A society’s aging, or its age distribution, is normally viewed from the perspective of the number of years since birth. In this E-Brief, however, we propose an alternative: measuring age according to the number of years remaining in life.
Taking increases in longevity into account, a 35-year-old Canadian had a remaining life expectancy of 38.6 years in 1950, but 46.8 years in 2010, a difference of 8.2 years. Viewed so, the Canadian population is not getting older in the traditional sense, but “younger,” because many workers are approaching retirement age more able, and willing, to work longer than were previous
generations of Canadians.
Because many older Canadians are already deciding to retire later than the arbitrary age of 65, public policy should aim to provide Canadians with the instruments to better manage retirement decisions.
Population aging: those two words, it seems, inspire fears of different kinds. The number of retirees per active worker is steadily climbing. The problems this could engender are rather obvious: absent a significant increase in productivity, GDP growth is bound to slow down, which would exacerbate the growing stress on public finances, in particular through health expenditures.
Interest in adult college completion, both for adults with some college credit and those who have never before attended college, has dramatically increased across the higher education community. This report draws from the considerable body of recent research focused on various populations of adult learners, including data gathered during Higher Ed Insight's recent evaluation of Lumina Foundation's adult college completion efforts. The goal of the report is to synthesize what has been learned about the needs of adult college students, particularly those returning to college after stopping out, as well as to identify areas where further inquiry is needed in order to demonstrate effective ways to support degree completion for adults.
In February 2014, Getting Smart and Fuel Education™ (FuelEd™) came together to release Fueling a Personalized
Learning Revolution in Secondary Education. The paper highlighted how personalized, blended learning can improve access to high-quality learning opportunities by focusing on various experiences of high school students in districts across the country.
Our first paper contended that the ultimate goal of blended learning is to create opportunities for student learning to be personalized along unique pathways. We described the way in which personalization revolutionizes how students learn and teachers teach in schools and districts across the country. Benefits include increased engagement as a result of powerful learning experiences, access to tools that support quality work products, and choices in learning opportunities beyond the traditional school day. This personalized approach provides students ownership of the learning experience, flexibility in path, and opportunities to progress at an individual pace.
In this follow-up paper, we shift our focus from individual classrooms and courses to explore the question of scale. Specifically, we were interested in learning how schools and districts successfully scale online and blended programs so that a growing number of students have access to the potential of personalized learning.
In 2008-09, Lakehead University undertook a study to examine the effectiveness of its Gateway program, an academic intervention program offered to a select population of incoming students. The Gateway program at Lakehead is designed for students who exhibit academic potential but who do not meet the traditional entrance requirements of the university at the time of application. The program not only provides access to a university education but also provides support for success. The
intentional and holistic programming provided to students admitted through the Gateway program includes special academic support programming and mandatory academic advising.
A diploma mill, also known as a degree mill, is a phony university that sells college diplomas and transcripts—the actual pieces of paper—rather than the educational experience. Diploma mills are scam colleges that literally crank out fake diplomas to
anyone who pays the requested "tuition."
Diploma mills often promise a fast college degree based on "life experience."
The Get Educated online education team has prepared these Top 10 Signs of an Online College Degree Mill to help students protect themselves from this popular online scam.
I am a relative newcomer to contract instructing, having moved to Ontario from Saskatchewan in 2010, for family reasons related to health care for my younger son, who is a special-needs child. We moved from Saskatchewan because we were unable to get the health care we needed for him. My wife and I had a unique position at the University of Saskatchewan. We had a job share; she was on the tenure- track in Physics, and I was the teaching sidekick. This suited me, as I came late to university level teaching, working first as a research scientist in universities and then as a scientific computer programmer in the private sector. I did not have the conventional career trajectory of an academic employed in a tenured position at a university. We
moved to Ontario without having jobs to move into, but I was fortunate to be able to find work immediately at Carleton University as a laboratory supervisor. I was then offered contract instructor positions, and moved to teaching five one-semester Introductory Physics courses during the course of the year. To put this in perspective, this is the teaching load expected of a
full-time Instructor/Lecturer position, as defined in the Carleton faculty collective agreement. It would be extremely difficult to teach more than two of these courses in parallel—the workload would then be 50-60 hours per week. With my special-needs childcare commitments, this would be impossible. Nor would it be possible for me to take on a tenure-track position. The hours of work typically required to develop, fund, and launch a research program were more than I could actually devote to it. My ambition is more modest: to obtain a full-time instructor position and be able to develop better pedagogy for the teaching
of physics at the university level.
