As Canadian businesses look for new ways to empower workplace learning to meet demands to achieve more while having fewer resources available for training and development, interest in delivering programs using different kinds of instructional pproaches (e.g., face-to-face, problem-based learning, coaching) combined with a variety of technologies (e.g. discussion boards, e-content, conference calls) – generally referred to as blended learning – is growing. These blended learning strategies can be designed to provide opportunities for supporting just-in-time (i.e., immediate) access to learning tools and supports anywhere, anytime - especially important when the objective is to improve performance on the job. Generally, research in this area has focused on comparisons of classroom versus online courses versus blended programs indicating blended programs out-deliver either online or classroom when used alone. However, analysis of the impact of different blended learning strategies on personal soft-skills (e.g., coaching, teamwork, critical thinking) development and job performance has not been given much attention. The focus of this research study was to compare the learning impact/outcomes of four different blended learning strategies (offered in parallel in each of four research groups) based on a theoretical model emerging from work reported by Adams (2004). Each level in the model was defined by a different blended learning strategy that moves from a very loose coupling of personal learning with job performance in level 1 (e.g., online learning used as a background resource for self-directed learning), to tighter and tighter couplings of learning with job performance in level 2 (e.g., online materials integrated with a structured classroom course and required as pre-and post work) and level 3 where online learning materials were integrated with personal learning objectives and blended with collaborative discussion forums and peer coaching. Level 4, defined in this model as a very tight coupling of personal learning with job performance in relation to the previous three blended learning strategies mentioned involved using online learning materials to support personal job-based projects where participants worked on the projects as part of their learning (i.e., an action-learning pedagogical approach) where a demonstrable return on learning (ROL) was measured.
International Students in Canada 2018
Current discussions about literacy often focus on how economic changes are raising expectations for literacy achievement. The emergence of a so-called knowledge economy or learning economy requires more people to do more things with print. Less attention has been given, however, to how the pressure to produce more literacy affects the contexts in which literacy
learning takes place. This article looks at the literacy learning experience of an autoworker turned union representative, a blind computer programmer, two bilingual autodidacts, and a former southern sharecropper raising children in a high-tech university town. It uses the concept of the literacy sponsor to explore their access to learning and their responses to economic and
technological change. Their experiences point to some directions for incorporating economic history into thinking about cultural diversity and for using resources in school to addresseconomic turbulence and inequality beyond the school.
This study examines the use of social media/social networking sites and its relationship to academic outcomes in the context of community colleges.
Executive Summary
Centrality of language proficiency in academic achievement
Proficiency in language is recognized as an essential component of student success at Ontario‟s colleges and in the provincial workplace.
Research indicates that postsecondary underachievement, failure, and attrition are highly
correlated with academic under-preparedness, especially with respect to deficits in language
proficiency.
Contemporary college students in Ontario do not represent a homogeneous population; rather, they
exhibit a wide range of abilities and needs related to language proficiency. Additionally, an
increasing percentage of Ontario college students have second language challenges.
The identification of students who are at-risk of not successfully completing their programs due to
deficits in language proficiency, and the provision of timely and appropriate remediation where
necessary, represent critical priorities in supporting
student success.
The primary objectives of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program (PCEIP) are to develop and maintain a set of statistics that provide information about education and learning in Canada and to support evidence-based policy making. PCEIP has been doing this since publishing its first set of education indicators for Canada and its jurisdictions in 1996. In September 2009, a set of international indicators was introduced in the first edition of Education Indicators in Canada: An International Perspective. Each year, this PCEIP series presents indicators for Canada and its provinces/territories, placing them in a broader international context. The report has been designed to complement and expand upon the information for Canada that is provided annually to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for publication in its Education at a Glance (EAG) report. The international context provided by the report supports the mission of the Canadian Education Statistics Council (CESC) to “create and commit to comprehensive and long-term strategies, plans, and programs to collect, analyze, and disseminate nationally and internationally policy-relevant and comparable statistical information.”
It is necessary and desirable to enhance student learning in higher education by integrating multiple perspectives during institutional policy reviews, yet few examples of such a process exist. This article describes an institutional assessment policy review process that used a questionnaire to elicit 269 students’ perspectives on a draft policy document. Among the key findings were a lack of focus on using assessment to inform instruction, and a lack of clarity around the purposes for assessment. Within the final policy, there seemed to be an absence of focus on assessment as supporting learning and informing instruction, although there was a significant focus on the role of assessment in measuring achievement, despite students’ emphasis on the former two characteristics. The study’s implications point to the important theoretical contributions
students offer to institutional policy reviews, and the practical challenges institutions face in providing mechanisms that facilitate engagement and reflect shifts in culture.
Background: The number of non-tenure-track faculty (NTTF), including both full-time (FT) and part-time (PT) positions, has risen to two-thirds of faculty positions across the academy. To date, most of the studies of NTTF have relied on secondary data or large-scale surveys. Few qualitative studies exist that examine the experience, working conditions, and worklife of NTTF. The study is framed by the theory advanced by Berger and Luckmann that reality is socially constructed and the broader sociological tradition of symbolic interactionism described by Blumer, Denzin, and Stryker.
