The postsecondary undergraduate educational experience takes place in an environment rife with expectation. Those “bright college years,†destined to be memorialized and celebrated, attract a cluster of sociocultural images and resonances, some realistic and some fanciful. Students see these years as a unique time of opportunity and unprecedented autonomy, a psycho-social moratorium where possibilities open up and they can grow into their own adult skins. And while matriculating students look forward to what awaits them, the other group intensely involved in the educational process — the faculty — looks back, projecting their own experience-derived expectations upon undergraduates who, in fact, may be
experiencing a generationally-different world. What should new students expect to find when they begin — and settle into — this new, but temporary, university life? And how will those expectations change as they are met, surpassed, or frustrated? What should faculty expect of students, and will they or should they measure up to faculty models? To what extent can faculty expectations serve as a control or calibrating influence on the subjective expectations and experiences of students?
These are questions that are of vital interest to those attempting to understand the link between student engagement and student success and, in this paper, these questions are explored through three surveys—the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), the Beginning College Survey of Student Engagement (BCSSE), and the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement (FSSE).
Survey fielded between August 16-28, 2013 among a nationally representative sample of American adults (N = 1,000) conducted via landline and cell phone. The margin of error for a sample of 1,000 is ±3.1%.
The national poll was supplemented by a survey of business hiring decision-makers (N = 263) fielded online during July 10-15, 2013. The business elite sample included hiring decision-makers and hiring executives from a cross-section of companies, ranging from small companies to larger businesses with a global presence.
Since 2012, the Education Policy Research Initiative (EPRI) has supported Mohawk College in its efforts to collect and use administrative and other data on students held by Mohawk as part of a broader initiative to improve student success based on the principle of evidence‐based decision making. This is the third research report resulting from this partnership and the second related to the Predictive Modelling and Advising project.
This project has two phases of investigation. The first phase of this project (Finnie, Poirier, Bozkurt, Fricker, & Pavlic, 2017) focused on the development of a predictive model of student retention and examined how advising participation rates and retention rates differ across different risk groups identified by the predictive model.
This document supersedes the sections outlining assessment, evaluation, and reporting policy in The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 to 12: Program Planning and Assessment, 2000 and in curriculum policy documents for Grades 1 to 8, Grades 9 and 10, and Grades 11 and 12 published before the release of this document, with the following exception: The achievement charts in all current curriculum policy documents remain in effect.
The New Technologies: New Pedagogies project endeavoured to take an innovative approach not only in the creation of new, authentic pedagogies for mobile devices but also in the action learning approach adopted for the professional development of participants. The project involved 19 people including teachers, IT and PD personnel. It was a large and ambitious project that resulted not only in a range of innovative pedagogies, but in the creation of more knowledgable and confident users of mobile technologies among teachers and students in the faculty of Education at the University of Wollongong.
This chapter examines the policy issues and challenges in planning and implementing e-learning in teacher education. The most significant issue is that implementing e-learning requires organizational and attitudinal change; in other words, e-learning requires the understanding and support of a wide range of stakeholders if it is to be successfully implemented. This chapter looks
at why e-learning requires organizational and attitudinal change, and suggests some strategies for bringing about such change.
The reasons why students need to be involved and engaged when they attend college are well established. Engagement can be the difference between completing a degree and dropping out.
Research has sought to identify what makes student involvement more likely. Factors like student-faculty interaction, active and collaborative learning experiences, involvement in extracurricular activities, and living on campus have all been shown to make a difference. Not surprisingly, faculty play a critical role in student engagement … from the obvious: facilitating
discussions in the classroom; to the often overlooked: maximizing those brief encounters we have with students outside of class. This special report features 15 articles that provide perspectives and advice for keeping students actively engaged in learning activities while fostering more meaningful interactions between students and faculty members, and among the students themselves.
For example, in “Student Engagement: Trade-offs and Payoffs” author E Shelley Reid, associate professor at George Mason University, talks about how to craft engagement-focused questions rather than knowledge questions, and explains her willingness to take chances in ceding some control over students’ learning.
In “The Truly Participatory Seminar” authors Sarah M. Leupen and Edward H. Burtt, Jr., of Ohio Wesleyan University, outline their solution for ensuring all students in their upper division seminar course participate in discussion at some level.
In “Reminders for Improving Classroom Discussion” Roben Torosyan, associate director of the Center for Academic Excellence at Fairfield University, offers very specific advice on balancing student voices, reframing discussions, and probing below the surface of group discussions. And finally, in “Living for the Light Bulb” authors Aaron J. Nurick and David H. Carhart of Bentley College provide tips on setting the stage for that delightful time in class “when the student’s entire body says ‘Aha! Now I see it!’” Who wouldn’t like to see more light bulbs going on more often? One of the most challenging tasks instructors face is keeping students engaged. Building Student Engagement: 15 Strategies for the College Classroom will help you meet that challenge while ensuring your classroom is a positive and productive learning environment.
At institutions of higher learning, there is an increased demand and need for online courses. However, the number of faculty developing and teaching these courses does not match the growth in online education. The purpose of this study was to determine the perceived barriers to online teaching experienced by various faculty groups at a public institution located in the southeastern United States using a new survey instrument, which was developed from recent research findings. This study sought to identify the most prevalent barriers to online instruction for the faculty group surveyed. In addition, these findings may identify prevalent barriers for faculty groups in an effort to inform administrative decisions concerning policy, training, and compensation as well as to facilitate involvement for specific types of online instruction for faculty development. A number of novel and important differences were found in the perceived barriers that exist between faculty groups on four constructs identified through an exploratory factor analysis. The factors found were: (1) interpersonal barriers; (2) institutional barriers; (3) training and technology barriers; and (4) cost/benefit analysis barriers. The results of this study may be of use to other institutions as they develop online instruction training programs.
