Over the last decade, Ontario has had great success increasing high school graduation rates (5 year rates have improved from approximately 68% to 82%1), and sending more graduates on to university, college, or apprenticeships. But some students—Aboriginal, low-income, disabled, and those from the English-speaking Caribbean and Central and South America—still do not share equally in educational success.
Improved graduation rates stem largely from the province’s Student Success Strategy, which has created more caring,
motivating environments for students in grades 7 to 12, with focused support for at-risk learners and at key transitions.
Ontario has also expanded co-operative education, developed ways to make up components of failed courses through a
system known as “credit recovery,” created focused programs called Specialist High Skills Majors, and designed programs
that let students earn dual credits that count toward both their high-school diploma and a post-secondary diploma, degree or
certification.
The talent market is rapidly evolving: Never has current and future talent been more important to business success than it is today. Today, organizations discuss having a “people advantage” and work with “talent optimization.” There are also new titles and positions like “Chief Talent Officer.” It is clear that attracting and retaining the right talent is becoming a key organizational capability: The industry is quickly moving away from a short- term recruitment focus to a long-term employer branding focus.
Companies will gain a competitive advantage by taking a long-term approach to investing in employer branding and developing their brands to align with long-term business needs.
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 2015 Graduating Student Survey marks the 21st cooperative study undertaken by the Canadian University Survey Consortium/Consortium canadien de recherche sur les étudiants universitaires (CUSC-CCREU). The 2015 survey involved 36 universities and over 18,000 graduating university students from across Canada.
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.
In a traditional face-to-face class, students have many opportunities to interact with their instructor and fellow students. Whether it’s an informal chat before or after class, or participating in the classroom discussion, interaction can be an important factor in student success. Creating similar opportunities for participation and collaboration in an online course is one of the biggest challenges of teaching online. Yet, opportunities for meaningful interaction online are plentiful, provided you design and facilitate your course in the correct manner and with the proper tools.
Asynchronous and synchronous learning tools, such as threaded discussions, instant messaging, and blogs play an important role in humanizing online courses by replicating the classroom experience of information exchange and community building, not just between students and teacher but among the students as well. This Faculty Focus special report features 15 articles from Online Classroom newsletter, and will provide you with specific strategies on how to use synchronous and asynchronous
learning tools to engage your online students.
Here are just some of the articles you will find in this report:
• A Plan for Effective Discussion Boards
• Using Video Clips to Stimulate Discussion
• Using Individual and Group Instant Messaging to Engage Students
• Nine Strategies for Using IM in Your Online Course
• Four Ways to Improve Discussion Forums
Synchronous and Asynchronous Learning Tools: 15 Strategies for Engaging Online Students Using Real-time Chat, Threaded Discussions and Blogs is loaded with practical advice from educators who’ve found effective ways to promote learning and build community in their online courses.
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
Since the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) was launched, it has completed and published more than 140 research studies – and funded dozens more that are currently underway – that explore a wide range of trends and issues involving Ontario's postsecondary system. 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.
Some readers will be looking for the "silver bullet" within this paper. They will want to be told about a best practice that has been proven to be most effective at improving academic achievement, retention or engagement at an Ontario college or university, and that can be replicated to equal effect elsewhere. This @Issue paper does not identify “silver bullets.†As explained in the pages that follow, the scope and scale of an intervention may make it difficult to measure – or even expect – considerable impacts on student success, especially in the short term.
This paper does provide broad lessons, however, that are likely to be applicable across a wide range of student service, course-based and other interventions currently offered at Ontario colleges and universities.
Defining “Student Successâ€
For several decades, both governments and colleges/universities in Ontario and across Canada have tried to broaden access to postsecondary education (PSE) In particular, it was believed that a wide variety of barriers – family and social background, financial resources, information about options, etc. – needed to be overcome to encourage broader PSE participation, especially by those from traditionally under-represented groups (low income, first-generation, Aboriginal, visible
minority, rural, etc.).
As Canada’s youth consider their increasingly broad and complex array of post-secondary education (PSE) options, they are faced with potentially costly decisions. Moreover, they often do not have the information they need to make appropriate choices, which can negatively impact their participation and persistence in PSE. For many students, it is a challenge to choose, design and follow a post-secondary pathway to its conclusion without deviating from their original plan. Students are increasingly taking non-linear pathways through PSE. Some may need to relocate and attend a different institution. Many students may decide to change the focus of their study, while others may wish to change their program entirely. Some may shift their goals from academic to applied forms of study, or vice versa. However, the structures of post-secondary systems in our provinces, and the various mechanisms that bind them, do not always provide clearly apparent and unobstructed pathways for students, particularly for mobile students. These problems are exacerbated by shifting mandates, roles, and labels of institutions across the Canadian PSE sector.
