 40 percent in enterprise wireless local area networks (WLANs) in Q2 2011, attributable in part to the BYOD trend and the tremendous popularity of the Apple iPad.³ Gartner Research supports this notion as well, concluding that without adequate preparation, iPads alone will increase enterprise WiFi demands by 300 percent.⁴
Support for this trend is also found in Center for Digital Education (CDE) interviews with K-12 district IT staff. A notable 27 percent of school IT decision-makers interviewed expressed an intent to pursue a BYOD policy.
While the percentage of higher education students with their own devices is significantly higher than at the elementary level, CDE’s Digital Community Colleges Survey reveals that they grapple with many similar technology challenges. A full 92 percent of community colleges report expanded distance learning offerings for online, hybrid and Web-assisted courses, providing ample support for their No. 1 identified technology priority: mobility. The growing popularity of mobile devices isn’t the only factor straining the capacity of educational networks today. Video, interactive learning games and other media-rich content are being
watched, created and shared by students and teachers to foster learning of both skills and subject matter. These media not only gobble up bandwidth — they may also require priority over other network traffic in order to deliver acceptable performance for in-class use. From a technical perspective, the challenge for educational institutions is supporting BYOD for students and staff with secure wireless and remote access network capabilities. Yet the movement to mobile learning isn’t just about supporting new technologies. It’s also about shifting to new ways of teaching and learning.
Vision
To become Sheridan University, celebrated as a global leader in undergraduate professional education.
Mission
Sheridan delivers a premier, purposeful educational experience in an environmentrenowned for creativity and innovation.
95% of those in households earning over $75,000 use the internet and cell phones Those in higher-income households are more likely to use the internet on any given day, own multiple internet-ready devices, do things involving money online, and get news online Those in higher-income households are different from other Americans in their tech ownership and use. Analysis of several recent surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Projects find that there are key differences between those who live in households making $75,000 or more relative to those in lower-income households. Some 95% of Americans who live in households earning $75,000 or more a year use the internet at least occasionally, compared with 70% of those living in households earning less than $75,000. Even among those who use the internet, the well off are more likely than those with less income to use technology. Of those 95% of higher-income internet users:
- 99% use the internet at home, compared with 93% of the internet users in lower brackets.
- 93% of higher-income home internet users have some type of broadband connection versus 85% of the internet users who live in households earning less than $75,000 per year. That translates into 87% of all those in live in those better-off households having broadband at home.
- 95% of higher-income households own some type of cell phone compared with 83% in households with less income.
In its final report to Canadians, the Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) reveals that Canada is slipping down the
international learning curve. The needs in this area are stark. The potential rewards are enormous. But we are falling behind competitor countries and economies. We are on the wrong road and must make a dramatic change in the course we are taking.
The principal cause of this unacceptable and deeply troubling state of affairs is that our governments have failed to work together to develop the necessary policies and failed to exhibit the required collective political leadership.
The necessary approach is voluntary and co-operative, respectful of provincial and territorial responsibility, but involves the development of clear trans-Canadian policies and actions.
The starting point for the proposed directions is the establishment of a federal/provincial/territorial Council of Ministers on Learning. In addition, there must be: clear and measureable national goals for each stage of learning, as described in this report; permanent, independent monitors to compare Canadian learning results to our stated goals; standing advisory groups, including educators and civil society, to consult on requisite national objectives and the means to reach these goals. Through CCL, Canadians were offered an opportunity to set in place a vision, a mission, and a model for continuous learning which could unite Canadians in a common purpose. It was a much-needed national initiative. Although CCL will close in spring 2012, that need continues. Without a sustained trans-Canadian approach, many learners will not reach their objectives. The country requires a national learning framework in order for its regions, provinces and territories to succeed. Without a national framework, we will miss the east–west learning railroad that should connect Canadians of all regions, generations and languages. The vision of CCL was to link Canadians in sharing learning experiences and promoting the enhancement of learning as a core value of a distinctive Canadian society. Hence the transformative image of a trans-Canadian learning architecture which would entrench and maintain our economic stability and social cohesion. CCL closes; the vision endures. This final report summarizes the state of learning for each stage of the life cycle.