Keywords: online ed cation, instructional technology, perceived barriers, survey research, online faculty
“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?
In September 2001, the Association of Registrars of the Universities and Colleges of Canada’s (ARUCC) Executive Committee launched an initiative to develop a national academic record and transcript guide for use in Canadian postsecondary institutions. This Report is the result of that initiative.
Funded in part through the Learning Initiatives Program by the Learning and Literacy Directorate of Human Resources Development Canada, the work began at the end of August 2002 and was finished seven months later. A National Committee representative of all types of postsecondary institutions, in all parts of the country, was formed. Its investigations were supported by four representative Regional Committees from the Atlantic, from Québec, from Ontario and from the West.
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.
Getting students to take their reading assignments seriously is a constant battle. Even syllabus language just short of death threats, firmly stated admonitions regularly delivered in class, and the unannounced pop quiz slapped on desks when nobody answers questions about the reading don’t necessarily change student behaviors or attitudes.
Interest in leadership increased during the early part of the twentieth century. Early leadership theories focused on what qualities distinguished between leaders and followers, while subsequent theories looked at other variables such as situational factors and skill level. While many different leadership theories have emerged, most can be classified as one of eight major types:
• On April 2, 2014, Council endorsed the City's participation in the Government of Ontario's Major Capacity Expansion Call for Proposals and provided staff w ith authority to pro-actively promote Brampton as a host municipality to interested post-secondary institutions, in alignment with Brampton's Post-Secondary Education Strategy.
• Through the City's promotional efforts, senior and experienced academic leadership,supported by Centennial College (the Proponents), approached the City of Brampton to be a host municipality for a new university.
• For Brampton to serve as host to a new university, Council is being asked to endorse the partnership with the Proponents so they may proceed with submitting a Notice of Intent application, which, if accepted, would lead to submitting a proposalto the Ontario Government's Major Capacity Expansion Call for Proposals.
The initiative to conduct and report on this research was undertaken by the Pan-Canadian Consortium on Admissions and Transfer (PCCAT). The purpose of the consortium is to facilitate the implementation of policies and practices that support student mobility both within and among provinces and territories and granting of transfer credit in order to improve access to postsecondary education in Canada.
This report was funded by the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), the Colleges and Universities Consortium Council of Ontario (CUCC), the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), and the Association of Registrars of the Universities and Colleges of Canada (ARUCC).
A blended learning solution often calls for a platform for capturing in-class and out-of-class activities and content, and delivering it live or on demand to students. In just a few short years, colleges and universities have come to understand the many benefits of blended learning, from pedagogical to administrative. Lecture capture is one method of achieving blended learning.
In many institutions, introducing technology into the classroom presents opportunities – and obstacles to overcome. The introduction of any new technology – no matter how transparent or easy to use – requires changed behaviours. In education, the challenges can be grouped into three key areas: cultural, process, and academic. Any of these can hinder achieving return on investment and the ability to leverage – and scale – blended learning technologies. While the benefits of these technologies are
many, identifying and building on them requires strategy and preparation. This white paper, based on interviews with five universities as well as Wainhouse Research’s observations of best practices, identifies five compelling lessons about how to best drive adoption of lecture capture. The lessons include:
􀁸 Business value
􀁸 Inter-departmental cooperation
􀁸 Academic quality
􀁸 Student satisfaction
􀁸 Champions
The paper examines the five universities in detail, describing how each has found its own unique path to successful adoption of blended learning technologies. The paper also offers ten specific steps to overcome cultural, process, or academic obstacles. These are, in short:
1. Understand adoption cycles
2. Involve the right people
3. Clone your champions
4. Identify benefits to your overall institution & map goals of deployment
5. Plan extensively while remaining flexible and open to revising those plans
6. Create a consistent service model
7. Design sustainable policies
8. Create substantive processes for measurement
9. Encourage peer review
10. Leverage best of breed capture and delivery mechanisms
Blended Learning Technology: Navigating the Challenges of Large-Scale Adoption
Copyright © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC Page 4
The paper also offers a number of suggestions for addressing the issue of policy, which is so important in academic settings. Understanding how best to create policy can enable colleges and universities to harness and maximize the return on current or future investments in blending learning technologies.
n this two-part consideration of the future of online learning, we look at the patterns and trends which will shape online learning in the future and how the various components of the post-secondary education system, such as student population, course design and delivery, assessment, resource bases, teaching and learning models, and partnerships will be different from what we have now.
The first part, A 2016 Look at the Future of Online Learning: Advancing Technology and Online Learning – An Ideal Match for the Future, looks at developments in technology and what potential they offer for better learning, teaching, collaboration, mobility and other key aspects of online learning.
The second part, A 2016 Look at the Future of Online Learning: Transformations in Learners, Programs, Teaching and Learning, and Policy and Government, is a more in-depth consideration of the inter-related changes we see taking place across online learning and the implications of this for post-secondary education.
Six years ago, Sallie Mae started a conversation with American families, asking them important questions about how they meet the cost of higher education and how they view the value of that investment.
The How America Pays for College study, conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, shows that American families are settling into a post-recession reality with regards to how they pay for college. Since 2010, families have reduced how much they spend on college, with parents’ contributions in particular seeing a significant decline.
The use of grants and scholarships, now the largest contributor, and student borrowing have increased to make up for some of this deficit. In 2013, the use of college savings plans has also increased to its highest level ever.
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.
This paper examines the implications of expanding the number and scope of college-to-university transfer arrangements as a means of meeting the demand for undergraduate degrees in Ontario. It focuses on two research questions:
1. What are the differences in the learning outcomes of students in college-to-university transfer arrangements compared with those in four-year university programs?
2. What are the differences in the cost per student for college-to-university transfer arrangements compared with four-year university programs?