Canada does not have a clear framework for understanding the many changes that have occurred within its PSE sector over the past 15 years. This monograph sets out to explain these changes, with a view to clarifying their potential effects on students’ comprehension of, and mobility through, the structures that comprise our current PSE landscape. In the past, Canadian post-secondary education has been described as binary, a term that indicates the presence of two separate institutional sectors: public universities offering academic and professional programming at the degree-level; and public colleges providing diplomas and certificates in programs of a more technical or vocational nature. However, this conceptualization overlooks private post-secondary institutions and, as Marshall (2006) notes, “significant growth in the number and types of degrees offered by a wider variety of Canadian post-secondary institutions” over recent decades.1 As a result, the distinction between the university and college sectors has become increasingly blurred, and the nature of some Canadian post-secondary institutions is no longer made clear by their names. Canada’s PSE sector is now characterized by a broad and complex mix of institutions for which a clear and comprehensive taxonomy has yet to be developed.
Evolutionary and legislative changes in many Canadian jurisdictions challenge the transparency of current Canadian post-secondary education vocabulary. Students’ ideas about which institutions offer which programs, and which programs lead to which opportunities, may not be aligned with these changes. It is arguable that Canadian PSE has become less transparent in recent years, exacerbating the potential that students make PSE decisions inappropriate to their aspirations. Issues of program choice and fit might be better addressed through the provision of a classification framework aimed at making Canadian PSE more transparent to its users.
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.
A quintessential Canadian success story Canada’s post-secondary institutions made major contributions to our country’s social progress and economic success in the last half of the 20th century. In the span of several decades, Canada evolved from a
country where an advanced education was reserved for the society’s elite to one that produces one of the world’s best-educated populations. By the turn of the century, Canada boasted the second-highest number of postsecondary
educated citizens per capita of any country —a comparative advantage in a global knowledge economy. Since knowledge is now the currency of the economy, improved post-secondary outcomes increase a country’s ability to develop the skilled human resources and conduct the innovative research it needs to remain productive and competitive.
Canada’s past performance is a remarkable achievement, considering that in the 19th century, just two percent of Canadian 20- to 24-year-olds went to university—usually to join the clergy, or become a doctor or lawyer. Even by the early 1940s, that number had only doubled to four percent. It wasn’t until the post-war period, when the federal government provided educational opportunities to returning servicemen after World War II and began investing heavily in post-secondary education to accommodate the Baby Boom population that enrolment rates swelled. There are now close to 100 public universities and roughly 200 public community colleges, degree-granting and other institutions all across the country. Today, 44% of Canadians possess postsecondary credentials. Much of Canada’s success is attributable to governments’ extensive investments in post-secondary education. Over the past 10 years, Canada has ranked in the top three internationally for public investment in post-secondary education institutions (PSIs). Collectively, the provincial,territorial and federal governments invested roughly $29 billion in 2004. A number of provinces have recently increased their expenditures on post-secondary education to ensure that PSIs are better able to respond to growing public demand. The creation of innovative research bodies and the infusion of new federal funds in national granting councils over the past decade have also enabled Canada’s universities and colleges to pursue an ambitious research agenda—the very heart of academic life.
Shortcomings
In spite of this solid foundation and the impressive track record of Canada’s post-secondary institutions, we cannot
be complacent. The PSE sector’s capacity to sustain its present progress is strained at the very time the world is placing a premium on higher education. Unprecedented demand for post-secondary graduates in the job market, coupled with an aging PSE workforce and deteriorating infrastructure, limit post-secondary institutions’ abilities to meet Canadian economic needs and social expectations. At the moment, there are few means to gauge just how well our PSIs are responding to Canada’s shifting social and economic needs or how post-secondary education in Canada compares with higher education systems in other countries facing similar challenges. Nor are there sufficient data to assess whether Canadians are fully benefitting from the money they and their governments spend on post-secondary education. There is a critical shortage of reliable research on the state of PSE in this country, making it difficult to determine whether PSE effectively prepares Canadians for the challenges and opportunities posed by the knowledge economy, if PSE provides value for money, or how Canada’s PSE system measures up against others elsewhere in the world. Compounding these issues is the fact that, despite widespread agreement that PSE
makes a vital contribution to economic growth and social cohesion, unlike most developed countries, Canada does not have a harmonized set of national objectives and targets for post-secondary education.
The 2015 Campus Freedom Index is the fifth annual report released by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) to measure the state of free speech at Canada’s universities.
