Post-secondary education is a cornerstone of Ontario’s continued prosperity. The Ontario government realizes this and confirmed its commitment to expanding post-secondary education in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 provincial budgets. The government announced funding allocations in all three budgets to support enrolment growth in the post-secondary sector. The 2011 budget committed the province to creating 60,000 more spaces in colleges and universities.
The present structure of postsecondary education in Ontario was established in the 1960s and has not changed appreciably since then. This is in contrast to several other provinces of Canada and other industrialized countries in which there have been major changes in the organization of postsecondary education during the past decade. These changes have been in response to developments since the 1960s in regard to such factors as the demands of the global knowledge economy, the role of information technology in learning, the demand for higher level conceptual skills in the workplace, the increased importance of credentials, and increased emphasis upon lifelong learning for personal and societal development.
Behind every unmotivated employee is a leadership problem waiting to be solved. Yet many leaders see motivation as a game of rewards and punishment. Forget the cash. Forget the threats. To engage today’s workforce, a leader is well advised to seek the heart of what moves people: their three basic psychological needs.
While the most traditional metric, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), measures all goods and services produced by a country, it has two critical shortcomings. First, by focusing exclusively on the economy, GDP fails to capture areas of our lives that we care about most like education, health, environmental quality, and the relationships we have with others. Second, it does not identify the costs of economic growth — like pollution.
To create a robust and more revealing measure of our social progress, the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) has been working with experts and everyday Canadians since 1999 to determine how we are really doing in the areas of our lives that matter most. The CIW measures overall wellbeing based on 64 indicators covering eight domains of vital importance to Canadians: Education, Community Vitality, Healthy Populations, Democratic Engagement, Environment, Leisure and Culture, Time Use, and Living Standards. The CIW’s comprehensive index of overall wellbeing tracks progress provincially and nationally and allows comparisons to GDP.
Comparing the CIW and GDP between 1994 and 2010 reveals a chasm between our wellbeing and economic growth both nationally and provincially. Over the 17-year period, GDP has grown almost four times more than our overall wellbeing. The trends clearly show that even when times are good, overall wellbeing does not keep up with economic growth and when times are bad, the impact on our wellbeing is even harsher. We have to ask ourselves, is this good enough?
In this special white paper based upon the Speak Up 2011 national !ndings, Project Tomorrow has partnered with DreamBox Learning to explore a new concept in the use of technology to personalize learning—intelligent adaptive learning™. With intelligent adaptive learning, every action that a student makes while working in a specially designed instructional technology software program is captured, including right and wrong answers, length of time in making decisions and the student’s individual decision-making strategies. The program typically analyzes about 48,000 pieces of information on a single student in a single hour to continuously adjust the student’s learning path. By synthesizing such fine=grained data, the program is able to continuously place students appropriately in lessons with the “just right” amount of difficulty, scaffolding, sequencing and hints, tailored especially to that student’s unique needs. The result is literally millions of individualized learning paths that ensure a high degree of personalized instruction for students as well as a wealth of assessment data that teachers can use to better tailor classroom instruction to their students.
While personalized learning as an important educational concept is not new, the ability to harness technological advancements as demonstrated with intelligent adaptive learning is a significant breakthrough concept for the classroom.
The goal of this workshop is to establish a change process that successfully accomplishes large-scale reform as measured by teacher and student engagement, and increases in student achievement including raising the bar and closing the learning gap for all students.
In November 2013, the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA) asked students to comment on their experience with summer and in-study employment. Of particular interest were: the number of jobs students were working during these terms;
whether or not these opportunities were within a student’s field of study; and whether they positively impacted their academic performance.
Results of OUSA’s 2013 Ontario Post-Secondary Student Survey (OPSSS) were further broken down based on institution and field of study for questions of particular interest. This was done to easily compare the responses from these distinct groups to
see how consistent the undergraduate employment experience was across academic disciplines and universities.
What is good learning? That may be a subjective question. But it's likely that many educators would give answers that fall in the same ballpark'sstudents collaborating and discussing ideas, possible solutions project-based learning, designed around real world contexts connecting with other students around the world, on topics of study immersing students in a learning experience that allows them to grapple with a problem, gaining higher-order thinking skills from pursuing the solution
To many educators, these notions are music to their ears. Would it seem terribly strange then to hear that students indeed are doing these things regularly outside of their classrooms? While Timmy or Susie may not be running home from school saying, “What fun, deeply-engaging learning experience can we do today?, they are engaging with new technologies that provide them with the same opportunities. Every day, many students are spending countless hours immersed in popular technologies such as Facebook or MySpace, World of Warcraft, or Sim City which at first glance may seem like a waste of time, and brain cells. But these genres of technologiesSocial Networking, Digital Gaming, and Simulations deserve a second, deeper, look at what is actually going on.