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.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The OCUFA plan aims to dramatically enhance the quality and affordability of university education in Ontario by 2020 through increased government investment. We are also sensitive to the financial constraints the province is facing. As such, our recommendations reflect both the estimated minimum and maximum cost of our proposals. The Government of Ontario can choose to make a smaller investment as finances dictate. The important thing is that reinvestment begin now.
We recommend:
1. Increasing per-student public investment in universities to the national average by 2020.
Cost in 2013-14: A minimum of $120 million and a maximum of $280 million
2. Bringing the student-faculty ratio to the national average by 2020 by hiring new fulltime
faculty.
Cost in 2013-2014: A minimum of $16 million and a maximum of $110 million
3. Freezing tuition fees and consulting with students, faculty, and administrators on a new
funding framework that preserves quality while ensuring affordability.
Cost in 2013-14: $170 million.
4. Increasing research funding to universities by phasing out ineffective tax credits for private sector research and development.
Cost in 2013-14: No additional cost.
5. Respecting faculty collective bargaining rights.
6. Engaging faculty meaningfully in pension reform.
Drawing mainly from HEQCO’s own research, this @Issue paper:
• Describes how the definition of student success has gradually broadened at Ontario colleges and universities;
• Summarizes some of the underlying institutional and student population factors that also impact on most current measures of student success;
• Provides broad observations about some recent findings as they relate to the awareness, utilization and impact of various student service, course-based and other initiatives designed to promote student success;
• Recommends what can be measured – as well as how and what outcomes can be expected – when it comes to initiatives and interventions designed to improve student success.
Business, political, and educational leaders are increasingly asking schools to integrate development of skills such as problem solving, critical thinking, and collaboration into the teaching and learning of academic subjects. These skills are often referred to as “21st century skills” or “deeper learning.”
At the request of several foundations, the National Research Council appointed a committee of experts in education, psychology, and economics to more clearly define “deeper learning” and “21st century skills,” consider these skills’ importance for positive outcomes in education, work, and other areas of life, address how to teach them, and examine related
issues.
Grade Change - Tracking Online Education in the United State is the eleventh annual report on the state of online learning in U.S. higher education. The survey is designed, administered and analyzed by the Babson Survey Research Group, with data collection conducted in partnership with the College Board. Using responses from more than 2,800 colleges and
universities, this study is aimed at answering fundamental questions about the nature and extent of online education.
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 renowned American political sociologist, Seymour Lipset, has been interested in the study of cultural and institutional differences between Canada and the United States ever since he attempted to explain, in his doctoral thesis more than forty years ago, why the first socialist government in North America happened to come to power in Canada. Continental Divide, thus, represents more than forty years of study, reflection, and accumulation of data on differences between Canada and the United States with respect to political values, behaviour, and institutions.
The traditional pathway into postsecondary education (PSE) is to enter college or university directly after graduating from high school. Not all students follow the traditional pathway into PSE. The Ontario government recently set a goal “to raise the postsecondary [attainment] rate to 70 per cent” (Speech from the Throne, 2010). In 2011, 64 per cent of Ontario residents aged between 25 and 64 held a PSE credential.1 One way to help reach the target educational attainment rate of 70 per cent is for Ontario colleges and universities to attract and retain learners who follow non-traditional pathways. Therefore, one of the priorities of the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) is to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of non-traditional pathways in obtaining a PSE credential. This study mainly examined one non-traditional pathway, delayed
entry into PSE. Graduates who have taken more years than expected to graduate are also included in the discussion. The purpose of this paper is to address the following research questions:
• What is the demographic profile of these non-traditional graduates?
• Are their program choices and pathways through PSE different from those of direct entrants?
• Do their labour market outcomes differ from those of direct entrants?