The Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) has been engaged through a competitive process by the Ontario Ministry of Education (hereafter “the Ministry”) to evaluate the extent to which the Student Success/Learning to 18 Strategy (hereafter “the SS/L18 Strategy”) as currently implemented is aligned with the Ministry’s three overarching goals and is producing the intended
outcomes related to its specific five goals. The evaluation process is composed of two main phases. This Stage 1 report provides a description and chronology of the SS/L18 Strategy-related changes; a catalogue and preliminary analysis of source documents relevant to the initiative; the results of an analysis of interviews with 39 respondents identified for the initial stage of the evaluation; the results of four focus groups conducted with Student Success Leaders (SSLs); preliminary
observations about the conduct of the SS/L18 Strategy, its strengths and vulnerabilities, as well as some preliminary recommendations for the future of the Strategy.
Background
According to a report by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (2005) , 30 to 40% of all students enrolled in four-year degree programs drop out, and 78-80% of those who do drop out will do so in their first year. Similar levels have been reported in other provinces, such as Québec (25-35%, Montmarquette, Mahseredjian, & Houle, 2001). In a paper for the Commission of Inquiry on Canadian University Education, Gilbert (1991) estimated that after five years the non-completion rate for university undergraduates is approximately 42% across Canada. Of particular concern, research on student retention has demonstrated that some disciplines have higher drop-out rates than others; science, mathematics, and engineering students are more likely to drop out than students in other disciplines (Daempfle, 2004). Moreover, each year approximately 35% of undergraduates fail introductory mathematics and science classes (Useem, 1992). Because of these growing concerns, research is needed that focuses on increasing retention and achievement in undergraduate science. This research addresses these
concerns by implementing a different approach to providing feedback to students that may result in higher achievement and increased retention at the undergraduate level of education.
Ontario higher education system has moved far and fast in the past decade. The early 1990s saw "modest modifications and structural stability." Since 1995, under a neo-liberal government in Ontario, major policy initiatives, with objectives not unlike those already at large in western Europe and most of the United States, have quickly followed one another. The author proposes an explanation of the timing and dynamics of the Ontario reforms, describing the driving forces behind reform.
On-line, blended and other forms of web enhanced learning are becoming increasingly popular as a means of delivering post-secondary education. According to a recent report completed by the Higher Education Strategy Associates, 57% of
Canadian university courses make use of some online component (Rogers, Usher & Kaznowska, 2011).
The decision of Mohawk College to move to blended learning was part of a strategic plan begun in 2008 that focused on “advancing educational outcomes through the strategic integration of learning technologies” (Mohawk College 1). To this end the college formulated a committee composed of faculty, administration and management to examine the various learning platforms current at that time (FirstClass, WebCT) and tasked with deciding which learning management system the college
should adopt. They selected Desire2Learn (D2L) as the learning management system to be adopted, and a further plan was developed to have all courses fully blended within five years of the initial start-up of D2L in 2009. Blended learning is defined as using the web “to deliver substantial course materials accompanied by a strategic reduction in face-to-face contact. Online and
face-to-face learning spaces are thoughtfully integrated, maximizing the unique characteristics of each, in order to enhance the quality of the learning experience” (Mohawk College 2).
Without question, a major classroom challenge facing today’s educators is getting their students to put down their phones and pick up their level of engagement. While a generation ago educators might find their students getting sidetracked by an attractive classmate, an enchanting daydream or passing notes about an upcoming tailgate party, today’s smartphones present educators with a whole new array of seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
According to the 2011 article “The Use and Abuse of Cell Phones and Text Messaging in the Classroom: A Survey of College Students,” published in College Teaching, after surveying “269 college students from 21 academic majors at a small Northeastern university,” authors Deborah R. Tindall and Robert W. Bohlander found that “95 percent of students bring their phones to class every day, 92 percent use their phones to text message during class time and 10 percent admit they have texted during an exam on at least one occasion.”
I was taking advantage of some down time, cleaning out some of my old files on my computer, when I ran across a great article I saved that covered student personality types. When I originally read this article, I only had several years of experience working in the distancelearning realm. Now, years later, I have seen all these student types at one time or another, and
throughout the years, noticed several others worthy of mention.
Before moving into some observations, I do need to provide some context for the environment in which I work. Our population consists of postgraduate students working in middle management positions. The classes are small, 18 students to one instructor, and progress through the year as a group. The yearlong curriculum is not self-paced. The college delivers
the content in a mix between asynchronous and synchronous modalities. Blackboard is the asynchronous platform that delivers the lesson material using a combination of computerbased instruction, online exams, and discussion board forums. We use Blackboard Ultra and/or Defense Connect Services for the synchronous portions of the curriculum, which
include delivery of student briefing products. Of course, there are the standard necessities like email, telephone, and administration that accompany facilitation.
