The aim of this paper is to develop and extend a social realist critique of competency based training (CBT). Its key argument is that knowledge must be placed at the centre of curriculum, and that because CBT does not do this, it excludes working class students from access to powerful knowledge. Developing this argument reveals that constructivist critiques of CBT not only miss the point, they are part of the problem. The paper argues that this is because the relationship between constructivism and instrumentalism structured the development of CBT in the vocational education and training (VET) sector in Australia, even though they are distinct theoretical approaches to curriculum. Constructivist discourses were appropriated and reworked through the prism of instrumentalism, thereby contributing to the justification and legitimation of CBT, but also to its continuing theorisation and development. The basis for the appropriation of constructivism by CBT is that both emphasise the contextual, situated and problem-oriented nature of knowledge creation and learning and in so doing, sacrifice the complexity and depth of theoretical knowledge in curriculum in favour of ‘authentic’ learning in the workplace. Consequently, in developing its critique of CBT and the instrumentalist learning theories that underpin it, constructivism misses the main point, which is that theoretical knowledge must be placed at the centre of curriculum in all sectors of education, and that access to knowledge is the raison d’être of education (Young 2008).
As at June 2009, ten technical and further education (TAFE) institutes in Australia are able to offer degree qualifications. The presence of such ‘mixed sector’ institutions is relatively recent in Australia, the consequence being that we do not yet know a great deal about this type of higher education or about how it may be reshaping boundaries in the tertiary education sector. This project sought to capture different perspectives about the nature of this provision.
This report is the culmination of desktop research and interviews with staff from state offices of higher education, senior managers at dual-sector universities, TAFE institutes that offer higher education and some that do not, and teachers and students across six states. It also considers several implications arising from the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education (2008).
This report is part of a wider three-year program of research, ‘Vocations: the link between post-compulsory education and the labour market’, which is investigating the educational and occupational paths that people take and how their study relates to their work. It is specifically interested in exploring the transitions that students make in undertaking a second qualification (that is, whether they change field of education and/or move between the VET and higher education sectors). It also looks at the reasons why they decide to undertake another qualification.
The authors use a combination of data from the 2009 Australian Bureau of Statistics Survey of Education and Training and interviews with students and graduates, as well as managers, careers advisors, learning advisors, teachers and academics, to examine these transitions. The finance, primary, health and electrical trades/engineering industries are used as case studies.
You have picked up this book for a reason! Perhaps this is required reading for a course you are taking or teaching in a post-secondary or continuing education context. Or you may be an instructor, learner, or leader (formal or informal) in another work and learning context— someone who facilitates the learning of adults—and you seek a deeper understanding as to how adults learn.
You may be a nurse, social worker, teacher, instructor at a community or vocational college, community worker, human resource consultant, training and development specialist, sports coach, career counsellor, or art teacher at a community recreation centre. Regardless of how we identify and where we are located, we assume, unless we are working in complete isolation, that our work and learning involves being with other adults and engaging in ongoing, formal professional development
or informal learning activities. If any of these roles or contexts resonates with you, what you are interested in, or what you hope to do in the future, we invite you to partic- ipate in a conversation—a dialogue—as we reflect, make meaning of, and navigate our individual and collective pathways as lifelong adult learners.
America’s community colleges have adaptation and change in our DNA. As the youngest upstarts of the higher education family, we cling to our self-concept as agile responders to the learning needs of our students and communities. Particularly at the student level, our colleges have extraordinary track records as agents of change. The learning we make possible expands our students’ social and economic prospects. It transforms them psychologically, behaviorally, and even physically, modifying the basic anatomy of their brains. The deep changes and growth that students undergo during their time with us are the double helix of our community college genetic code and our inspiration for this work.
In recent years, the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) has launched several studies that analyze and conceptualize the differentiation of the Ontario postsecondary education system (Weingarten & Deller, 2010; Hicks, Weingarten, Jonker & Liu, 2013; Weingarten, Hicks, Jonker & Liu, 2013). Similarly, in the summer of 2012, the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU) initiated several projects to identify ways to drive innovation and improve the productivity of the postsecondary sector.
An independent arbitrator will soon hear a case at Queen’s University that raises serious questions about protection of faculty who allege colleagues’ academic misconduct.
The university’s office of the provost has found Professor Morteza Shirkhanzadeh guilty of workplace harassment in a dispute that dates back a decade. As a result, he is banned from entering three university buildings and communicating with certain administrators, professors and the board of trustees.
Since their creation in 1965, Ontario’s colleges have played a pivotal role in providing PSE opportunities to all residents (Rae, 2005). Often located in smaller and more geographically dispersed communities than Ontario’s universities, colleges were intended to be more responsive to and reflective of these communities (Canadian Council on Learning, 2010) and to work closely with business and labour sectors to ensure programming that produced employment-ready graduates (Rae, 2005).
This Signature Report focuses on the six-year outcomes for students who began postsecondary education in fall 2009. These students were part of the surge of increased enrollments that accompanied the Great Recession, arriving on campus at a time when institutions were already dealing with reduced public budget support (Barr & Turner, 2013; Mangan, 2009). One result was that institutions were forced to increase tuition just as students and their families found themselves with diminished financial resources, leading to questions about growing levels of student debt and whether this might affect rates of degree completion (Long, 2013).
