Higher education institutions are hubs of research and intellectual activity, employing experienced scholars and
schooling the future workforce. As such, they are also often the instigators of positive changes or shifts in the outside world around them. As climate change and pollution have become a reality and a threat to our nation’s future prosperity, higher education institutions have been proponents of green initiatives, often leading the way in environmental construction, practice and purchases.
In addition to protecting the environment, green practices can go a long way in helping schools operate more efficiently and cost-effectively — measures that are desperately needed during tight fiscal times. This paper will look at some of the green trends happening in higher education today as well as the practices — including strategically purchasing technology
— that colleges and universities can employ to lower costs, become more sustainable and help the environment.
Being Green in Hard Times
The recession and its attendant effects on the budgets of higher education institutions has understandably deterred
initiatives and projects proposed during flush economic times. However, green initiatives continue to be important in higher education — spurred on by backing from the federal government. President Obama has made clear his priorities of addressing climate change — in part by reducing greenhouse gases — and lowering energy consumption.
Colleges and universities are stepping up to the plate. The higher education sector is now the largest purchaser of wind energy in the U.S. and 500 schools have institution-wide sustainability or environmental committees. In addition, 300 campuses have conducted campus sustainability assessments, with hundreds more working to implement assessments.
Higher education leaders are demonstrating their dedication to environmentally sound practices and serving as an example to the private sector and the general public. The American College & University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) is a network of over 650 college leaders who are working to eliminate net greenhouse gas emissions from specified campus operations and to promote research and education efforts of higher education to equip society to re-stabilize the Earth’s climate.
Community colleges are also working to be more sustainable despite difficult financial times. Results from the Center
for Digital Education’s 2010 Digital Community Colleges Survey showed that higher education institutions are continuing myriad efforts to put sustainable practices in place.
According to the survey:
• 54 percent of responding colleges have instruments to
measure energy efficiencies;
• 60 percent use e-waste recycling efforts and Earth-friendly
disposal; and
• 27 percent of responding community colleges are pursuing transparency about their carbon footprint — a 16 percent increase since last year.
ABSTRACT
As Canadian universities seek to attract more international students, there is a need to recognize and respond to the diversity within this group and to question the binary categories of domestic students and international students.
Relying primarily on 116 qualitative interviews with international undergraduates at the University of British Columbia, we utilize American students as a case study from which to explore the complex and blurred boundaries between these two categories. Americans resemble domestic students in some respects and international students in others, yet they are often less prepared to meet adaptational challenges because they have low expectations of cultural and institutional differences. We compare the experiences of Americans and international students from other countries, as well as other groups of students who fall between the cracks of the domestic and international student classifications. We argue that, by targeting services on the basis of these broad administrative categories, categories that were created for financial purposes, the university reduces the take-up of the very services students need.
RÉSUMÉ
À une époque où les universités canadiennes cherchent à attirer de plus en plus d’étudiants internationaux, il est nécessaire de reconnaître la diversité de ce groupe et d’agir en fonction de celle-ci. Cela demande de s’interroger sur la division binaire des étudiants entre les catégories « canadien » et « international ». En nous appuyant sur 116 entrevues qualitatives avec des étudiants internationaux en études de premier cycle à l’Université de la
Colombie-Britannique, nous entreprenons une étude de cas des étudiants américains, afin d’explorer la complexité et l’imprécision des frontières entre ces deux catégories. Sur certains points, le profil des étudiants américains est semblable à celui des étudiants canadiens, mais sur d’autres, il s’apparente plutôt à celui des étudiants internationaux. Pourtant, ces étudiants américains sont souvent moins prêts à faire face à des difficultés d’adaptation, car ils ne s’attendent pas à être confrontés à des différences culturelles et institutionnelles. Nous comparons les expériences des étudiants américains avec celles d’étudiants internationaux provenant d’autres pays, ainsi qu’avec celles d’autres groupes d’étudiants dont la situation ne correspond pas aux classifications « canadien » ou « international ». Nous soutenons que, quand les services d’aide ciblent les étudiants sur la base de vastes catégories administratives conçues pour des raisons financières, l’université contribue à limiter l’utilisation des services dont les étudiants ont précisément besoin.
