Graduate students are assumed to develop skills in oral and written communication and collegial relationships that are complementary to formal graduate programs. However, it appears only a small number of universities provide such professional development opportunities alongside academic programs, and even fewer do so online. There appears to be an assumption in higher education that students develop professional skills by virtue of learning through required academic tasks and having proximity to other students and faculty. Skeptics of online study raise questions about whether graduate students studying online can participate fully in such graduate communities and access these informal professional skill-building opportunities. It is possible that such activities may have to be designed and delivered for online graduate students.
Based on princiiples that look to improve overall wellbeing amongst student populations, this policy on student health
and wellness takes a broad look at a range of health concerns felt by Ontario’s post-secondary students, as identified by the student membership of OUSA. These policy recommendations seek to bring greater attention to the current mental and physical health care needs amongst our students regardless of their current health or socio- economic standing, or physical and mental ability. With this policy, OUSA hopes that students will be provided with the resources and service their overall wellbeing and success.
The development of outcomes-based educational (OBE) practices represents one important way in which
a learning outcomes approach to teaching and learning can be applied in the postsecondary sector. This study adopts a multiple case study design and profiles seven OBE initiatives being implemented in Ontario’s colleges and universities to better understand the scope of outcomes-based educational practices in the province’s postsecondary sector. ‘OBE initiatives’ are defined as purposeful actions undertaken by postsecondary providers directed at defining, teaching toward and assessing learning outcomes in their educational practice (modified from Jones, Voorhees & Paulson, 2002).
Rae Report (2005) recommendation:«…develop a
First-Generation Strategy that involves early outreach to students and ongoing supports to ensure success while they are enrolled».
For most educators, writing a philosophy of teaching statement is a daunting task. Sure they can motivate the most lackadaisical of students, juggle a seemingly endless list of responsibilities, make theory and applications of gas chromatography come alive for
students, all the while finding time to offer a few words of encouragement to a homesick freshman. But articulating their teaching philosophy? It’s enough to give even English professors a case of writer’s block.
Using well-known tenets of student development and student success as a central organizing premise, it is suggested that higher education curriculum should include outcomes related to the development of students as competent, lifelong learners. This imperative is driven by demands on higher education to prepare graduates for complex, dynamic, and information based social and occupational experiences. Curricula that prepare students with appropriate knowledge and skills to manoeuvre
a changed and changing society is in order. Labelled a learner-centred curriculum, this approach includes, but goes beyond, the already explored learner-centred instruction (Lieberman, 1994; McCombs & Whistler, 1997; SCCOE, 2000; Soifer, Young & Irwin, 1989) to content and skill development regarding the mechanisms of learning and growth.
Abstract
Emerging from the contested site of a new university campus, this article reflects on the transformative process of reconceptualizing and rebuilding a professional and an academic stream in a 21st-century Faculty of Education. In order to maximize her own capital, an assistant professor sought tenure in an innovative new stream introduced to her campus,
professor of teaching. The novel rank reflected the commitment of the university to provide educational leadership, outstanding teaching, and curriculum innovation to higher education. However, guidelines for promotion to professor were not directive and
exhaustive but more suggestive of being situated in place-based environments. Within the context of a market driven and policy-laden post-secondary institution, this was problematic. Since evidence supporting promotion to full professor is dependent on the discipline and the faculty, a myriad of interpretations of what exactly constituted a professor of
teaching emerged. Based on the ambiguity of these policies, the discussion surrounding the experiences of otherness and marginalization which arose as this scholar-practitioner focused on her work as a teacher educator and a researcher in an emerging rank became of singular interest.
Keywords: professor of teaching, higher education, tenure, promotion, research, marginalization
Résumé
Tirant sa source du site contesté d’un nouveau campus universitaire, cet article propose une réflexion sur le processus de transformation lié à la reconceptualisation et à la refonte d’un volet professionnel et universitaire au sein d’une Faculté d’éducation du XXIe siècle. En vue de maximiser son propre capital, une professeure adjointe a cherché à obtenir sa
permanence dans un volet novateur introduit dans son campus, celui de « professor of teaching », un nouveau niveau de poste reflétant la volonté de l’université de promouvoir le leadership en éducation, l’excellence dans l’enseignement et l’innovation en matière de curriculum au postsecondaire. Toutefois, au lieu d’être directifs et exhaustifs, les critères à remplir pour accéder à ce niveau de poste étaient plutôt de nature suggestive et fondées sur le milieu. Dans le contexte d’un établissement postsecondaire axé sur le marché et ancré dans des politiques, cela posait un problème. Comme les données venant appuyer
la promotion au poste de professeur titulaire dépendent de la discipline et de la faculté, une foule d’interprétations de ce qui constitue exactement un « professor of teaching » a surgi. Étant donné l’ambiguïté de ces politiques, la discussion entourant les expériences d’altérité et de marginalisation qui est survenue lorsque cette universitaire-praticienne a concentré son attention sur son travail comme professeure de pédagogie et comme chercheuse dans un nouveau niveau de poste s’est avérée particulièrement intéressante.