International students are increasingly regarded as ‘ideal‘, ‘model‘ or ’designer‘ immigrants for the labour markets of their host countries. Young, educated, and equipped with host country credentials and experiences, international students are
presumed to mitigate future talent shortages, especially in technical occupations in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). In an effort to retain more inter- national students for their domestic workforce, many host countries have passed legislation to improve post- study work and residency options for the ‘educational nomads’. However, despite these reforms and a high willingness to stay, many international students fail to find adequate employment. For example in Germany, 30 percent of former international students are still searching for a job more than one year aftergraduation.
The number of students interested in studying abroad is at a record high, with more than 4.5 million students being globally mobile in 20141 and many more looking to follow in their footsteps. For these students, making an informed choice regarding what and where they would like to study is a complex, lengthy process, and inconsistencies and differences in how universities choose to communicate information about their programs is a significant barrier.
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.
Imagine meeting your English professor by the trunk of her car for office hours, where she doles out information like a taco vendor in a food truck. Or getting an e-mail error message when you write your former biology professor asking for a recommendation because she is no longer employed at the same college. Or attending an afternoon lecture in which your anthropology professor seems a little distracted because he doesn't have enough money for bus fare. This is an increasingly widespread reality of college education.
In a recent Center for Digital Education (CDE) survey, 74 percent of responding higher education decision- makers said improving student retention and graduation rates is the top goal of their college or institution. The ability to retain and promote students not only influences college rankings, reputation and recruitment of top talent, but also impacts the bottom line. Enrolled students provide a steady revenue stream via tuition and other purchases (e.g., books, parking passes and food services). Student retention also allows recruitment dollars to go further by decreasing the need to continually replace students who have dropped out.
This report presents the findings of a research project undertaken at OCAD University (OCAD U) from 2013 to 2014 examining the implementation of a cross-disciplinary collaborative course design process. While there is some research that investigates collaborative course design, especially in the development of courses for online and hybrid delivery, there is little research to date that investigates cross-disciplinary collaborative course design, in which faculty members from different disciplines come together to combine their expertise to create more robust resources for student learning. The research was undertaken in the development of professional practice courses offered in the Winter 2014 term to students enrolled in the Faculty of Design. Online learning modules were developed by faculty members from across multiple disciplines for delivery on the Canvas learning management system (LMS) in studio-based courses. Collaboration between faculty members was led and facilitated by an instructional support team with expertise in hybrid and fully online learning from OCAD U’s Faculty & Curriculum Development Centre.
Among faculty, student evaluations of teaching (SET) are a source of pride and satisfaction—and frustration and anxiety. High-stakes decisions including tenure and promotions rely on SET. Yet it is widely believed that they are primarily a popularity contest; that it’s easy to “game” ratings; that good teachers get bad ratings and vice versa; and that rating anxiety stifles pedagogical innovation and encourages faculty to water down course content. What’s the truth?
Ontario’s 20 publicly assisted universities offer graduate and undergraduate degree programs in a wide variety of fields. In 2010/11, these universities enrolled the equivalent of about 390,000 full-time students, excluding about 44,000 foreign and other students taking courses not eligible for provincial assistance. These universities employed approximately 15,000 full-time faculty members. Faculty include tenure-stream staff, who have both teach- ing and research responsibilities; teaching staff, who
generally have no research responsibilities; and part-time sessional instructors, who are under contract to teach one or more courses.
Most Ontario universities were established or continued by acts of the provincial legislature that set up their governing structures. University governance is often a shared responsibility between the Board and the Senate. The Board is generally responsible for the university’s corporate side, including management of property, revenues, expenditures and other business affairs. The Sen- ate is responsible for academic matters such as determining the courses of study, setting admission
standards, and awarding diplomas and degrees.