High Enrollment Demands, Stretched Resources Higher education institutions are increasingly caught in a bind: Trying to serve growing enrollment demand with budgets based on the lower student counts of previous years. According to the Campus Computing Project’s 2011 Community Colleges and the Economy Survey, “More than two-thirds (69 percent) of the 448 campus presidents and district chancellors participating in the 2011 survey report increased headcount enrollment in winter 2011; concurrently,
three-fifths of the presidents participating in the survey report a reduction in the overall operating budget at their institution; two-fifths (41 percent) report that the budget cut was five percent or more.” This situation can lead to issues such as:
• over enrollments, especially in core courses, which creates a less-than-optimal and frustrating learning
experience for faculty and students;
• delayed graduation for students because of enrollment delays; and
• reduced retention rates as students seek other schools that can offer smaller class sizes and faster
degree completion.
Institutions typically can’t solve this problem by adding more sections to a class. They don’t have the budget to hire new faculty or support staff, and increased tuition revenues from higher enrollments may not cover the funding gap. Larger or overflow classroom space also may not be available, especially in an urban campus. From these factors, the core challenge emerges: How do campuses educate and graduate more students — with the same staff and classroom resources — while maintaining high learning levels and teaching standards?
Using Technology to Scale Classroom Instruction An emerging solution to this challenge is the use of blended learning curriculum design and lecture capture technology. This solution delivers courses through a mix of online and in-class content and participation.
Online lectures serve as the foundation of the blended learning model. The instructor can associate the lecture
video with online content and collaboration tools in order to deliver a complete learning experience to both on-campus and distance students. Availability of a recorded lecture can enable teaching and learning in multiple ways. For example, an inverted
teaching model is possible. Students watch a video lecture before the class, then arrive ready to discuss the lecture’s topic or work on a related activity.
By reviewing statistics on content access, instructors can identify where additional explanation is needed and
improve the content of the lecture or study materials.
Technology also helps instructors better serve students with special learning needs, using tools to create closed captioning of a video lecture and for compatibility with screen readers and other accessibility tools.
For students, the blended model delivers learning that is convenient and fits within their work schedules and
personal lives. They can access the lecture video and other content from a PC, tablet or smartphone, and from anywhere they can connect to the Internet.
How Blended Learning Helps Higher Education Technologies for delivering online access to classroom instruction offers several advantages for students, faculty,and their colleges and universities.
• Students can access the courses they need at the right time, increasing the likelihood they will graduate on
schedule. A clear, certain education path also increases student satisfaction and retention.
Executive Summary
This longitudinal mixed method study collected quantitative data from 151 students with Learning Disabilities (LD) and/or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD). Of these,117 students attended a combination of focus groups and personal interviews and shared their postsecondary education (PSE) experiences as persons with disabilities. The quantitative and qualitative data collection was carried out over two and a half years at the Centre for Students with Disabilities, which provides support and accommodations to college and university students within a shared campus environment at Durham College and the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the educational quality of the existing student service programs designed to ensure PSE access for students with LD and/or ADHD, who are an under-represented and at-risk population. Specifically, the study set out to measure and explore the effect of the Summer Transition Program (STP) and enhanced services on promoting students’ engagement, academic performance and, ultimately, their ongoing success throughout PSE.
The Ministry’s STP funding is earmarked for students with LD. However, the Ministry recognizes that students with LD have high comorbid rates of AD/HD. The STP is offered prior to the commencement of the fall semester to give students with LD and/or ADHD a chance to learn evidence-based learning strategies, self-determination skills and the use of assistive
technologies that promote PSE success without the added pressure and demands of a PSE course load. The STP curriculum is delivered in August, in a classroom setting in the morning and in a computer lab in the afternoon. Each day has a specific theme and content is designed to enhance knowledge and skills, such as time management. LD-specific supports were found to improve student outcomes, and the ongoing enhanced supports were believed to ensure accessibility.
This study’s most optimistic finding was the positive association between attendance at the STP and use of enhanced services. The study’s findings demonstrate that the STP improves the quality of students’ transition to PSE by first facilitating an earlier intake requirement and then helping students acquire psychoeducational assessments. STP students complete this process before the academic year begins in September.