Mots-clés : professor of teaching, enseignement supérieur, permanence, promotion,
recherche, marginalisation
This article explores the internationalization of Canadian universities, with a focus on the rise of foreign postsecondary students in Canada, the economic impacts, and the various benefits, challenges, and adjustments that have been
influenced by the continuing demographic shifts on Canadian campuses since 2000. Rooted in recent global and Canadian higher education internationalization trends, this paper suggests that accommodations for such shifts have
not kept pace with the influx of culturally and linguistically diverse foreign students, whose population growth rate outpaces domestic university students’ by several times. I conclude with unresolved dilemmas that continue to pose challenges for Canadian universities, and with suggestions for manageable supports to ensure the needs of students are responsibly balanced with the economic constraints of universities.
Sexual violence is an ongoing concern in post-secondary educational environments. It is “any violence, physical or psychological, carried out through sexual means or targeting sexuality” and includes sexual abuse, assault, rape and harassment (Ontario Women’s Directorate, 2013, p. 3).
Canadian institutions and governmental bodies have made efforts to address sexual violence on campus. For instance, the Ontario Women’s Directorate (2013) created Developing a Response to Sexual Violence: a Resource Guide for Ontario’s Colleges and Universities and the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario (2013) released a Campus Toolkit for Combating Sexual Violence. Student groups, universities and colleges have implemented prevention programs such as US-based Bringing in the Bystander™ and Green Dot, as well as awareness campaigns such as Got Consent? and Draw The Line (Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2005; University of New Hampshire, 2014; Senn & Forrest, 2013; University of Windsor, n.d.; Coker et al., 2011; Green Dot etc., 2010; Sexual Assault Support Centre at the University of British Columbia, n.d.; Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, n.d.). Grassroots and community-directed efforts such as the It’s Time to End Violence Against Women on Campus Project have also made strides toward addressing and preventing campus sexual assault (Sexual Assault Centre of Hamilton & Area & YWCA Hamilton, 2014).
Over the last twenty years, the public—through the federal government—has spent an increasing amount of money on student financial aid and education-related financial incentives. Driven by rising tuition and ancillary fees (coupled with stagnant middle-income earnings), the cost of pursuing post-secondary education has led an increasing number of low- and middle-income Canadians to rely on these programs. Each developed separately and at different times, the Canada Student Loans Program (CSLP), Canada Student Grants Program (CSGP), Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP), and education-related tax credits (Education and Tuition Fee Tax Credits [TFTC] and Student Loan Interest Credits [SLIC]) now cost the public over $4.2 billion each year, with an additional $2.5 billion given out in loans.
The Canadian Graduate and Professional Student Survey (CGPSS) is a national survey that was completed
by over 51,000 students across 48 universities in 2013. This comprehensive survey includes questions covering a broad array of topics including students’ satisfaction with their departments, programs and advisors, availability of funding, use and quality of university services, and satisfaction with professional development supports (CAGS, 2010). This report uses data and
opinions collected from graduate students through the CGPSS in an effort to contribute to the conversation on graduate student education in Canada.
Both the higher education sector and the healthcare sector require people who do not identify with a formal role of leader to engage in leadership. In both sectors, leadership must be exercised on a continuous basis. Leadership development in higher education is influenced by an increase in managerial control, market competition, organisational restructuring and government scrutiny. Tensions between the need to meet requirements of industry versus academic requirements will continue as long as universities face these dual challenges in a competitive global economy. Universities are expected to be efficient and cost effective, flexible in their offerings, while being increasingly responsive to student expectations and needs. These tensions have resulted in some resentment from academic staff members who perceive that their autonomy is being reduced. This chapter presents current debates about leadership with a particular focus on higher education and leadership development of academic staff. Academic leadership is understood to incorporate the core academic functions of teaching/learning, and research and scholarship together with a broader focus on academic values and identity. The changing nature of this sector provides a background for current thinking about academic leadership. This chapter will draw on a recent case study from the healthcare sector which we argue contributes to the thinking on leadership not only
in the healthcare sector, but also in higher education context. The chapter concludes with key messages for academic staff making a case for building capacity of leaders in education at all levels.
The government of Ontario has signalled the need for Ontario’s publicly funded universities to seek additional productivity gains while sustaining access and quality in light of fiscal constraints. It has identified differentiation as a key policy driver to achieve these goals.
