Developing a Quality Assurance Framework that Addresses Experiential Learning and Work Integrated Learning: Lessons learnt from George Brown College Throughout the College academic world there has always been a need for marrying the didactic classroom material with the applied learning and experiential approach. At George Brown College we stated boldly a commitment to ensure that every student would experience a quality field experience in our strategic path for vision 2020. In order to provide a student with a quality experience we needed to undertake a process that identified quality, currency and authenticity in our offerings. This paper speaks to the necessary quality framework that continues to be refined in our quest of delivering on the George Brown College promise with respect to experiential and work integrated learning. Dr. Cory Ross As Vice-President, Academic, Dr. Cory Ross leads George Brown College’s core academic delivery, both in the classroom and in work integrated learning settings. He brings a wealth of experience to the role, including several years of leadership at post-secondary institutions. He is a Certified Health Executive (CHE) with the Canadian College of Healthcare Leaders. Cory was granted a fellowship from the U.K.-based Royal Society for Public Health. He is one of only 10 Canadians Scholars for years have recognized the value of a balance between didactic education and participatory actualization of the knowledge acquired. As far back as 551 – 479 BC, Confuscious’s famous saying of “ I hear and I forget I see and I remember I do and I understand”
This paper points out the demographic changes in the American society, which is becoming more and more culturally and linguistically diverse. This demographic shift in society calls for radical changes in the educational system, thus not only mainstream, but all students can be appropriately served in schools. The author connects discipline issues often resulting from the mismatch between the curricula and the type of students they are meant to serve. She also provides recommendations and tools that can enhance teachers’ instructional curricula in order for them to serve their students more efficiently and effectively. These tools include, but are not limited to teachers’ reflection on themselves and their students from the cultural and societal perspective, incorporation of culturally relevant teaching textbooks and materials, and the inclusion of holistic types of assessment towards all the students. The author strongly believes that incorporating these adjustments can substantially lower discipline problems in the classrooms. Ewa Krawczyk Dr. Ewa Krawczyk received her PhD from the College of Education specializing in Curriculum and Instruction, Bilingual Education, Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) and Educational Learning Technologies at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Ewa was born and raised in communist and postcommunist Poland where she graduated from Teachers’ College of English and was a teacher of English as a foreign language in a public high school in the years 1993-1999. She immigrated to the United States in 1999 where she gained her personal experience through her work with adult
An alarming occurrence in academia involves the discipline of faculty, under the guise of violating civility or collegiality codes, for engaging in what should be protected academic free speech. This often occurs when unprincipled and/or corporate-minded administrators seek to punish or dissuade faculty from challenging or questioning their decisions or policy initiatives, or for speaking up about policy violations or lack of due process. The ambiguity of terms such as civility and collegiality, when selectively defined by administrators, can be used to stifle, dissuade or punish academic free speech. Ways to identify and address these problems are presented. Civility and Academic Freedom: Who Defines the Former (And How) May Imperil Rights to the Latter Although discussions of civility and its relation to academic freedom have occurred for more than 100 years, the volume of scholarly research and discourse on this topic seems to have increased in recent decades (e.g., Downing, 2005). Whether this increase is due to a rise of incivility in academe (as speculated by some), threats to academic freedom (as speculated by others), or a combination of these and other factors is a matter of considerable importance. In this paper, we offer a perspective that: 1) recognizes the value of civil behavior in the academic setting; 2) considers some philosophical issues that question whether what is considered civility in some work settings is analogous to its meaning in academia; and 3) presents the viewpoint that the ambiguity of terms such as “civility” and related constructs, most prominently “collegiality” (especially when combined with the corporate values adopted or held by many university administrators), allows unprincipled administrators and likeminded faculty to use judgments about civility and collegiality to punish faculty for (or dissuade them from) engaging in legitimate academic freedom— particularly as it pertains to shared