Students who did not attend STP (NSTP students) described an overall lengthier and more complicated intake process. Findings from this study demonstrate that the STP improves students’ orientation to campus, orientation to services, disability awareness and willingness to self-advocate. STP also promotes their use of student services. On the other hand, when examining the impact of the STP alone, there were no differences between STP and NSTP students in their likelihood of earning a GPA above 2.0 for any of the first five semesters. The sample groups were self-selected or parentally selected. This sample selection could not be controlled for due to ethical reasons and the limited sample size; this may have decreased the measurable effect. A combination of the two programs was found to enhance academic performance.
One-to-one computing is getting a boost from an emerging technology model that combines cloud computing with easy-to-manage laptops called Web clients. The result: Some school districts say technology is finally shedding its disruptive impact on classrooms.
A revolution is occurring in our nation’s schools, and it’s all about the role of technology and the shift from paper and textbooks to digital content. Smartphones,laptops, tablets, e-readers, social media and interactive whiteboards are infiltrating classrooms and changing the way learning happens. Technology makes school fun for kids and inspires collaboration, creativity and selfdirected learning. Apple’s iPad textbook announcement in early 2012 will undoubtedly encourage a new level of innovation, with follow-on offerings from other high-tech companies and publishers.
In many school districts, this revolution is more of an evolution — but digital teaching is where our future is headed; how you plan to get there could make all the difference in the results for your faculty and students. The right strategy incorporates not only adopting the optimal content providers and hardware platforms for your student population, but devising an A to Z approach for the underlying technology infrastructure.
This paper will discuss how this digital shift at K-12 schools and community colleges will impact IT decisions, particularly as it relates to wireless networks. Wireless technology is quickly evolving to better meet the needs of schools from a cost, functionality and management perspective.
Importantly, the right wireless strategy helps schools successfully deliver on the promise of digital education.
Higher education leaders have many opportunities today to make changes that can profoundly alter the learning
environments they provide students. The digital revolution and rise in the use of both wireless networks and mobile
computing devices promise a new paradigm in education, one in which students and faculty need anywhere, anytime access to the network; where learning can be more personalized and customized; where students are more engaged; where remote learning opportunities are optimized; and where collaboration between all stakeholders becomes much easier to achieve.
Institutions of higher learning, including public and private universities, community colleges and technical schools, are increasingly turning to digital learning approaches. Higher education students expect a more socially engaging and collaborative learning experience and new technology is enabling these opportunities that were once difficult to imagine. The Center for Digital Education’s 2011 Digital Community Colleges Survey found that 92 percent of respondents have expanded distance learning offerings for online, hybrid and Web-assisted courses over the past year. A survey of adult students also found that 33 percent cited blended courses (courses that are part online and part in the classroom) as their preferred learning format. However, layered on top of these digital opportunities are significant budget pressures and rising enrollment rates. Traditional funding sources — like grants and donations — are under tremendous strain, forcing administrators to consider tuition hikes and reduced course offerings, along with other undesirable cost-cutting measures. Along with these budget pressures, colleges and universities are experiencing an increased demand on IT resources,
including registrations systems, financial aid delivery, help desk support, mobility management, and online/selfservice applications.
The challenge that the higher education community faces is how to reduce complexity and costs within their infrastructure and maximize existing resources at a time when funding is in short supply. Colleges and universities need to reduce costs while ensuring they are providing staff and students with technology that enhances learning and leads to improved student success.
Some campuses are solving this problem by streamlining and simplifying their existing IT infrastructure. Improving what’s already in place not only saves money, but also makes it easier to enhance student learning and achievement using today’s technological tools. Here’s a look at how this is possible.
In the emerging knowledge-based economy, employers are requiring new levels of skill from labour market entrants. As employers’ expectations of postsecondary graduates increase, Ontario’s publicly funded colleges and universities are working to provide students with much of the knowledge, skills, and training needed for success in the community and in the changing workplace. As a result, there has been a movement within the postsecondary education (PSE) sector to provide a closer integration of learning and work as a strategy for workforce skills development (Fisher, Rubenson, Jones, & Shanahan, 2009).
In particular, work-integrated learning (WIL) programs such as co-operative education, internship, and apprenticeship are frequently endorsed as educational modes of delivery to support such integration. Offering work-integrated learning experiences for students requires a significant investment of human and financial resources to be effective. Faculty in particular play an important role in designing, supporting, and implementing WIL opportunities for students. Despite a growing recognition of the essential role played by faculty, very little is known about their perceptions of and experiences with WIL. To shed light on this issue, this report provides the results of the WIL Faculty Survey conducted by the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) in partnership with 13 Ontario postsecondary institutions.
