Assessment is a very complex topic. As this essay articulates, it is meant to monitor or to measure what students have learnt. For validity and reliability, and to minimise subjectivity, standardised tests are often adopted and marks are awarded, followed by a process in which test scores are converted into grades. The grades are then recognised as measures of students’ learning attainment. But what assessment actually means is seldom articulated. Is it a measure of the body of knowledge that a student has acquired, or is it also a measure of other attributes?
The Council of Europe (since the mid-1960s), the European Commission (since the late 1980s) and many European states and civil society organisations (in the aftermath of the Second World War) have long fostered programmes and strategies to enhance the mobility of young people.
The prevailing notion of such programmes is that the process of economic and political integration in Europe will indeed remain fragmentary and unstable without accompanying social and educational measures. Instead of a Europe with non-transparent
bureaucratic institutions, a “Europe of Citizens” was meant to develop wherein people would get to know each other,
appreciate their mutual cultural differences and, at the same time, form a European identity by saying “yes” to core European values. As such, mobility is considered important for the personal development of young people, contributing as it does to their employability and thus their social inclusion.
Faculty at colleges and universities across Ontario today are busy. They spend their days juggling lectures, student and faculty meetings,grading, and research in an attempt to provide students with the most broad and up-to-date education possible while at the same time furthering the research in their chosen field.
Will it always be this way?
What will a professor at a college or university be doing in 2020 and how might we understand the changed nature of their work as an opportunity?
Major Trends Impacting Open & Distance Learning
When one does trend analyses on Open & Distance Learning over a
period of time, three key factors emerge:
1. Firstly, there are as many trends as there are practitioners. The art of strategic foresight is to identify trends which are not temporary, which are not just local, and which will have sustaining impact. I have identified seven.
2. Second, that many of the trends will have limited, or no bearing on your specific educational context in the short term, but may have longer term impacts, both on the competitive educational environment in which we now all function and, hence, on
institutions.
The next new development is the dawning of the post-LMS era where both open and closed learning components and experiences will be crafted into courses to meet current and emergent student, teacher and learning needs.
The wide variety of "web 2.0" services, and especially those focused on disciplinary topics, will continue to expand. These will include open resources, web and networking sites, commercial products and institutional resources. It won't make sense for an institution to try to contain all these resources and networking opportunities within their own walled garden. Opening will allow
both students and teachers the opportunity, and the challenge, of developing their net presence and literacies.
New analysis offers more evidence against the reliability of student evaluations of teaching, at least for
their use in personnel decisions.
Study finds gender of instructors influences evaluations they receive, even if they have fooled students (in an online course) about whether they are men or women.
Handheld devices are widely applied to support open and distributed learning, where students are diverse. On the other hand, customization and personalization can be applied to accommodate students’ diversities. However, paucity of research compares the effects of customization and personalization in the context of handheld devices. To this end, a customized digital learning system (CDLS) and personalized digital learning system (PDLS) were implemented with the handheld devices and they tailored to the needs of different cognitive style groups. Furthermore, we conducted two empirical studies to examine the effects of cognitive styles on the use of the CDLS and PDLS. More specifically, Study 1 identified the preferences of each cognitive style group while Study 2 investigated how students with different cognitive styles react to the CDLS and the PDLS. The results from these two studies showed that student with the CDLS and those with the PDLS obtained similar task scores and post-test scores, regardless of their cognitive styles. However, cognitive styles affected the efficiency of completing tasks and perceptions for customization and personalization.
Keywords: customization, personalization, handheld devices, cognitive styles
On the one hand, a growing amount of research discusses support for improving online collaborative learning quality, and many indicators are focused to assess its success. On the other hand, thinkLets for designing reputable and valuable collaborative processes have been developed for more than ten years. However, few studies try to apply thinkLets to online collaborative learning. This paper introduces thinkLets to online collaborative learning and experimentally tests its ffectiveness with participants' responses on their satisfaction. Yield Shift Theory (YST), a causal theory explaining inner satisfaction, is adopted. In the experiment, 113 students from Universities in Beijing, China are chosen as a sample. They were divided into two groups, collaborating online in a simulated class. Then, YST in student groups under online collaborative learning is validated, a comparison study of online collaborative learning with and without thinkLets is implemented, and the satisfaction response of participants are analyzed. As a result of this comparison, YST is proved applicable in this context, and satisfaction is higher in
online collaborative learning with thinkLets.
This study aimed to investigate the effect of two different teaching methods on learning achievement and teacher-student interaction.
TheEffective Classroom Interactions (ECI) online courses were designed to provide an engaging, effective and scalable approach to enhancing early childhood teachers’ use of classroom practices that impact children’s school readiness. The created courses included several versions aimed at testing whether or not certain design aspects could increase participation and subsequent learning outcomes. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which early childhood teachers accessed the courses and varied in their (a) participation in the core course content and (b) optional discussion board as a result of the course experience they were assigned to as well as individual characteristics that may be associated with participation. As might be expected, findings indicated that early childhood teachers accessed the course often on nights and weekends, even though participating centers allowed their teachers to do coursework during work time. In addition, participants reported high levels of satisfaction with their experience. Both persistence in the ECI courses and overall completion of activities were higher than those reported in other studies of online learning. The participation of early childhood educator teachers was consistently predicted by comfort with technology, credit or non-credit status and assignment to the group that included regular conferences with the instructor. These relationships, however, did not always occur in expected ways. Implications for exploring online learning as a feasible option for early childhood educators are discussed.
Students' performance in online learniong environments is associated with their readiness to adopt a digital learning approach. Traditional concept of readiness for online learning is connected with students' competencies of using technology for learning purposes. We in this research, however, investigated psychometric aspects of students' preparedness for online learning.