governance. It seems axiomatic to state that human beings, when working in groups or close proximity to each other, work better and accomplish more when they share basic workplace norms and are respectful to each other; this is as true in academia as it is in other types of workplace settings (Fischer, 2009). As we discuss later, what constitutes civility and incivility may vary considerably in different organizational contexts, however, some common features exist. Common features of incivility definitions include “deviant behavior with ambiguous intent to harm the target, in violation of workplace norms for mutual respect” and those behaviors are “characteristically rude and discourteous, displaying a lack of regard for others” (Andersson & Pearson, 1999, p. 457). Durando (2008) is careful to note that these characteristics hold for individuals at all levels of organizations; indeed, deviation from a perceived norm for respectful behavior seems the most common element of definitions of incivility. According to published reports, uncivil behaviors in the workplace are related to a host of negative consequences, both for workers and their organizations. For example, Leiter, Laschinger, Day, and Oore (2011) reported that when incivility is present, coworkers frequently have problems functioning in unison, leading to elevated prevalence of stress, anxiety, and depression at the individual level and decreased cooperation and lost productivity at the organizational level. Settles and O’Connor (2014) agree, reporting that the presence of incivility is negatively related to employee workplace outcomes, as well as the physical and psychological health of employees. Sadly, workplace incivility appears quite common; in a large study, Cortina, Magley, Williams, and Langhout (2001) reported that 60-80% of public-sector workers experienced some level of incivility in their workplaces. Importantly for our discussion here, Cortina et al. (2001) also reported that individuals in more powerful positions in organizations tended to be more uncivil than their less powerful colleagues. A review of the literature clearly indicates that incivility exists and has negative effects on its targets, colleagues who witness it, and the organizations they serve. Whether incivility is more or less common in academe than other employment sectors, whether it manifests itself differently in different sectors, and whether behaviors considered potentially problematic in one setting should not be so problematic in another setting are important questions that deserved to be assessed. Certainly, some authors believe that incivility has been on the rise in academe. This sentiment is offered by Twale and De Luca (2008) in their book titled Faculty Incivility: The Rise of the Academic Bully Culture and What to Do About It, which begins with the assertion that “Lately it seems that people in academe have become less civil to one another. If you are a faculty member in academe or a graduate student preparing for the profession, you may have encountered instances of incivility, bullying, or mobbing by another peer, a student, a committee, or an administrator” (p. xi). As they point out in the Preface, although the two of them (whom have worked in higher education for a combined 60 years) gave the statistical and published evidence due consideration, they were just as motivated by their “own experiences with incivility and bullying ...” (p. xiii). Other authors (e.g., Mullen, Bettez, & Wilson, 2011) address perceived high levels of incivility in academic departments, however, they tend to couch such incivility in structural inequalities that allow powerful figures to target or bully less powerful members. This latter view is more consistent with Cortina et al.’s (2001) findings concerning incivility in a non-academic employment sector, as well as those presented later in this paper. In short, incivility may be common in academe, but when it occurs, it most often manifests in a hierarchical fashion—from an institutionally-powerful perpetrator to a less-powerful and therefore institutionally-vulnerable victim. That incivility in academe manifests itself frequently in a hierarchical fashion (i.e., in a top-down fashion) is interesting, particularly given the fact that most academic institutions, by their very nature, differ from many other organizations in their effort to be largely horizontal (in this context, having considerable autonomy and shared governance between faculty and administrators) rather than hierarchical (Cirillo, 2005). In American corporate/business culture, profit and customer satisfaction are almost uniformly given primary importance, whereas the goals and ethos (or moral character) of academe are decidedly different (Philips, Cagnon, Buehler, Ramon, & Waldecker, 2008). The ethos of academe, at least traditionally (and quite often in contrast to the values of corporate-minded academic administrators) has focused much more on the processes of the academic environment than the products of the academic environment (e.g., Johnson, Kavanagh, & Mattson, 2003). Traditionally, our academic identity arises from a commitment to the triadic practices of scholarship, pedagogy, and