The report is part of a broader multi-phase project being undertaken by HEQCO on WIL in Ontario’s PSE sector.
The WIL Faculty Survey was designed to better understand faculty experiences with and perceptions of WIL as an element of postsecondary curriculum. Guided by a Working Group comprised of representatives from the 13 participating postsecondary institutions, the study sought to address four primary research questions:
1) How do faculty perceive the value and benefits of WIL to students, faculty members, and postsecondary institutions?
2) Do faculty views about WIL differ by employment status, program, gender, years of teaching, previous employment experience, or their own past WIL experience?
3) How do faculty integrate students’ work experiences into the classroom?
4) What concerns do faculty have about introducing or expanding WIL opportunities in postsecondary institutions?
The survey instrument was developed in consultation with the Working Group and was pre-tested with 25 faculty members. The survey was administered online from March to May, 2011, with e-mail invitations to participate sent to 18,232 faculty from the 13 partner institutions (6,257 college faculty and 11,975 university faculty). In total, 1,707 college faculty and 1,917 university faculty completed the survey to an acceptable cut-off point, for an overall response rate of 19.9%. Close to two-thirds of college faculty and roughly half of university faculty respondents reported having experience teaching in a program in which students participate in a co-op or apprenticeship. Fewer faculty had experience personally teaching a course with a WIL component, with 47.5% of college faculty and 28.9% of university faculty currently or previously having taught a course involving WIL. Among those who had taught a course with a WIL component, field placements were the most common type of WIL among college faculty, followed by mandatory professional practice (student placements required for licensure or professional designation). For university respondents, mandatory professional practice was the most common type of WIL taught, followed by applied research projects.
A New Model for Effective Teaching
How might education change if classrooms become places of active learning, not just passive listening? Higher education students are already active learners, using e-books, Web content, and social media to explore and discover in their daily lives. But what happens when these students go to the classroom, especially for high-enrollment courses? They sometimes experience the curiosity-stifling thud of having to listen to and take notes on a lecture, with its mostly one-way communication format. And with limited opportunities for Q&A during the class session and no ability to review the lecture content later to study a difficult concept, it’s no wonder students may become discouraged and disengaged.
This traditional learning model won’t cut it with students who are accustomed to active learning, either on their own or in small groups of classmates. Students increasingly expect a classroom experience that helps them develop knowledge for themselves, not just passively receive one-dimensional information. Students want to do something meaningful with content instead of just listening to a lecture. They also expect to meet with discussion groups and project teams and
do much of their assigned work during class time instead of meeting separately.
Another factor that is playing a role in student perceptions: the value gained from education in a tough economy. Instructors need to make education worth a student’s investment of time and money by ensuring the classroom experience is productive and meaningful. These expectations are leading higher education toward “flipped” classrooms and a learning model that blends online and in-class learning. Respondents to the Center for Digital Education’s 2011 Community Colleges Survey indicated the majority of their students enroll in online or blended courses and that more than two-thirds of online courses used some type of online collaboration tools to promote learning.
If you’re interested in using technology tools to enhance your teaching, it’s easy to get overwhelmed by the mountain of information out there. To make matters worse, much of it is either highly technical or simply not very practical for the college classroom.
Teaching with Technology: Tools and Strategies to Improve Student Learning approaches teaching technologies from your perspective — discussing what works, what doesn’t, and how to implement the best ideas in the best ways. These articles were written by John Orlando, PhD, program director at Norwich University, as part of the Teaching with Technology column on Faculty Focus. You’ll find the articles are loaded with practical information as well as links to valuable resources. Articles in the report include:
• Using VoiceThread to Build Student Engagement
• Wikipedia in the Classroom: Tips for Effective Use
• Blogging to Improve Student Learning: Tips and Tools for Getting Started
• Prezi: A Better Way of Doing Presentations
• Using Polling and Smartphones to Keep Students Engaged
Whether the courses you teach are face-to-face, online, blended, or all of the above, this report explains effective ways to incorporate technology into your courses to create a rich learning experience for students, and a rewarding teaching experience for you.