How much of a difference does it make whether a student of a given academic ability enters a more or a less selective four-year college? Some studies claim that attending a more academically selective college markedly improves one’s graduation prospects. Others report the reverse: an advantage from attending an institution where one’s own skills exceed most other students.
Using multilevel models and propensity score matching methods to reduce selection bias, we find that selectivity does not have an independent effect on graduation. Instead, we find relatively small positive effects on graduation from attending a college with higher tuition costs. We also find no evidence that students not attending highly selective colleges suffer
reduced chances of graduation, all else being equal.
KEYWORDS: college selectivity, graduation, selection bias, propensity score matching, tuition
Walk into any college classroom and you’ll likely see some students concentrating intently on their note taking or on watching the instructor’s presentation. You’ll also likely see some students texting on their phones, checking Facebook
on their laptops or whispering with their neighbors. And perhaps some students have that distant look of daydreaming or the droopy head that signals a nap.
All of these behaviors reflect what students have come to expect while in the classroom: slide after slide of content, with barely enough time to write it all down, much less understand it on the spot. Even raising a hand for clarification can sometimes be out of the question if the instructor has already moved on or if a student is too embarrassed to ask in front of the entire class. And so students cope by either scrambling to keep up during class or by tuning out and hoping to catch up on the content later.
This Digital Content Strategy Guide will assist you in creating a plan for your school or district to bring digital content/curriculum to students, teachers, administrators and parents. This plan will help you set the strategy for leveraging existing digital assets, acquiring new digital content and ensuring the effective implementation of digital content within your school or district. It is meant to be easy to navigate and highly useable with several sets of questions, models and advice to consider, and an abundant amount of resources to explore.
This guide provides you with the information you need to develop a framework that ensures effective policy and practice throughout the educational experience.
This framework is sustainable in systematically achieving the instructional goals and outcomes your school or district desires, outcomes that can — and undoubtedly should — prepare students to compete in the global society.
The guide also provides best practices in the selection and implementation of digital assets that maximize your investment in digital content by helping you to assess what you are doing now, what is working and what to leverage in the next stage. It suggests productive collaborations with industry, community leaders and parents to acquire and produce the content you need and want. In short, it can help guide you toward better and more productive practice.
“Digital learning is the great equalizer. It holds the promise of extending access to rigorous high quality instruction to every student across America, regardless of language, zip code, income levels, or special needs.â€
The time for meaningful transformation in Ontario’s postsecondary system is now. To meet the needs of the emerging
economy, reform must focus on innovation and applied learning that vaults our province ahead of its competition in creating the best-educated, best-prepared workforce in the world. Composed of distinct but equally valued and complementary partners, Ontario’s transformed postsecondary system will ensure that all students can reach their full potential through a broad array of theoretical and applied learning opportunities. Colleges will continue to be student focused, specializing in applied learning that leads to good jobs for graduates, addresses labour market needs and affords access to the broadest possible population. Colleges and universities will offer a range of credentials within their systems and collaborate on a multitude of programs that
offer students the best of both. Expanded pathways will give students the opportunity to customize their post-secondary
experience to match their interests. Online and blended learning, married to leading-edge technology, will enable students
to learn anywhere, anytime, and in ways best suited to their learning styles. Students will be better prepared than ever before to meet the demands of the economy, and they will achieve their goals faster and at less cost.
I am very pleased to present this issue of In Conversation as it provides me with the opportunity to say once again that I have long believed that we are well on our way to achieving a level and quality of school and system leadership that is second to none in the world. Since the launch of the Ontario Leadership Strategy (OLS) in 2008, we have been recognized internationally as one of the world’s top school systems, and as a system that is building leadership capacity for the future. And that, I believe, is a tribute to the work of our school and system leaders.
New Faculty Orientations in Improving the Effectiveness of University Teaching.’ In the earlier published report, attention was directed at New Faculty Orientation (NFO) programs offered across Ontario’s twenty publicly-funded universities. The survey-derived data presented in the first report provide insights into the composition, strengths and drawbacks of the range of services offered to foster the pedagogical development of Ontario’s university faculty.
