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.
Since the 1960s, there has been growing and sustained interest in small-group learning approaches at the school level and in higher education. A voluminous body of literature in this area addresses theory, research, classroom practice, and faculty development. The approaches most highly represented in the literature are cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning (PBL). In this article, the authors compare and contrast these approaches through answering questions such as the following: What are the unique features of each approach? What do the three approaches have in common? How are they similar, and how are they different?
The authors address three questions: (1) What are the foundational practices of team-based learning (TBL)? (2) What are the fundamental principles underlying TBL’s foundational practices? and (3) In what ways are TBL’s foundational practices similar to and/or different from the practices employed by problem-based learning (PBL) and cooperative learning (CL)? Most of the TBL vs. CL and PBL comparisons are organized in relation to the size of and strategies for forming groups/teams, the strategies for ensuring that students are familiar with the course content, the nature of the group/team assignments, the role of peer assessment, and the role of the instructor.
Cooperative learning is an example of how theory validated by research may be applied to instructional practice. The major theoretical base for cooperative learning is social interdependence theory. It provides clear definitions of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Hundreds of research studies have validated its basic propositions and demonstrated that cooperative learning (compared with competitive and individualistic learning) increases students’ efforts to achieve, encourages positive relationships with classmates and faculty, and improves psychological health and well being. Operational procedures have been derived from the validated theory to implement cooperative learning in university classes, including those needed to implement formal cooperative learning, informal cooperative learning, and cooperative base groups.
Faculty developers and others who specialize in research on teaching and learning recognize that much of the research is convergent. Positive teaching and learning practices do not operate in stand-alone vacuums. A savvy university teacher draws eclectically from a number of sources and resources to design coherent teaching and learning plans. This article will examine symbiotically how cooperative learning and deep learning together can promote greater success both in and out of the classroom.
In this article we describe our experiences with using small-group instruction in college settings for a combined total of 60 years. Since others, including Johnson and Johnson (1989), Kagan (1994, 2009), Sharan (1994), and Aronson (2011), have developed specific forms of group work, such as structured controversy, jigsaw, and group investigation, we will focus on how we have used group work as a core technique and have developed additional procedures that seem to potentiate the power of group work, regardless of the specific procedure and discipline.