Background: Suicide is the second leading cause of death for young Canadians (10–19 years of age) — a disturbing trend that has shown little improvement in recent years. Our objective was to examine suicide trends among Canadian children and adolescents.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of standardized suicide rates using Statistics Canada mortality data for the period spanning from 1980 to 2008. We analyzed the data by sex and by suicide method over time for two age groups: 10–14 year olds (children) and 15–19 year olds (adolescents). We quantified annual trends by calculating the average annual percent change (AAPC).
Results: We found an average annual decrease of 1.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] –1.5 to –0.4) in the suicide rate for children and adolescents, but stratification by age and sex showed significant variation. We saw an increase in suicide by suffocation among female children (AAPC = 8.1%, 95% CI 6.0 to 10.4) and adolescents (AAPC = 8.0%, 95% CI 6.2 to 9.8). In addition, we noted a decrease in suicides involving poisoning and firearms during the study period.
Interpretation: Our results show that suicide rates in Canada are increasing among female children and adolescents and decreasing among male children and adolescents. Limiting access to lethal means has some potential to mitigate risk. However, suffocation, which has become the predominant method for committing suicide for these age groups, is not amenable to this type of primary prevention.
This article examines the relationship between community colleges and universities in Canada and the United States based on increased involvement of community colleges in offering baccalaureate programs. The article employs a theoretical framework borrowed from the study of jurisdictional conflict between professions. After considering the types of possible and occurring jurisdiction settlement over baccalaureate preparation between universities and community colleges, the author concludes that the older, simplistic criterion—based on credentials awarded—that defined the division of labor between postsecondary sectors should be replaced with newer, more complex and multifaceted criteria that relate to program and client characteristics.
In the 1990s, in both the United States and Canada, small but increasing numbers of community colleges began to award the baccalaureate (Floyd, Skolnik, & Walker, 2005). As of October, 2010, according to Russell (2010), 54 community colleges in
18 states had received approval to offer a total of 465 four-year degree programs; up from 21 institutions in 11 states offering 128 programs just six years earlier. Community colleges in four of Canada’s five largest provinces, accounting for two thirds of the population, are now eligible to award the baccalaureate, and 32 colleges are offering 135 baccalaureate programs.1 The surge in community college baccalaureate activity allegedly occurred in response to two related pressures. One is a general increase in the demand for improved opportunities for people to attain a baccalaureate both for their own benefit and for the benefit of society (Clark, Moran, Skolnik, & Trick, 2009; Lumina Foundation for Education, 2009; National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, 2006). The other is the increased demand for a particular
type of baccalaureate, what has been called the applied, or workforce-focused, baccalaureate (Floyd & Walker, 2009; Skolnik, 2005; Townsend, Bragg, & Ruud, 2009; Walker & Floyd, 2005). Underlying the increase in demand for the baccalaureate and the growth of the community college baccalaureate in particular are economic pressures
associated with global competition (Levin, 2004).
Attempts by community colleges to obtain the authority to award the baccalaureate have in nearly all cases been opposed by universities and have injected a significant new competitive element into the relationship between community colleges and universities. For example, in Florida, the community college baccalaureate generated “significant concerns” about competition with universities (Russell, 2010, p. 5), and in Michigan, the attempt by community colleges to get authorization to award bachelor’s degrees has “stirred tensions between community colleges and universities” (French, 2010, p. 4A). In Ontario, there has been open conflict over territory between the universities and community colleges since the colleges obtained the authority to award baccalaureate degrees (Urquhart, 2004), and in British Columbia, the baccalaureate in nursing has become contested territory between community colleges and universities (Chapman & Kirby, 2008). To date, there have not been any in-depth studies of the impact that awarding baccalaureate degrees by community colleges has had on their relationship with universities or on the perceptions of stakeholders from both sectors about the magnitude of any resulting problems. Still, the examples just cited suggest that this might be a fruitful area for investigation. These examples suggest also that the impact on the relationship between community colleges and universities should be an
important consideration in state and provincial policy making regarding the community college baccalaureate.
Keywords
community college baccalaureate, interinstitutional relationships, professional jurisdiction,
universities
The professional development of new university instructors has received considerable investments of resources at Canadian universities, but the impact of these efforts has only rarely been evaluated or studied. Universities in Ontario have witnessed and participated in the formation of teaching and learning units responsible for professional development of academics since the mid-1980s (Landolfi, 2007). These units have been responsible for the development of programs to address the pedagogical needs of university instructors, with the goal of making them more effective (Ibid.).