Implementation of these provincial directions likely involves consideration of how universities deploy their faculty to meet their differentiated teaching and research mandates. In fact, a preliminary examination by HEQCO of productivity in the Ontario public postsecondary system suggested that how universities deploy their faculty resources may be one of the most promising opportunities for universities to increase their productivity (HEQCO, 2012).
In 1999, GLSEN identified that little was known about the school experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth and that LGBT youth were nearly absent from national studies of adolescents. We responded to this national need for data by launching the first National School Climate survey, and we continue to meet this continued need for current data by conducting the study every two years. Since then, the biennial National School Climate Survey has documented the unique challenges LGBT students face and identified interventions that can improve school climate. The survey documents the prevalence of anti-LGBT language and victimization, such as experiences of harassment and assault in school. In addition, the survey examines school policies and practices that may contribute to negative experiences for LGBT students and make them feel as if they are not valued by their school communities. The survey also explores the effects that a hostile school climate may have on LGBT students’ educational outcomes and well-being. Finally, the survey reports on the availability and the utility of LGBT-related school resources and supports that may offset the negative effects of a hostile school climate and promote a positive learning experience. In addition to collecting this critical data every two years, we also add and adapt survey questions to respond to the changing world for LGBT youth. For example, in the 2013 survey we added a question about hearing negative remarks about transgender people (e.g., “tranny”). The National School Climate Survey remains one of the few studies to examine the school experiences of LGBT students nationally, and its results have been vital to GLSEN’s understanding
of the issues that LGBT students face, thereby informing our ongoing work to ensure safe and
affirming schools for all.
In our 2013 survey, we examine the experiences of LGBT students with regard to indicators of negative school climate:
Attraction and retention of apprentices and completion of apprenticeships are issues of concern to all stakeholders involved in training, economic development and workforce planning. The Canadian Apprenticeship Forum (CAF) has forecast that by 2017 there will be a need to train 316,000 workers to replace the retiring workforce in the construction industry alone (CAF, 2011a). In the automotive sector, shortages are expected to reach between 43,700 and 77,150 by 2021. However, shortages are already widespread across the sector, and CAF survey data show that almost half (48.1%) of employers reported that there was a limited number of qualified staff in 2011 (CAF, 2011a). Given this, retention of qualified individuals in apprenticeship training and supporting them through to completion is a serious issue. There is some indication that registration in apprenticeship programs has been increasing steadily over the past few years, but the number of apprentices completing their program has not kept pace (Kallio, 2013; Laporte & Mueller, 2011). Increasing the number of completions would result in a net benefit to both apprentices and employers, minimizing joblessness and skills shortages.
Background/Context:Policy discussions in the U.S. and abroad have become increasingly studded with reference to the results of international tests like PISA. Unlike most assessments, PISA is not designed to measure whether students have mastered a particular school curriculum but rather provide a measure of students ability to meet future challenges irrespective of where in the world they live. Though growing in influence, the concept of a contextless form of accountability has an important antecedent in the history of American education: the Tests of General Educational Development (GED), which were developed in the 1940s to assist the transition of American World War II servicemen and women.
In the minds of students and the general public, the primary activity of a university is the pursuit of learning: a place where teachers teach, and students learn. It seems obvious that the core mission of the university is the transmission of knowledge, and in the popular imagination, simply placing bright eager minds in close proximity to leading professors will enable this alchemical process to happen. However, the reality of the practice and place of learning in today’s university is much more complicated.
In July 2016, the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) published Understanding the
Sustainability of the Ontario Postsecondary System and its Institutions: A Framework (Weingarten,
Hicks & Moran, 2016). The key messages of the report were:
1. Sustainability is about more than just money. It also relates to the quality of education and the academic experience institutions can offer.
2. The best sustainability regimes are those that look forward and are designed to predict future challenges.
3. Overcoming sustainability challenges requires collaboration between government and institutions.
The tools available are inextricably linked to other policies and practices, such as
enrolment planning, tuition policy, funding formulas, differentiation and institutional autonomy.
The need for a reliable strategic planning framework for distance educators and their institutions has never been greater than it is now. Increased government regulations, accreditation standards, and competition are converging with decreased funding from federal, state, and private sources, and administrators require better strategic planning. A strategic planning model known as the Balanced Scorecard has met with widespread adoption and sweeping success among the business community, but, surprisingly, has not been widely adopted among institutions of higher and distance education. In this article the authors share what they have learned about this strategic planning model through a review of the available literature and their own early efforts to introduce it to their institution, the Division of Continuing Education at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.
In Canada, the term “visible minority” is used to define one of four designated groups under the Employment Equity Act. The purpose of the act is to achieve workplace equality and to correct employment disadvantages affecting women, Aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities, and visible minorities. Within this context, visible minorities are defined as “persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour.”