This paper exploits longitudinal tax-filer data to provide new empirical evidence for Ontario on i)
overall PSE participation rates on an annual basis over the last decade, ii) how access is related to a number of important individual and family characteristics, including sex, family income, area size of residence and family type, andiii) how these relationships have changed over time. This is done for Ontario as a whole, in comparison to the rest of Canada, and then broken down by region within Ontario. The findings are informative, in some cases surprising, and highly relevant to public policy regarding access to postsecondary education.
The findings are many, and there is room to mention only a few of the most important ones here. Our focus here was on access to university – although we do present results for college attendance as well. We do this for two main reasons. The first is that the PSE-related tax credit information available in the Longitudinal Administrative Databank (LAD) dataset which we employ to identify participation in PSE do not do as good a job of finding college students, simply because the credits available are not generally worth as much to college students as they are to university students. Secondly, the effects of individual and family background characteristics on PSE ttendance – a principal focus of our study – tend to come out much more strongly in
(net) effects on college attendance are more unambiguous and are almost always found to be much smaller from an empirical perspective.
Abstract
Food insecurity has been identified as an issue among postsecondary students. We conducted this study to describe the level
of food insecurity in a sample of university students with a particular interest in the effect of marginalization. A cross-sectional
survey was conducted using a volunteer sample of 3,490 undergraduate students (44% participation rate) at one BC university
campus between February and May 2017. Experiences of food insecurity were reported by 42.3% (n=1,479) of respondents.
Among those who were food insecure 60.2% (n=891) were female. Logistic regression analysis indicated that females,
students living on campus, those with a diversability (developmental, physical, or other disability), individuals self-reporting
as belonging to a visible minority, and international students were more likely to experience food insecurity than comparator
groups. When adjusted for gender, years on campus, and living situation, students who reported experiencing two or more
forms of marginalization were 2.52 times more likely to be food insecure compared to students who do not report any form of
marginalization. This study further supports concerns about high levels of food insecurity among university students in Canada.
In particular, the findings highlight the risk for food insecurity among students who are already vulnerable to socio-economic
inequity due to belonging to marginalized groups. Efforts to promote student well-being on university campuses need
to address food insecurity by addressing system-level factors to equalize the field for all students at risk for food insecurity.
Keywords: food deprivation, hunger, vulnerable populations, gender, higher education
This article examines the impact of culturally responsive pedagogy in an introduction to university course developed in collaboration with local and place-based First Nations communities, Aboriginal Access Studies and the Faculty of Education of the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan Campus. In keeping with requests that Indigenous worldviews be incorporated into curriculum, the content of EDUC 104, modelled on the University of South Carolina’s University 101 Programs, was adapted to incorporate Indigenous traditions of teaching and learning. The introductory course included a holistic approach aimed at supporting the social and emotional well-being of students. Facilitated by peer mentoring, collaborative circles of learning introduced seminal concepts and facilitated the progressive use of newly learned skills. As part of a longitudinal research, the following presents the content of interviews conducted at the conclusion of the courses. Analysis indicated that three themes emerged emphasizing the importance of the circles of learning, peer mentoring, and the relationship with the instructor. In particular, the results demonstrated the perceived value of the course from the students’ perspectives.
The earliest studies of undergraduate retention in the United States occurred in the 1930s and focused on what was referred to at the time as student mortality: the failure of students to graduate (Berger & Lyon, 2005). Historically higher education research has had an eye toward pathology with a focus on repairing students’ problems (Shushok & Hulme, 2006). To this end, much research exists on why students fail to persist as opposed to why they succeed. Strength-based approaches to the study of undergraduate retention involve studying successful students. Studying what is right with students may illuminate new aspects of successful student experiences which can in turn be applied to supporting all students. This paper will provide a brief historical overview of undergraduate retention followed by factors commonly related to undergraduate retention. Finally, an overview of the recent application of motivational theories to understand undergraduate retention including attribution theory, expectancy theory, goal setting theory, self-efficacy beliefs, academic self-concept, motivational orientations and optimism will be provided. Considerations for the future of motivational theories in undergraduate retention will be discussed with particular emphasis on the value of strength-based approaches to study and practice.
Toronto, Sept. 27, 2016 – Amid concern that today's postsecondary graduates are lacking critical employability skills, an international test on literacy, numeracy and problem-solving will be given to first-year and graduating students at 11 colleges in Ontario. A similar pilot for universities will follow in fall 2017.
The Essential Adult Skills Initiative (EASI) pilot project by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) marks the first time in Canada that core skills, considered foundational to success in work and life, will be evaluated at the postsecondary program and institutional level.