In situations of decreased availability of funding, individual university support for central teaching and learning units has oscillated. This has often required that they operate with inadequate financial support and a minimal number of full-time employees. Currently, the four smallest units in Ontario universities operate with only one to three staff members.
While the formal training of postsecondary educators and the issue of enforcing mandatory training of academic teaching staff has been broadly accepted in colleges for years (see volume 2 of this report which will follow in 2012), the same issue has recently been discussed more frequently among universities as well at the level of teaching professionals and policy makers, with intense controversy on either side of the debate.
New Faculty Orientations (NFOs) – an induction program for newly hired faculty members at the beginning of their teaching careers – vary widely in the content delivered across different Ontario universities. While some simply provide a general introduction to a particular university’s settings, and/or a list of local resources for the new faculty members to choose and use as they see fit, others focus on specific teaching skills and organize a series of sessions, which explore a variety of teaching and learning issues and strategies.
Surprisingly, of the 20 institutions surveyed there are only two Ontario universities that still do not organize NFOs for new teaching staff even though they have established teaching and learning centres. In these instances, new faculty members receive a general orientation provided by the President’s Office and Faculty Recruitment departments, as well as their faculties. Other findings from this study include the following:
• The majority of Ontario universities (72 per cent) include both contract instructors and full-time faculty members in their orientation sessions.
• Only in two Ontario universities is orientation mandatory for all newly hired faculty members. In other institutions where NFO attendance is voluntary, participation varies from 40 per cent to 85 per cent.
• In terms of the cost of new faculty orientation, data differ from institution to institution, with a few
institutions spending a modest amount of $1,000 and others (the minority) spending about $35,000 on NFOs per annum.
The top five separate sessions that are typically included for NFOs at Ontario universities are, in this order:
a) greetings/conversation with VP Academic Provost,
b) academic policies and procedures,
c) classroom teaching management methods,
d) teaching with technology, and
e) a panel/discussion with experienced faculty members.
I. Introduction
Entering a (first) postsecondary education (PSE) program represents a critical transition in a person’s life, but it is just the beginning of a whole new set of dynamics that can take many different forms. Some students continue in their programs until graduation, proceeding at faster or slower rates. Others switch to another program at the same institution, at an institution of the same kind (college or university) or at a different level of study. Still others abandon their studies, some to return at a later date.
Those who persist in their initial programs directly through to graduation could be considered cases where the system has successfully helped students realize their PSE aspirations and then move into the labour market, go on to further schooling or pursue other life goals. In short, they could be considered student “success” stories as far as the PSE system is concerned.
Those who obtain a diploma/degree after moving across different programs, institutions or levels of study
– perhaps with a break in their studies along the way – may have taken, to some extent, a wasteful diversion on the path to their preferred postsecondary credential. This may result from an initially flawed program choice or a PSE system that has somehow not served these students as well as it could have.
However, such pathways could also represent the student’s acquisition of necessary learning about different programs and the careers they lead to, or they could reflect developments in the student’s personal life apart from his or her schooling, or they may result from an individual’s change of plans. In at least some of these cases, the postsecondary system and the postsecondary institutions with which the individual was involved may have performed as well as could be expected despite the time required and the circuitous pathway that the student took to complete the program. Finally, although individuals who fail to complete their postsecondary studies may be regarded as being part of a system that is not working as it should, such pathways may again represent necessary learning experiences or be related to personal factors that have little to do with the PSE system. In fact, the system may have performed as well as could be expected, including providing an initial opportunity for the individual to pursue or explore their PSE ambitions.
Underlying many of these dynamics are policy issues relating to ways in which these pathways and outcomes could be improved. Could better information provided in more effective ways help students make more informed and appropriate program choices at an earlier point during their studies? In the case of students who struggle in their PSE studies, could certain interventions help these individuals or targeted groups of students overcome those challenges and complete their programs in a more timely fashion? Are there means of reducing the need for some students to take breaks from their studies or are such pauses a necessary part of the PSE experience for at least some individuals? Answering such questions, and developing the appropriate policy response, could potentially result in more satisfied students, reduced costs for the PSE system and higher graduation rates. Before addressing these issues, however, more information on PSE pathways is needed, including program retention, drop-out and completion rates and student transfers within, between and across programs, institutions and levels of study.