This report explores the use of social capital theory in understanding educational advantage/disadvantage from a public policy development perspective. We undertake a detailed review and critique of the key ‘strands’ of social capital theory, contextualising these in an analysis of applied social capital theory in a public policy and a development environment. Finally, we use our modified understanding of the theory to explore the social capital of business and IT students in higher education and vocational education and technology (VET) in Victoria.
It’s been a decade since Bob Rae issued his “Leader in Learning” report on higher education in Ontario. His diagnosis of the post-secondary landscape in 2005 was blunt, even discouraging.
“We have a large, mature system without a sufficiently clear sense of purpose and without enough money to do the job,” he wrote. He went on to observe that the system’s efforts were diffuse, even inefficient in the way it used funding.
National training packages have become the mandated framework for course delivery in Australia’s vocational education and training sector. Each training package contains: qualifications that can be issued, industry-derive d competencies , and assessment guidelines but do not contain an endorsed curriculum component or learning outcomes. All public and private vocational education and training providers must use training packages, or industryendorsed competencies in cases where they do not exist, if they are to receive public funding for their programs. This article describes the operation of Australia’s national training packages and considers some of their strengths and weaknesses, many of which may be shared by similar
systems elsewhere. Argues that training packages may result in poorer student learning outcomes, and that they may threaten the end of effective credit transfer between the vocational education and training and higher education sectors. Suggests that national training packages are not a good model for other countries and that Australia’s current vocational education and training policy needs to be reviewed.
Colleges and institutes play a lead role in strengthening regional capacity to innovate and work with industry partners to enhance competitiveness in the sectors and communities they serve. They conduct leading-edge applied research projects with industry partners to provide market ready solutions.
Whether it’s the creation of a rapid oil containment cling pad to clean up small scale oil or fuel spills, the development of intelligent textiles to meet consumer specific needs, or building award winning cutting edge web technology, colleges and institutes help small- and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) innovate and grow by focusing on improvements in technologies, processes, products and services.
The Government of Canada’s Tri-Council College and Community Innovation (CCI) Program administered by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council in collaboration with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research is making a real difference in growing the capacity of colleges and institutes to engage in industry-driven applied research and providing SMEs with the expertise required to be more innovative and productive.
The ability of postsecondary students to write and communicate proficiently is an expectation identified by many, including not only organizations such as the OECD but also other public and employer groups. There is concern, however, that students and thus employees often fail to meet expectations in these areas. To address this concern, it is necessary to understand more about the writing skills that students learn during their postsecondary education. This research project was designed to examine whether and how students are taught to write at university.
York University is partnering with the Government of Ontario to conduct leading-edge research with the potential to transform educational programming and inform targeted approaches to addressing the needs of students. This research will take the form of a feasibility study into collecting additional province-wide data to further inform understanding of student populations and school communities, as well as address the principles outlined in the Ontario Ministry of Education’s Achieving Excellence: A Renewed Vision for Education in Ontario.
Over the last 30 years, Canadians have watched with concern as voting rates among younger people have declined, with the result that in the 2011 federal election, the majority of young people opted not to cast a vote. The low voting rate among younger Canadians is often viewed as evidence that young people today are more apathetic or lazy than any other generation before. Samara's latest research “Message Not Delivered” debunks these myths. Check out this infographic of the main findings.
Recently University Affairs published an interview with Kevin Haggerty and Aaron Doyle, two Canadian professors who have written a book of advice for graduate students. The book’s gimmick, if you want to call it that, is that it’s presented as a guide to failing—an anti-guide, perhaps?
—as evidenced by the title, 57 Ways to Screw up in Grad School: Perverse Professional Lessons for Graduate Students. According to Haggerty and Doyle, “students often make a series of predictable missteps that they could easily avoid if they only knew the informal rules and expectations of graduate school.” If only! And this book, we’re told, is designed to help solve that problem.
The labour force participation rate of 15- to 24-year-olds (the percentage who are employed or seeking employment) declined from 67.3% in 2008 to 64.2% in 2014, reflecting a 3.8-percentage- point drop from 2008 to 2012 followed by a slight increase (Chart 1). The decline was particularly pronounced among youth aged 15 to 19, whose participation rate fell 6.2 percentage points to 49.8% in 2014.
Public schools in the United States are almost as racially isolated today as they were 30 years ago and the majority of schools practice ability group-ing or academic tracking in ways that correlate with students’ race and socioeconomic status (SES). The articles in this set of special issues exam-ine these two organizational characteristics of schools and answer key questions: Does the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic mix of a classroom or a school make a difference for the educational processes that take place in them? If composition is related to student outcomes, is the return to pre-1980 levels of racial isolation germane to either educational policy or practice?
There are tens of thousands of options right now with the types of digital “things” of learning – Apps, websites, immersive-environment digital courseware, eBooks, eTextbooks, assessments, projectware, loose content pieces in PDFs or word documents, games, and more are arriving in schools. What’s going on inside the things of digital content and curriculum
has not been defined, and so we’ve set out to do that here in this Special Report. We expect that we’ll hear arguments, some exclamations of delight, confusions, and to have missed some important items.