Years ago, the process of faculty evaluation carried few or none of the sudden-death implications that characterize contemporary evaluation practices. But now, as the few to be chosen for promotion and tenure become fewer and faculty
mobility decreases, the decision to promote or grant tenure can have an enormous impact on a professor’s career. At the same time, academic administrators are under growing pressure to render sound decisions in the face of higher operating costs, funding shortfalls, and the mounting threat posed by giant corporations that have moved into higher education. Worsening economic conditions have focused sharper attention on evaluation of faculty performance, with the result that faculty members are assessed through formalized, systematic methods.
The retirement patterns of senior faculty are an issue of ongoing interest in higher education, particularly since the 2008-09 recession. If a significant share of tenured faculty works past “normal” retirement age, challenges can arise for institutional leadership focused on keeping the faculty workforce dynamic for purposes of teaching, research and service. Buyout packages and phased retirement programs have been common responses to encourage faculty retirement, but colleges and universities are increasingly interested in alternative and complementary strategies to manage faculty retirement patterns.
Tenured faculty age 50 or older can divided into three groups—35% expect to retire by normal retirement age; 16% would prefer to retire by normal retirement age, but expect to work longer (i.e., they are “reluctantly reluctant” to retire); and 49% would like to and expect to work past normal retirement age (i.e., they are “reluctant by choice”). The key drivers differ between those reluctantly reluctant and those reluctant by choice.
About a third of tenured faculty age 50 or older expect to retire by “normal” retirement age,1 while fully two-thirds anticipate working past that age or have already done so. This latter group is sometimes called “reluctant retirees,” and when their numbers swell on campus, it can lead to productivity declines, limited advancement opportunities for junior faculty, a lack
of openings for new hires, and difficulty reallocating institutional resources. To address a reluctant retiree pheno- menon and better manage faculty retirement patterns, college and university leaders need to understand the thought process among senior faculty regarding whether and when to retire.
Premier McGuinty appointed the Honourable Bob Rae as Advisor to the Premier and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. With the support of a seven-member Advisory Panel, Mr. Rae was asked to advise on strategies to improve higher education by providing recommendations on: • the design of a publicly funded postsecondary system offering services in both
official languages that promotes: – recognized excellence in curricular activities to build the skilled workforce
and promising scholars of the future; – an integrated and articulated system that meets the diverse learning needs
of Ontarians through the most cost-effective design; • funding model(s) that: – link provincial funding to government objectives for postsecondary education, including the objectives of better workers for better jobs in an innovative economy and an accessible, affordable and quality system;
– establish an appropriate sharing of the costs of postsecondary education among the government, students and the private sector;
– identify an effective student assistance program that promotes increased access to postsecondary education.
Analyses of the 49th annual administration of the CIRP Freshman Survey find substantive variation across levels of institutional selectivity and control in students’ intentions to transfer. Students also increasingly place greater importance on early admissions programs in the college search process, perhaps signaling a new strategy for those attempting to enroll in the most selective institutions. As the Obama administration finalizes its plans to measure performance outcomes for colleges and universities, more freshmen appear to be aspiring to graduate degrees.
In the past few decades, those of us working in institutions of higher education have seen an instructional paradigm shift. Given the growth in research on learning, our views of how people learn best have developed over the last few decades; from behaviorist perspectives of learning, we have also come to understand learning from cognitive and social perspectives. (For a more in-depth discussion of these issues, see Barkley, Major, and Cross, 2014, as well as articles in this special issue). This development has caused higher education instructors to modify their instructional practices as a result. Many instructors have moved away from a sole diet of traditional lecture, with the occasional short-answer question to the class in which students listen, repeat, and occasionally apply, toward a modified menu of pedagogical platforms in which, much of the time, students are active participants in the learning process. Higher education faculty, then, have gone about this task of engaging students actively in learning in a number of important ways by adopting a range of instructional approaches.