The general objective of this report is to provide new and unique empirical evidence concerning the patterns of “persistence” (or what is sometimes alternatively referred to as “retention,” especially when viewed from the perspective of individual institutions), as well as educational pathways more generally, of PSE students in Ontario. We present an analysis of the frequency of various trajectories and graduation rates and use both descriptive statistics and econometric modelling to show how pathways and outcomes vary by students’ individual characteristics, family background and educational outcomes at the high school and PSE levels.1 Throughout, the focus is on Ontario, but comparisons are made with the rest of Canada.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Many recent immigrant adult students (RIAS) are highly trained in their source countries and anticipate finding suitable employment upon arriving in Canada. (In this study, RIAS are defined as individuals over 24 years of age who have been living in Canada as permanent residents or citizens for less than 10 years.) There is mounting evidence, however, that in recent years the process of obtaining meaningful employment has become significantly more difficult for RIAS in particular. As a consequence, increasing numbers are turning to the Canadian postsecondary education (PSE) system to obtain more credentials and work experience as a means of gaining better access to employment. However, current research suggests that after entering universities and colleges, newcomers such as recent immigrants face a number of unexpected barriers to educational success, including lack of proficiency in either of Canada’s official languages; non-recognition of foreign transcripts and prior work experience; financial constraints; and insufficient knowledge concerning how the Canadian PSE system operates.
With increasing numbers of RIAS attending Ontario PSE institutions, there is growing concern that their learning needs may not be met, leading to decreased academic and employment success. Unfortunately, it appears that most PSE institutions have not identified RIAS as a group with unique learning needs. Academic success in PSE requires that students be fully
engaged and that they have access to resources that enhance engagement. There is a paucity of research concerning the degree to which RIAS are engaged in both academic and nonacademic components of Canadian PSE. Although all PSE institutions provide a variety of student services, there is no evidence that RIAS utilize them or that any particular benefits accrue in terms of promoting academic and social integration to even those RIAS who do use student services. This multi-institutional research study was conducted with the financial support of the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). The study objectives included the following:
• developing a preliminary scale to measure RIAS engagement, consisting of academic and non-academic involvement in PSE,
• describing the demographic and institutional factors that influence RIAS engagement within their academic environment,
• identifying the unique immigration challenges of RIAS in PSE programs,
• identifying service needs and utilization patterns of RIAS, and
• developing recommendations for educational policy and service delivery changes within the Ontario PSE system.
The study also included exploration of the following research questions:
1. To what extent do RIAS become engaged with the academic community at the PSE institutions that they choose to attend?
2. What demographic and institutional factors influence their degree of academic engagement of RIAS?
The teaching-learning situations in the class-room involve interaction between the teacher and the students. The success of a teacher may be judged through the degree of effectiveness of his teaching which may be objectively assessed through his class-room behavior or interaction. Thus a systematic or objective analysis of the teacher’s classroom interaction may provide a reliable assessment of what goes on inside the class-room in terms of teaching and learning.
Behind every unmotivated employee is a leadership problem waiting to be solved. Yet many leaders see motivation as a game of rewards and punishment. Forget the cash. Forget the threats. To engage today’s workforce, a leader is well advised to seek the heart of what moves people: their three basic psychological needs.
Over the past decade or so, the bachelor’s degree has undergone major changes in much of the world. The most important set of changes was brought on by the adoption, across Europe,
of the Bologna Process. This led not only to the introduction of bachelor’s degrees in countries where no such qualification had previously existed, but also to a pan-continental harmonization (more or less) of the length of the degree, at three years. More recently, a number of universities in the United States – where a four-year degree has been sacrosanct for decades – have started experimenting with shorter degrees. At the same time that systems have been altering the length of degrees, there has also been a trend for systems in Europe and elsewhere – including Ontario and other parts of Canada – to open up degree provision to non-university Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). This has broken the centuries-long monopoly of
universities over the provision of granting degrees. These two major experiments in changing times and changing places are the subject of this report, which was undertaken by Higher Education Strategy Associates for the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO).