service, with all three being guarded by the free exchange of ideas and a community-wide respect for self-government. Foundational to the commitment to these practices is the concept of academic freedom. Although some consider academic freedom to be a rather subjective entity, it has a long and fascinating history as a hallmark of academe, as well as some distinct and distinguishing features. Emerging prominently in late nineteenth century German concepts of Lernfreiheit (the freedom to learn) and Lehrfreiheit (the freedom to teach) (Schrecker, 2010), academic freedom has been inextricably linked to the free exchange of ideas and self-governance so fundamental to the academic ethos. Most academics would likely agree that academic freedom is characterized in large part by robust freedom of speech and control over one’s research and classroom, but few would argue that it consists of nothing more. Indeed, it is almost certain that nearly all in our profession would maintain that academic freedom encompasses much more, especially so the freedom to disagree with or choose not to follow administrative suggestions, the right to question, and if need be, turn away the advice offered by a wide variety of people and parties. As Schrecker candidly notes in her 2010 book titled The Lost Soul of Higher Education: Corporatization, the Assault on Academic Freedom, and the End of the American University (p. 10): But to treat academic freedom as only, or even primarily, a form of free speech and a subset of the First Amendment is to view it in much too narrow and legalistic a perspective. Over the years, the concept has expanded to cover almost everything that happens on campus, but at its core it is a faculty perquisite, pertaining to the practices and ideas that define the academic profession and govern the work life of college and university teachers. The corporate ethos, predicated as it is on products, profits, and customer satisfaction, has little room for practices such as academic freedom. Indeed, as the corporate world is typically defined by hierarchical structures, the values that support academic freedom are antithetical to it (e.g., Cirillo, 2005; Schrecker, 2010; Washburn, 2005); free exchange of ideas, the ability (or in some cases, the responsibility) to disagree with, challenge, or ignore the suggestions or decisions of administrators, and self-governance may all serve as a hindrance to profit-seeking and hierarchical decision-making. Why this is important to a discussion of civility should be clear: What would be considered appropriate and desirable behavior in the traditional academic setting (e.g., passionately challenging policy initiatives that are perceived to harm faculty, students, the learning environment, etc.) might be characterized as insu
Canada employs a decentralized model of leadership responsible for the development and delivery of education and training. When compared to other countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Canada ranks near the top in academic credentials earned, however performs near the bottom of the same list in numeracy and literacy skills. The goal of this paper is to examine the validity of describing education obtained in Canada as a ‘Canadian’ education. While a definitive response did not present itself, the investigation does reveal opportunity for David Waddington David Waddington holds an administrative position at Mohawk College supporting a number of Career and Student Success related initiatives. Working in postsecondary education in a variety of capacities since 2007, David’s focus is on the role that education plays in preparing individuals for their lives further research involving curriculum development, educational standards, and funding related barriers to the delivery of post-secondary education. Education and Training in Canada: An Investigation of the Decentralized
In this study, it was aimed to compare two distinct methodologies of grammar instruction: task-based and form-focused teaching. Within the application procedure, which lasted for one academic term, two groups of tertiary level learners (N=53) were exposed to the same sequence of target structures, extensive writing activities and evaluation criteria. Nevertheless, these two groups differed only in the in-class teaching procedures, which were task-based in one group and formal and explicit in the other one. According to the results, the experimental group who had task-based instruction on H. Sezgi Saraç H. Sezgi Saraç currently works as an Assistant Professor at Akdeniz University, Department of English Language and Literature, Antalya, Turkey. She is also the editor-in-chief of the journal Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language). She has worked as an English instructor (1998-2001 / Completing the Task Procedure or Focusing on Form: Contextualizing Grammar Instruction via Task-Based Teaching • College Quarterly http://collegequarterly.ca/...l21-num01-winter/completing-the-task-procedure-or-focusing-on-form-contextualizing-grammar-instruction-via-task-based-teaching.html[2/9/2018 6:39:22 PM] contextual grammar outperformed the group of learners who received formal grammar instruction.