The 2016 Ontario Budget made headlines for its changes to student financial aid in Ontario. By repackaging and re-focusing existing financial aid programs, the Government of Ontario has made a bold promise: that for certain low-income students in Ontario, tuition will now be “free.”
While improving access to postsecondary education is a welcome policy goal, it is important to recognize that the 2016 Budget makes no additional real public investment in university operating budgets. Our universities are already the lowest funded in Canada on a per-student basis, and this situation will continue to worsen. This will have predictable effects on the quality of education at Ontario universities. Class sizes will continue to rise without new funds to support full-time faculty hiring. The number of precariously employed professors will also grow, trapping many in insecure, unsupported positions. While the government has moved to increase access for low- income students, the worsening financial environment begs the question, “access to what?”
According to data released by Statistics Canada in 2014, the years of 2000 - 2010 have seen significant increases in large and private debt among graduating students, and skyrocketing private debt among graduates with doctoral degrees. Although the
percentage of graduates in debt appears to be decreasing overall in this decade, this is both because of the introduction of the Canada Student Grants Program (which turns a portion of student loans into non-repayable grants) and because enrollment growth has outpaced increases in student loan borrowing. Even so, those who are borrowing are taking on much higher debts,
and increasingly from private sources.
Has there ever been a worse time for faculty and university administrators? Faculty and administrators alike are under siege on multiple fronts—huge budget cuts have been made in most states with more expected, collective bargaining has come under attack in some states, and an underlying threat to tenure permeates academe. A historian might simply attribute this to a poor economy and conclude that such conflicts, cyclical in nature, will pass. But it is far from clear that this storm will subside as others have. Higher education is at a critical juncture and many legislators, donors, trustees, and tuition-payers are fed up with academe’s perceived excesses and excuses.
This morning I will speak to what we must do next to more effectively address the continuing problem of student attrition in higher education. To do so I will briefly look back on what is now a thirty-year history of research & practice on student retention and reflect on the lessons we have learned over that time. I will argue that we have yet to attend to the deeper
educational issues that ultimately shape student success in higher education. Until we do so, our efforts will always be less effective than we desire.
The 2016 Canadian National Postdoctoral Survey (the 2016 Survey) is an outcome of the collaboration between Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars (CAPS-ACSP) and the Tri-Council granting agencies (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council). The content of the 2016 survey leverages the results from two earlier National Postdoctoral Surveys1 and a CAPS-ACSP 2014 report2 developed in collaboration with Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), which highlighted the professional development needs of postdocs in the Social Sciences and Humanities.
Canada’s “skills gap” has come to dominate both headlines and policy debates. Employers and business
representatives report a growing mismatch between the skills they need in employees and those possessed by job seekers. These concerns have fostered suggestions that the postsecondary system is not graduating students with the skills required by the labour market.
But not everyone is convinced. A growing chorus of voices questions whether or not such a gap actually exists in the Canadian economy. Nor is it clear when the skills gap is discussed that commentators have the same phenomenon in mind. Some consider the skills gap problem to result from a lack of postsecondary graduates to meet the impending demand for high-skilled workers, while others see it as a problem of students graduating with the wrong credentials for the labour market. Some suggest that Canadian students have the right credentials but not the basic essential skills needed by employers. Still others suggest that
students have the right skills but lack the work experience employers demand.
On March 12, 2015, the government announced that Ontario would be moving forward with the transformation of its postsecondary education sector by launching consultations on modernizing the university funding model. The purpose of this consultation paper is to outline an engagement process and position the review within the context of the government’s
overall plan for postsecondary education. Funding universities in a more quality-driven, sustainable and transparent way is part of the government’s economic plan for Ontario.
Working with, not on behalf of students with disabilities.
The rise of online and hybrid courses at the higher education level increases the need for distance learning infrastructures to nourish online faculty preparedness and student online learning success. One part of the distance learning infrastructure is incorporating the use of educated and trained instructional designers to assist faculty in developing robust and quality online courses. Developing online courses with an instructional designer is a very laborious process, but the results can outweigh the struggles that faculty encounter when doing it on their own. The authors explain what is involved in an established sixstep
course development model for developing, reviewing, and delivering a quality online course.
Bloom's Taxonomy was created in 1956 under the leadership of educational psychologist Dr Benjamin Bloom in order to promote higher forms of thinking in education, such as analyzing and evaluating concepts, processes, procedures, and principles, rather than just remembering facts (rote learning). It is most often used when designing educational, training, and learning processes.
So much of what determines the overall success or failure of a course takes place well in advance of the first day of class. It’s the thoughtful contemplation of your vision for the course— from what you want your students to learn, to selecting the instructional activities, assign-ments, and materials that will fuel that learning, to determining how you will measure learning outcomes.
Dear Students: I think it’s time we had the talk. You know, the one couples who’ve been together for a while ometimes have to review boundaries and expectations? Your generation calls this "DTR" — short for "defining the elationship."
We definitely need to define our relationship because, first of all, it is a long-term relationship — maybe not between ou and me, specifically, but between people like you (students) and people like me (professors). And, second, it ppears to need some defining, or redefining. I used to think the boundaries and expectations were clear on both sides, but that no longer seems to be the case.