After reviewing the state of student retention research and practice, past and present, the author looks to the future and identifies three areas of research and practice that call for further exploration. These concern issues of institutional action, program implementation, and the continuing challenge of promoting the success of low-income students.
Key Word: Tinto
INTRODUCTION
Policy-makers have invested in a range of strategies over the last several decades to reduce disparities in college entry and completion by family income. Historically, many of these interventions have focused on improving students’ academic readiness and increasing college affordability for low-income students and their families. i More recently, however, policy-makers and researchers have devoted increasing attention to how the accessibility and presentation of college information impacts whether students apply to college or for financial aid, and the college choices students make. A number of studies have documented, for instance, that students and families from disadvantaged backgrounds either do not know or tend to
substantially overestimate the actual cost of college tuition. Other research has documented how complexities in the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) may deter many students who would qualify for substantial grant and loan assistance from even applying for financial aid A separate line of research suggests that a surprisingly large share of students who have sufficient high school achievement to attend academically-rigorous institutions often only apply to and enroll at essentially open-enrollment colleges and universities.
Most of the faculty on American college and university campuses are contingent employees, working in conditions very different from the image of academic professional life that informs contemporary discussions of higher education policy. This report describes the findings of a recent survey of contingent faculty in the United States, focusing on the working conditions
imposed upon contingent faculty and the ways those conditions impact students and the quality of the education they receive.
This report, representing the views of Ontario’s 24 colleges, highlights a systemic dearth of applied research and innovation funding opportunities for colleges at the federal level. Applied research and innovation at Ontario colleges are undertaken in collaboration with private and public sector partners. College applied research and innovation regularly lead to innovations and the commercialization of knowledge that result in new products and services benefiting the Canadian economy.
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).
When building an online program, there are certain big questions that need to be answered. Among them are: What kind of program you want it to be – high tech or low tech? Professor intensive or adjunct driven? Blended learning or fully online? What kind of technology will be used to deliver course content? What about opportunities for collaboration? Indeed, even though distance learning is no longer in its infancy, and there are a whole discipline-full of best practices learned by those who blazed the trail before you, it’s easy to get overwhelmed by the questions and the possibilities of what you want your program to look like today and five years from now. We created this special report to suggest some responses to the big questions about distance education: About pedagogy, technology, philosophy and administration of distance learning programs. In this report, you will find concise, informative articles on distance education administration and policy that have appeared in Distance Education Report. Titles include:
• Seeing Where the Distance Education Opportunities Lie
• Dumb is Smart: Learning from Our Worst Practices
• Building a Distance Education Program: Key Questions to Answer
• Eight Steps to On-Campus/Online Parity
• Creating a Business Continuity Plan for Your Distance Education Program
• Integrating Distance Education Programs into the Institution
• Solving the Problems of Faculty Ownership with Online Courses
The mass of program and policy issues confronting distance education administrators grows every day. We hope this special report will help you conceptualize, manage and grow the distance education program at your school.
I am a Research Assistant on a project entitled Writing Instruction Using an Online Assignment Planner. I am here to invite you to participate in this study. This study is designed to assess how teachers and students use the Assignment Planner in large classes
The changes in this book were prepared to serve as a resource document for the National Education Association's (NEA, 1997) Keys project. Keys is an acronym for "Keys to Excellence in your Schools". NEA has identified 35 factors essential to effective schools, and has developed a survey instrument designed to gather data on these items, and in turn to feed back the data to
participating schools. The 35 items cluster into five main domains:
• shared understanding and commitment to high goals
• open communication and collaborative problem solving
• continuous assessment for teaching and learning
• personal and professional learning
• resources to support teaching and learning
Responding to trends in research, National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) institutional data and curriculum renewal processes, several recent initiatives at the University of Toronto focus on the complementary role of the teaching assistant (TA) as part of a teaching team. Particularly, these initiatives focus on the establishment of learner-centred environments, support for deep student learning, and the development of core skills and competencies for both undergraduate and graduate students.
This study examined the influence of two teaching assistant (TA) models – the Advanced University Teaching Preparation Certificate (AUTP), offered by the University of Toronto’s Teaching Assistants’ Training Program (TATP), Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation, and the Writing Instruction for TAs (WIT) Program, offered in the Faculty of Arts & Science. Both of these TA models aim to improve undergraduate student learning by ensuring that TAs are integral members of the teaching team and that they receive sufficient training and guidance in order to effectively support deep student learning. Both of these TA models utilize peer training as a core dimension.
This paper provides one of the first analyses of the benefits to the university student of scholarships and bursaries in Ontario and Canada and has potentially important policy implications. Entry scholarships and bursaries have two main potential benefits: 1) they may attract stronger students to a given university, and 2) they may promote better performance in university. The first type of benefit mainly accrues to the individual school and not to the student or the province as a whole. The second type of benefit, however, may apply to all students who receive entry scholarships and hence leads to improved academic performance throughout
the system.