Our approach to this project is not simply to look at global trends in the development of the bachelor’s degree and to collect the views of key Ontario stakeholders regarding these developments. For purposes of organizing material on a very complicated topic, we have chosen to look at the material within two main categories. In Chapter 1, entitled “Changing Times,” we look at how the lengths of bachelor’s degrees have been changing, while in Chapter 2, entitled “Changing Places,” we deal with the provision of higher education in non-university settings. Each chapter begins with an in-depth description of global trends in the area (with a particular focus on recent developments within Canada). These global discussions are then augmented by adding data about the views of two key sets of Ontario stakeholders. In order to understand the views of students, we conducted a survey of over 850 Ontario students in university bachelor’s degree programs (who were members of our student research panel1)about degree lengths and loci. Relevant results from this survey are included in both chapters, and the methodology behind the survey is included as Appendix A. We also solicited the views of key stakeholders concerning the lessons Ontario can learn from global changes – via a multistakeholder seminar held in Toronto on March 21, 2011. A list of attendees is included in this report as Appendix C, and a summary of their discussion can be found in each of the two chapters in this report.
A blended learning solution often calls for a platform for capturing in-class and out-of-class activities and content, and delivering it live or on demand to students. In just a few short years, colleges and universities have come to understand the many benefits of blended learning, from pedagogical to administrative. Lecture capture is one method of achieving blended learning.
In many institutions, introducing technology into the classroom presents opportunities – and obstacles to overcome. The introduction of any new technology – no matter how transparent or easy to use – requires changed behaviours. In education, the challenges can be grouped into three key areas: cultural, process, and academic. Any of these can hinder achieving return on investment and the ability to leverage – and scale – blended learning technologies. While the benefits of these technologies are
many, identifying and building on them requires strategy and preparation. This white paper, based on interviews with five universities as well as Wainhouse Research’s observations of best practices, identifies five compelling lessons about how to best drive adoption of lecture capture. The lessons include:
􀁸 Business value
􀁸 Inter-departmental cooperation
􀁸 Academic quality
􀁸 Student satisfaction
􀁸 Champions
The paper examines the five universities in detail, describing how each has found its own unique path to successful adoption of blended learning technologies. The paper also offers ten specific steps to overcome cultural, process, or academic obstacles. These are, in short:
1. Understand adoption cycles
2. Involve the right people
3. Clone your champions
4. Identify benefits to your overall institution & map goals of deployment
5. Plan extensively while remaining flexible and open to revising those plans
6. Create a consistent service model
7. Design sustainable policies
8. Create substantive processes for measurement
9. Encourage peer review
10. Leverage best of breed capture and delivery mechanisms
Blended Learning Technology: Navigating the Challenges of Large-Scale Adoption
Copyright © 2012 Wainhouse Research, LLC Page 4
The paper also offers a number of suggestions for addressing the issue of policy, which is so important in academic settings. Understanding how best to create policy can enable colleges and universities to harness and maximize the return on current or future investments in blending learning technologies.
As online education moves from the fringes to the mainstream, one question still persists: “How do I know what my online students have learned?” There are no simple answers, just as there aren’t in face-to-face courses, but with a little creativity and flexibility, you soon discover that the online learning environment opens up a host of new student assessment possibilities. And, just as with traditional courses, the trick is finding the right combination that works best for your particular course.
This special report features 12 articles from Online Classroom that will cause you to examine your current methods of online assessment, and perhaps add something new to your assessment toolbox. It even talks about some of the common assessment mistakes you’ll want to avoid.
Take a look at some of the articles you will find in Assessing Online Learning: Strategies, Challenges and Opportunities:
• Authentic Experiences, Assessment Develop Online Students’ Marketable Skills
• Four Typical Online Learning Assessment Mistakes
• Assessing Whether Online Learners Can DO: Aligning Learning Objectives with
Real-world Applications
• Strategies for Creating Better Multiple-Choice Tests
• Assessing Student Learning Online: It’s More Than Multiple Choice
• Using Self-Check Exercises to Assess Online Learning
• Measuring the Effectiveness of an Online Learning Community
• Ongoing Student Evaluation Essential to Course Improvement
Online courses enable a strong student-centered approach to learning and, as a result, assessment. We hope this report helps you design and develop online assessment strategies that take full advantage of the many formal and informal assessment tools now at your fingertips.