Maybe they didn’t think of this back in 2006 when the province scrapped mandatory retirement.
Ten years later, baby boomers in big numbers are blowing past the old retirement age of 65, some working into their
70s.
They can defer pensions for a while, but at 71, they’re forced to collect work and government pensions along with
their paycheques.
Who would want to work that long? You might be surprised.
A teacher’s prime directive is to help students learn. So what is learning? There are a variety of definitions. Figure 1 contains 21 definitions of learning. Read through this list and choose two to three with which you feel most comfortable. (Note: There is no “correct” definition.)
Keywords Sustainable development, Higher education, Learning
Abstract It is higher education’s responsibility to continuously challenge and critique value and knowledge claims that have prescriptive tendencies. Part of this responsibility lies in engaging students in socio-scientific disputes. The ill-defined nature of sustainability manifests itself in such disputes when conflicting values, norms, interests, and reality constructions meet. This makes sustainability – its need for contextualization and the debate surrounding it – pivotal for higher education. It offers an opportunity for reflection on the mission of our universities and colleges, but also a chance to enhance the quality of the learning process. This paper explores both the overarching goals and process of higher education from an emancipatory view and with regard to sustainability.
Last month’s Women’s March, one of the largest demonstrations in American history, drew between three and five million people across 673 U.S. cities and 170 cities internationally, according to a Google Drive effort to capture estimates. Since then, protests have continued in communities nationwide, including a series of major demonstrations in response to President Trump’s executive order barring travel to the United States from seven predominantly Muslim nations, his order to move ahead with the wall along the Mexican border and the controversial North Dakota pipeline.
Viewed as signaling white nationalism, racism, sexism and xenophobia, the election of Donald Trump has provoked strong and negative responses among students. The turbulent political atmosphere recently engulfed the University of California, Berkeley, where students or -- according to campus officials -- agitators from off the campus violently interrupted what were to be peaceful protests and a speech by Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos. Student protests against Trump’s travel ban have also occurred at Ohio, American, Chapman and Rutgers Universities.
What do these events say, if anything, about activism on college campuses today? Have they sparked a new wave of student engagement? Or is it a momentary outcry?
Businesses in Canada urgently need to get more innovative. According to the Science, Technology and Innovation Council, Canada is falling steadily behind its global competitors on key measures of innovation. Most notably, Canada ranks 26th among
international competitors for business spending on research and development as a share of gross domestic product, sitting at just over one-third of the threshold amount spent by the top five performing countries.
To overcome Canada’s innovation shortfall, it is essential for all players in science, technology and innovation to collaborate for change. Canada’s colleges and institutes, well-established in their communities and connected with business, government, health care and community organizations, are fast becoming innovation hotspots. By leveraging their equipment, infrastructure and the expertise of faculty and students, colleges and institutes are responding creatively to the research and development requirements of partners in small business, industry and the community — at the same time, helping students develop
innovation skills they can use throughout their work lives.
Ontario's colleges of applied arts and technology (CAATs) were granted authority to offer degrees in 2000, and the first degree programs were offered in 2002. The rationale for granting colleges permission to offer degrees was threefold: first it was to meet the needs of a higher skilled workforce in a changing economic, social and political environment: second, it was to widen access to degrees for Ontarians overall, but particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds who are more likely to attend a college than a university; and third, it was anticipated that college degrees would be less expensive than university degrees for students and governments (Skolnik 2016b)
Strong culture, strong impact focuses on the role of culture in driving high-impact entrepreneurship in G20 countries. The report provides actionable recommendations for governments and a clear, time-bound path for achieving support for young entrepreneurs. Our report, released alongside this year’s G20 Young Entrepreneurs’ Alliance (YEA) Summit in Turkey, builds on our Avoiding a lost generation reports. It drills down on the one driver that is at once omnipresent, yet difficult to quantify or capture, for an entrepreneurial ecosystem:
entrepreneurial culture.
What is on the five-year horizon for higher eudacation instiregarding technology adoption? Which trends technology developments ill drive educational change? What are the challenges that we consider as solvable or difficult to overcome, and educational change steered the collaborative research and discussions of a body of 58 experts to produce the NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition, in partnership with the EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI). This NMC Horizon Report series charts the five-year horizon for the impact of emerging technologies in colleges and universities across the globe. With more than 14 years of research and publications, it can be regarded as the world’s longest-running exploration of emerging technology trends and uptake in education.
Leadership and management must go hand in hand. They are not the same thing. But they are necessarily linked, and complementary. Any effort to separate the two is likely to cause more problems than it solves.Still, much ink has been spent delineating the differences. The manager’s job is to plan, organize and coordinate. The leader’s job is to inspire and motivate.