ABSTRACT. I argue in this article that responsible leadership (Maak and Pless, 2006) contributes to build- ing social capital and ultimately to both a sustainable business and the common good. I show, first, that responsible leadership in a global
stakeholder society is a relational and inherently moral phenomenon that cannot be captured in traditional dyadic leader–follower relationships (e.g., to subordinates) or by simply focusing on questions of leadership effectiveness. Business leaders have to deal with moral complexity resulting from a multitude of stakeholder claims and have to build enduring and mutually beneficial
relationships with all relevant stakeholders. I contend, second, that in doing so leaders bundle the energy of different constituencies and enable social capital building. Social capital can be understood as actual or potential resources inherent to more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual recognition (Bourdieu 1980). By drawing on network analysis I suggest,
third, that responsible leaders weave durable relational structures and ultimately networks of relationships which are rich in ties to otherwise unconnected individuals or groups.
Some provincial governments are taking notice of and responding to growing public concern over student debt loads, economic and employment uncertainty, and the long-term ramifications being felt by students and their families.
These responses have not resulted in across-the-board fee reductions; provincial governments have largely preferred to go the route of directed assistance measures, either before (two-tiered fee structures or nearly-universal targeted grants or bursaries) or after-the-fact (tax credits, debt caps and loans forgiveness) directed at in-province students as part of a retention strategy, and to mitigate the poor optics of kids being priced out of their local universities. While this does impact in-province affordability, it undermines any commitment to universality because it creates a situation where the only students
who leave the province to pursue a degree are the ones who can afford to.
The increasing number of exceptions and qualifiers makes the system of university finance far more difficult to navigate, and makes it harder to compare provincial policies. Additionally, the system becomes much more unpredictable.
Financial assistance applied in this manner is anything but certain; programs can change or be eliminated at any time, while the only thing students can be relatively certain of is that fees will likely continue to increase.
Spending on research and development (R&D) in Canada's higher education sector increased 2.3% on a fiscal year basis between 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 to $12.1 billion. The higher education sector is composed of universities and affiliated research hospitals, experimental stations and clinics.
When adjusted for inflation, higher education R&D spending rose 0.6% in 2012/2013, the smallest constant dollar increase in a decade. Provincially, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia increased spending
on R&D in the higher education sector in 2012/2013. While Newfoundland and Labrador posted the largest year-over-year percentage increase in spending, Ontario accounted for most of the national gain in 2012/2013.
Total expenditures on R&D are classified into two fields of science: natural sciences and engineering as well as social sciences and humanities. Overall, about 80% of total R&D expenditures were concentrated on natural sciences and engineering, which rose 2.2% from 2011/2012 to $9.7 billion. Spending on social sciences and humanities R&D increased 2.6% to $2.4 billion.
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.
The function and role of leadership today is very different than in past decades. Leadership applies to more than just those who supervise others - it is both a privilege and responsibility of each member of a college commu- nity. We are all learners from the moment we enter the world, but we ask you to consider each of us as teachers as well. We are constantly modeling with our actions and inactions, and we have a responsibility...a civic duty...to teach both those who ay and those who are paid to
affiliate with our college.
Results are based on telephone interviews with –1,025– national adults, aged 18+, conducted October 5-6, 2013. For results based on the total sample of National Adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cell phone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by region. Landline and cell phones numbers are selected using random digit dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Social networking use among internet users ages 50 and older has nearly doubled—from 22% to 42% over the past year.
While social media use has grown dramatically across all age groups, older users have been especially enthusiastic over the past year about embracing new networking tools. Although email continues to be the primary way that older users maintain contact with friends, families and colleagues, many users now rely on social network platforms to help manage their daily communications—sharing links, photos, videos, news and status updates with a growing network of contacts.
Half (47%) of internet users ages 50-64 and one in four (26%) users age 65 and older now use social networking sites.
Half of online adults ages 50-64 and one in four wired seniors now count themselves among the Facebooking and LinkedIn masses. That’s up from just 25% of online adults ages 50-64 and 13% of those ages 65 and older who reported social networking use one year ago in a survey conducted in April 2009.
Young adult internet users ages 18-29 continue to be the heaviest users of social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, with 86% saying they use the sites. However, over the past year, their growth paled in comparison with the gains made by older users. Between April 2009 and May 2010, internet users ages 50-64 who said they use a social networking site like MySpace, Facebook or LinkedIn grew 88% and those ages 65 and older grew 100% in their adoption of the sites, compared with a growth rate of 13% for those ages 18-29.
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.
With experts projection that five million K-12 students will enroll in online course by 2016, thee is no doubt that blended learning asking the key question: "Does blended learning give better outcomes than traditional classes?"
The crisis — and there is no other word for it — in public schooling is a function of the interaction of an enormous push-pull dynamic. The push factor is that students find schooling increasingly boring as they proceed across the grades. Studies from many countries show that among high school students less than 40% of upper secondary students are intellectually
engaged (Jenkins, 2013; Willms et al., 2009). And, not unrelated, signs of teacher frustration are growing. For example, in the U.S the percentage of teachers who are satisfied with teaching has plummeted from 65% to 38% from 2008 to 2012. Teachers and students are psychologically if not literally being pushed out of school. Meanwhile prodigious technology is alluring all, kids and
adults alike, to the digital world, not necessarily productively. Within this allure we are seeing exciting new learning modes emerging from the interaction of pedagogy and technology. Education under these terms needs to be radically rethought — partly to stop the boredom, but mostly to blow the lid off learning, whereby students and teachers as partners become captivated by education day in and day out.