Post-secondary institutions across North America have noticed a concerning trend in terms of increased student mental health crises on campuses.Consequently, many colleges and universities have been working to develop responsive and comprehensive mental health frameworks. While broad studies have illuminated the high rates of student mental health struggles, none have focused solely on documenting mental health related crises that occur on campus during a prolonged period of time.This type of information is vital if we are to create comprehensive mental health frameworks for our postsecondary institutions, because it will be these types of incidents that will most vigorously test the policies and processes that comprise the bases of these frameworks.Thus, the current study examined Shirley Porter Shirley Porter is a registered psychotherapist and social worker. She currently works full-time in the Counselling Department at Fanshawe College and is an Adjunct Clinical Professor at Western University. documented student mental health crises on a college campus over a three-year period.The data examined provide an overview of: the types of crises reported (e.g., suicide/homicide risk; psychotic-like behaviour; assault; self-harm); identified triggering events; and the types of internal and external campus supports activated. A Descriptive Study of Post-Secondary Student Mental Health Crises (2013-2016) According to the Mental Health Commission of Canada (2013), by age 40 years of age, 50% of Canadians will have, or will have had, a mental illness. Further, it has been determined that half of all lifetime cases of diagnosable mental illness start by 14 years of age, and 75% by 24 years of age (Kessler, Berglund, Demler, Jin, Merikangas, & Walters, 2005).In Canada, suicide is the second leading cause of death among 15 to 24 year olds, and accounts for almost 25% of deaths among this population (Statistics Canada, 2017).Thus, as a result of the vulnerability of this age group, postsecondary student populations are at heightened risk for emergent or ongoing mental health issues, which in the worst case scenarios can result in suicide. Recent studies have drawn attention to the high rate of mental health struggles experienced by students in postsecondary settings across North America.When Directors of Canadian post-secondary counselling centres were surveyed regarding client trends, 77% indicated they believed that the number of students who presented with severe psychological issues had increased during the past five years and 79% indicated that they believed that the severity of these issues had increased (Crozier & Willihnganz, 2005).Similarly, a national survey of postsecondary counselling directors in the U.S. found that: 94% reported a trend of increasing numbers of students with severe psychological issues; 69% noticed an increase in the number of student “crises requiring immediate response”: and 8% of counselling centre clients were reported to have psychological impairments so severe that they were unable to stay in school, or could only manage to do so with extensive psychological or psychiatric assistance (Gallagher, 2015). In the most recent Canadian National College Health Assessment (ACHA, 2016), 59.6% of students reported having felt hopeless in the preceding year, 64.5% reported experiencing “overwhelming anxiety”, 44.4% reported feeling so depressed that they had difficulty functioning, 13% had seriously considered suicide and 2.1% had attempted suicide.It is of note that all of these numbers have increased since the 2013 survey (ACHA, 2013), with the biggest increases in reports of overwhelming anxiety (8.0%), debilitating depression (6.9%), and hopelessness (5.8%). Similarly, a study exploring trends in symptom severity and patterns across more than 340 post-secondary institutions in the U.S. found “significantly increasing trends for self-reported distress in generalized anxiety, depression, social anxiety, family distress, and academic distress”(Xiao, Carney, Youn, Janis, Castonguay, Hayes, & Locke, 2017) This context of increasing psychological distress among postsecondary students has been the backdrop for research in recent years that looks at the impact of student mental health on academic success and retention.Student emotional health has been found to be directly related to academic performance and retention. (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994; Pritchard, & Wilson, 2003; Van Brunt, 2008). It has further been found that students with mental health issues and disabilities are at greater risk for non-completion of their studies (O’Keeffe, 2013). In addition to the personal, social, and familial costs, when students are unable to complete their post-secondary program and achieve their academic credentials, there are a multitude of costs to the institution and taxpayers (Grayson & Grayson, 2003). The need for a comprehensive mental health strategy within post-secondary institutions has become essential. The Canadian Association of College and University Student Services (CACUSS, 2013) in collaboration with the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) has identified seven key components in developing a systemic framework to support “mental well-being and learning”. (See Figure 1). This model proposes that how a post-secondary institution is set up including its organizational structures, priorities, policies and procedures needs to be done in such a way as to support student mental health at the broader campus community level, all the way down to the individual level.Given this context, it is reasonable to assume that the effectiveness of a post-secondary mental health framework will be most rigorously tested at the individual student level – when dealing with students who are experiencing serious mental health crises.It is in addressing these scenarios in particular, that campus responders will be looking to the institution for direction. Figure 1: Framework for Post-Secondary Student Mental Health. Reprinted from Post-Secondary Student Mental Health:Guide to a Systemic Approach, by Canadian Association of College & University Student Services and Canadian Mental Health Association, 2013, retrievedJanuary 10, 2018 from: https://www.cacuss.ca/files/Resources/PSSMH_GuideToSystemicApproach_CACUSS-
This study surveyed and subsequently interviewed over 200 hundred college students who indicated an interest in transferring to university. Students were tracked until they left their colleges, whether or not they transferred. The objective was to learn when, why, and how students finally decide to transfer or not. Information from the study will inform decisions about: the most and least effective forms of transfer articulation, the timing and sources of student counseling, the advisability of transfer before or after completion of college studies, and about the differential effects of different categories of transfer “pathways,” and of different college models, for example “university centres” and “concurrent colleges.” The study concludes that the articulation that students “see” is not always the articulation that planners and policy-makers “see” for them, that the “concurrent college” model performed the best and that the “traditional college” performed the worst, that availability of pathways generally promotes transfer, and that program switching or “internal transfer” prior to transfer to university is very frequent.