The purpose of this second report is to inquire into the availability of NFO programs across Ontario’s 24 publicly-funded community colleges.1 As in the first report, research presented herein is derived from an online survey instrument. Also like its counterpart, the present paper draws on survey-derived data in order to extend beyond questions about the prevalence of NFO programs in Ontario’s community college sector to also include discussion of more general teaching development services offered to faculty working within Ontario’s publicly-funded community colleges.
The proportion of adults in Canada with a post-secondary education is the highest among all OECD countries, and the cost of that education is roughly double the OECD average. Yet, more and more of those degree holders fall behind in the earnings scale. The share of Canadian university graduates who make less than half the national median income is the largest among all OECD countries. Sure, on average it pays to get a post-secondary education, but with the education premium narrowing, the number of low-income outliers is rising. And despite the overwhelming evidence that one’s field of study is the most important factor determining labour market outcomes, today’s students have not gravitated to more financially advantageous fields in a way that reflects the changing reality of the labour market.
The past few years have ushered in more strident calls for accountability across institutions of higher learning. Various internal and external stakeholders are asking questions like "Are students learning what we want them to learn?" and "How do the students' scores from one institution compare to its peers?" As a result, more institutions are looking for new, more far-reaching ways to assess student learning and then use assessment findings to improve students' educational experiences.
However, as Trudy Banta notes in her article An Accountability Program Primer for Administrators, “just as simply weighing a pig will not make it fatter, spending millions simply to test college students is not likely to help them learn more.” (p. 6)
While assessing institutional effectiveness is a noble pursuit, measuring student learning is not always easy, and like so many things we try to quantify, there’s much more to learning than a number in a datasheet. As Roxanne Cullen and Michael Harris note in their article The Dash to Dashboards, “The difficulty we have in higher education in defining and measuring our outcomes
lies in the complexity of our business: the business of learning. A widget company or a fast-food chain has clearly defined goals and can usually pinpoint with fine accuracy where and how to address loss in sales or glitches in production or service. Higher education is being called on to be able to perform similar feats, but creating a graduate for the 21st century workforce is a very
different kind of operation.” (p. 10)
This special report Educational Assessment: Designing a System for More Meaningful Results features articles from Academic Leader, and looks at the assessment issue from a variety of different angles. Articles in the result include:
• The Faculty and Program-Wide Learning Outcome Assessment
• Assessing the Degree of Learner-Centeredness in a Department or Unit
• Keys to Effective Program-Level Assessment
• Counting Something Leads to Change in an Office or in a Classroom
• An Accountability Program Primer for Administrators
Whether you’re looking to completely change your approach to assessment, or simply improve the
efficacy of your current assessment processes, we hope this report will help guide your discussions
and eventual decisions.
Rob Kelly
Editor
Academic Leader
Four frogs are sitting on a log, and one decides to jump off. How many frogs are left? Th answer is
four, not three, because deciding is not the same as doing.
This paper is about how an entire system from bottom to top can engage in systematic, deeper reform on a continuous basis — from school and community, through district and regions, to system or national levels. It’s about getting the agenda right comprehensive, coherent, deep focus on teaching and learning) and doing it in a way that results in continuous improvement in actuall practice.
Students' relationship with technology is complex. They recognize its value but still need guidance when it comes to better using it for academics. The affinity of undergraduates for multimedia, mobile devices, and multitasking is well documented. What is less well recognized is the circumspect way in which students think about integrating technology into their academic lives, a characteristic of college students that has persisted for many years.
Nearly every college and university in America has refocused its attention on “student success.” Like many institutions, Cleveland State University, where I work, has erected an entire enterprise devoted to this endeavor. We have reorganized ourselves administratively, invested in new staff, updated technology and taken a deep dive into institutional data to ensure we are best positioned to make sure all our students have a high potential to graduate. We have improved as a result.
A 2015 survey of American college students examined classroom learning distractions caused by the use of digital devices for non-class pur-poses. The purpose of the study was to learn more about Millennial Generation students’ behaviors and perceptions regarding their class-room uses of digital devices for non-class pur-poses. The survey included 675 respondents in 26 states. Respondents spent an average of 20.9% of class time using a digital device for non-class purposes. The average respondent used a digital device 11.43 times for non-class purposes during a typical school day in 2015 compared to 10.93 times in 2013. A significant feature of the study was its measurement of frequency and duration of students’ classroom digital distractions as well as respondents’ motivations for engaging in the distracting behavior.