The purpose of this report is to present the findings from a comprehensive research study with recommendations on the following question:
“Does Ontario have the appropriate mix of credential options and opportunities in its publicly funded postsecondary system to ensure successful student and labour market outcomes that will contribute to Ontario’s economic productivity and competitiveness?”
The evaluation of the postsecondary education credential mix1 included an in-depth analysis of student outcomes, consultations with a wide range of stakeholders including students, institutions, and quality assurance bodies, as well as a consultation and review of research on employer needs.
The study also considers recent proposals for new postsecondary education credentials in Ontario, as well as global trends in higher education that focus on labour market outcomes of students. This includes a detailed scan of seven jurisdictions to further explore those trends in more detail.
This series of reports explores new forms of teaching, learning and assessment for an interactive world, to guide teachers and policy makers in productive innovation. This fourth report proposes ten innovations that are already in currency and are having an increasing effect on education. To produce it, a group of academics at the Institute of Educational Technology in The Open University collaborated with researchers from the Center for Technology in Learning at SRI International. We proposed a long list
of new educational terms, theories, and practices. We then pared these down to ten that have the potential to provoke major shifts in educational practice, particularly in post-school education. Lastly, we drew on published and unpublished writings
to compile the ten sketches of new pedagogies that might transform education. These are summarised below in an approximate order of immediacy and timescale to widespread implementation.
This report critically reviews the literature on learning styles and examines in detail 13 of the most influential models. The report concludes that it matters fundamentally which instrument is chosen. The implications for teaching and learning in post-16 learning
are serious and should be of concern to learners, teachers and trainers, managers, researchers and inspectors.
The OECD’s Brain and Learning project (2002) emphasized that many misconceptions about the brain exist among professionals in the field of education. Though these so-called “neuromyths” are loosely based on scientific facts, they may have adverse effects on educational practice. The present study investigated the prevalence and predictors of neu-romyths among teachers in selected regions in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. A large observational survey design was used to assess general knowledge of the brain and neuromyths. The sample comprised 242 primary and secondary school teachers who were interested in the neuroscience of learning. It would be of concern if neuromyths were found in this sample, as these teachers may want to use these incorrect interpreta-tions of neuroscience findings in their teaching practice. Participants completed an online survey containing 32 statements about the brain and its influence on learning, of which 15 were neuromyths. Additional data was collected regarding background variables (e.g., age, sex, school type). Results showed that on average, teachers believed 49% of the neuromyths, particularly myths related to commercialized educational programs. Around 70% of the general knowledge statements were answered correctly. Teachers who read popular science magazines achieved higher scores on general knowledge questions. More general knowledge also predicted an increased belief in neuromyths. These findings sug-gest that teachers who are enthusiastic about the possible application of neuroscience findings in the classroom find it difficult to distinguish pseudoscience from scientific facts. Possessing greater general knowledge about the brain does not appear to protect teachers from believing in neuromyths. This demonstrates the need for enhanced interdisciplinary communication to reduce such misunderstandings in the future and establish a successful collaboration between neuroscience and education.
The existence of ‘Learning Styles’ is a common ‘neuromyth’, and their use in all forms of education has been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited in the research literature. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that their use remains widespread.
This perspective article is an attempt to understand if and why the myth of Learning Styles persists. I have done this by analyzing the current research literature to capture the picture that an educator would encounter were they to search for “Learning Styles” with the intent of determining whether the research evidence supported their use. The overwhelming majority (89%) of recent research papers, listed in the ERIC and PubMed research databases, implicitly or directly endorse the use of Learning Styles in Higher Education. These papers are dominated by the VAK and Kolb Learning Styles inventories. These presence of these papers in the pedagogical literature demonstrates that an educator, attempting to take an evidence-based approach to education, would be presented with a strong yet misleading message that the use of Learning Styles is endorsed by the current research literature. This has potentially negative consequences for students and for the field of education research.
SUMMARY—The term ‘‘learning styles’’ refers to the concept that individuals differ in regard to what mode of instruction
or study is most effective for them. Proponents of learning-style assessment contend that optimal instruction requires diagnosing individuals’ learning style and tailoring instruction accordingly. Assessments of learning style typically ask people to evaluate what sort of information presentation they prefer (e.g., words versus pictures versus speech) and/or what kind of mental activity they find most engaging or congenial (e.g., analysis versus listening), although assessment instruments are extremely diverse. The most common—but not the only—hypothesis about the instructional relevance of learning styles is the
meshing hypothesis, according to which instruction is best provided in a format that matches the preferences of the
learner (e.g., for a ‘‘visual learner,’’ emphasizing visual presentation of information).
Most graduate research degrees culminate in a thesis. Thesis students require supervisors. There are few relationships more important to these students than their relationship with their supervisor. The centrality of this relationship requires that it be entered into and maintained with great care. It is incumbent on the University to do everything possible to provide guidance in how to maximize the likelihood of excellent supervision. The School of Graduate Studies (SGS) is charged with the responsibility of providing that guidance for the University graduate community. The previous version of this document is now 10 years old. It is time for the update that follows.
Graduate studies at OISE occur within Division II of the University’s School of Graduate Studies (SGS). Thus, graduate degrees are granted by the University of Toronto and their requirements derive from University of Toronto policy. As indicated in the OISE Bulletin:
A major requirement for the M.A., M.Ed. (Option III), Ph.D., or Ed.D. degree is the development and presentation of a thesis embodying the results of original investigation, conducted by the student, on an approved topic in her/his major subject. The thesis will constitute a contribution to the knowledge of the field and should be appropriate in scope and significance to the degree which the student is seeking.