Starting with a survey of only 18 universities in 2011, this year’s edition has grown to include 55 publicly funded Canadian universities—the largest and most expansive Index released so far, with information relevant to the more than 750,000 students who attend these institutions. The 2015 Campus Freedom Index includes an individual report about each university and student
union.
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.
An important goal of Ontario’s postsecondary education system is to provide the appropriate level of educational attainment to meet the current and future human capital needs of the province (HEQCO, 2009: 19). This purpose reflects the recognition that education and training contribute to the human capital of individuals and make them more productive workers and better informed citizens. Attainment of further education not only provides for individual returns such as higher earnings and
lower levels of unemployment , improved health and longevity, and greater satisfaction with life, but it is also strongly linked to social returns such as safer communities, healthy citizens, greater civic participation, stronger social cohesion and improved
equity and social justice (Riddell, 2006). In order for the province to maintain and enhance its economic standing in the changing global economy, and to provide its citizens with the social benefits that higher education affords, it must ensure that the
human capital needs of its society are met.
In Canada, 1,172,785 persons identify as Aboriginal, and 698,025 identify as First Nations.
• Aboriginal youth are the fastest growing demographic. The First Nations population grew 3.5 times faster than the on-Aboriginal population in 2006.
• Approximately 30% of the First Nations adult population is less than 30 years of age while 13% are 60 years of age and older.
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.
Millennials have gotten a bad rap for their habit of moving in with their parents after post-secondary school. There's even a disparaging term for the phenomenon — "failure to launch syndrome."
Nova Scotia’s university system has long been an essential contributor to the social, economic, and cultural development of the province. This report describes and assesses the current state of that system in the context of emerging financial and demographic challenges in the province, and in relation to wider trends in post-secondary education (PSE) regionally, nationally, and internationally. The evidence clearly confirms that the environment in which Nova Scotia’s eleven universities now operate is changing significantly. The report calls for expanded collaboration among the universities, and between them and the government, to develop and implement new policy approaches to address emerging challenges.
Much attention over the past decade has been given by policy makers to the importance of data-driven decision making and evidence-based practices in education (Aguerrebere, 2009; Cilbulka, 2013; CCSSO, 2012; Duncan, 2009, 2010, 2012; Easton, 2009, 2010; National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010). And much has been written about data-driven decision making in recent years. The field has seen special issues of journals (Coburn & Turner, 2012; Turner & Coburn, 2012; Wayman, 2005a, 2005b, 2006), edited books (Herman & Haertel, 2005; Kowalski & Lasley, 2009; Mandinach & Honey, 2008; Moss, 2007), focused books (Boudett, City, & Murnane, 2007; Mandinach & Jackson, 2012; Supovitz, 2006), research syntheses (Hamilton, Halverson, Jackson, Mandinach, Supovitz, & Wayman, 2009), and federally funded landscape studies (Means, Chen, DaBarger, & Padilla, 2011; Means, Padilla, & Gallagher, 2010). Yet the field is still emerging. There is much we know (Hamilton et al., 2009), and there is also much we do not know (Mandinach, 2012; Marsh, 2012; Turner & Coburn, 2012) or that has methodological challenges. Even some of the most rigorously designed studies about impact result in interpretive questions (Carlson, Borman, & Robinson, 2011; Konstantanopoulus, Miller, & van der Ploeg, 2013).
Since 1987, the Canadian Association of University Business Officers (CAUBO) has celebrated the administrative achievements of our members through the Quality & Productivity (Q&P) Awards Program. The simple concept of sharing good ideas has grown
into an established best practices program that celebrates the successes of our members and provides a venue for spreading the word.
CAUBO promotes the professional and effective delivery of services and administration of resources in all facets of higher education. This annual awards program is designed to recognize, reward and share achievements of administrators in the introduction of new services, improvement in the quality of services provided, and the management of human, financial, and
physical resources.
Depuis 1987, L’Association canadienne du personnel administratif universitaire (ACPAU) souligne les bons coups de ses membres par l’entremise du programme des prix de la qualité et de la productivité. Le concept de départ, qui consistait à
communiquer de bonnes idées, a germé; aujourd’hui, il s’agit d’un programme bien établi qui réunit des pratiques exemplaires, met en valeur les réussites de nos membres et constitue un moyen de diffuser ce savoir.
L’ACPAU s’occupe de promouvoir la prestation professionnelle de services et l’administration effice de ressources dans toutes les facettes de l’enseignement supérieur. Le programme des prix de la qualité et de la productivité vise à récompenser et à faire connaître chaque année les réalisations des administrateurs universitaires, que ce soit pour l’introduction de nouveaux services, l’amélioration de la qualité des services fournis, ou encore la gestion des ressources humaines, financières
ou physiques.