Kamaljeet Singh, Merli Tamtik, and Bryan Gopaul

Discussing the Discussion Paper: A Symposium on Key Themes Identified by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities

A summary by

Kamaljeet Singh, Merli Tamtik, and Bryan Gopaul

Doctoral Students in Higher Education

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto

Introduction

On Monday, September 24th, 2012, the Higher Education Group at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), University of Toronto led by Dr. Glen A. Jones, the Ontario Research Chair on Postsecondary Education Policy and Measurement, hosted a one-day symposium focusing on key themes and issues emerging from the discussion paper entitled:Strengthening Ontario’s centres of creativity, innovation and knowledge, which was released earlier in the summer by the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU). This free, public event was designed to provide a forum for informed discussion and debate of several important questions identified in this document. The symposium involved three expert panel discussions, with each focusing on a key theme from the MTCU’s discussion paper.

Panel One: Flexible Degree Structures

The first panel centered on the notion of flexible degree structures, which is articulated in the paper as an important way to build on the province’s postsecondary education sector’s existing strengths in quality, productivity, and innovation. Dr. Peter Dietsche, the William G. Davis Chair in Community College Leadership at OISE chaired the first panel and introduced its three members: Dr. George Fallis, Departments of Economics and Social Science at York University; Dr. Robert Gordon, President Emeritus at Humber College; and Dr. Jones from the Higher Education Group at OISE.

Dr. Fallis began by commending the MTCU for utilizing a model of stakeholder consultationin an effort to solicit feedback regarding its discussion paper from institutions, and suggested that this is how policy in higher education should develop. He provided an outline for his presentation and mentioned that he would be starting out with a discussion on the current context of postsecondary education in Ontario; followed by a delineation of priorities for the system including expanding credential options; and finally, a description of what these credential options are.

In highlighting the current context, Dr. Falliscontended that the purpose of this symposium was to find ways to support and strengthen existing arrangements within an excellent system of postsecondary education in Ontario. He reminded the audience that since 1997, the province has seen massive expansionsin first level places, graduate education, and research funding, with an annual expenditure growth rate of about 8%. Dr. Fallispredictsthat 70% of jobs in the future will require a postsecondary qualification, and that the province will continue to operate in a climate of expenditure restraint until approximately 2017-18. Despite Ontario’s well-functioning universities, colleges, and apprenticeship programs, Dr. Fallisacknowledged two issues that he termed to be “at the margin”. First, he indicated that there exist a significant number of disengaged undergraduate students, particularly in non-career oriented Arts and Science degree programs. Second, and especially considering the current climate of expenditure restraint, Dr. Falliscited uncertain labour market outcomes as an issue that has emerged.

Following-up on his discussion concerning the current context, Dr. Fallis identified three key priorities for the MTCU to consider. First, hestated that system provision in Ontario may have actually exceeded labour demand, andurged for a balanced approach in considering the impacts of these factors on the system. Second,although the province is experiencing a period of expenditure restraint, Dr. Fallisnoted that the classroom should be protected, with student learning not being compromised. Finally, heargued that Ontario does not need a bigger system of postsecondary education with the creation of new universities or colleges, but rather a series of expanded credential options within the existing system.

Dr. Fallis provided three broad examples of what expanded credential options could look like in Ontario’s system of postsecondary education. First, he introduced the ideaof polytechnic education, which would offer career-focussedprograms thatare a blend of theoretical and applied knowledge. Dr. Fallis purported that such an expansion of credentials will assist with improving the relationship between colleges and universities, particularly in terms of credit transfer and program articulation. Further, in terms of innovation, heindicated that these improved institutional collaborations will help to meet the needs of students by enhancing access to postsecondary education and improving labour market outcomes.

Second, Dr. Fallis suggested that the MTCU consider the notion of an Open University or College that would be based on the principle of open access; offer a mixed mode delivery (online and in-class); and blend career-focussed education with liberal arts and science programs. Third, he argued for the re-alignment of current degree formats in the province, highlighting the need for more 3-year degrees, which he felt represent a very sound bachelor degree format. Dr. Fallis alsofelt that Ontario’s current degree programs are not sufficiently based on the classic model of liberal education, with effective participation in civic life being the central tenet of this type of education. Finally, healso encouraged the consideration of Honours degree programs, which are offered by most other countries around the world, especially for high ability and highly engaged students and that Dr. Fallis believes will broaden participation in postsecondary education in Ontario.

The second panel member, Dr.Gordon, cautioned that there are too many people who want baccalaureate degrees in Ontario but there are not enough jobs in the labour market. Dr. Gordon pointed out that the province is faced with an increased debt load and candidlymentioned that theprovincial government is “broke”, which he believed could be a reason for their solutions not necessarily being the best from an education standpoint, but required due to systemic constraints. Healso indicated that Ontario’s system of postsecondary education isexperiencing an increased number of part-time learners, which concomitantly increases the need for flexible degree structures. In discussing the nature of flexible degree structures, Dr. Gordon commentedthat although online learning has the propensity to provide more options for students, is technology really part of the solution or is it part of the problem?

Further, Dr. Gordon argued that efforts for program articulation and credit transfer have to be initiated at the provincial government level because the academic snobbery of universities only serves to hinder the ad-hoc development of these arrangements within the system. A key point that he raised here was that of trust and respect between institutions. He believes that these elements are absolutely essential to the development of such arrangements, but can be detrimental tothe status quo of universities. Hence,Dr. Gordon pertinently questioned: Are institutions in it for service to students or their own benefit?

In response to this issue, Dr. Gordon called for the entire system in Ontario to stop hailingall universities as research institutionsbut to instead raise the possibilityof the role of colleges in becoming polytechnics. To sum up, he explicitly highlighted the need formore cooperation among institutions; more formalized transfer arrangements; more bridge programs between colleges and universities (such as the University of Guelph at Humber); and for more colleges to offer degree programs. However, Dr. Gordon once again recognized that a key barrier to such progress in Ontario’s postsecondary education system is that there is no trust and respect between institutions.

Dr. Jones, the final panellist in the symposium’s flexible degree structures theme, outlined a three-part presentation that was to beginwith a discussion of Bologna and degrees; followed by a conversation about the international dimension; and then a conclusion on the importance of being open. Dr. Jones explainedthat the “Bologna Process” hasbecome an umbrella term that refers to the dramatic, multi-faceted reforms of higher education systemsthroughout Europe that were designed to facilitate student and employment mobility. Henoted that the original objectives of Bologna Process were designed to obtain some of the benefits associated with the North American postsecondary educationsystem, including internationally recognized degrees, a modular curriculum that would facilitate credit transfer, and a record of student accomplishment. It would be a mistake to conclude that the major lesson of Bologna is the three-year degree when in reality this broad reform process, which is far from complete, was designed to achieve some of the benefits long associated with our system.

In terms of degrees, Dr. Jones mentioned that although there is a need to think about and study the 3-year degree option for Ontario, it is important to retain 4-year degrees because of their international recognition. Dr. Jones believes that the 3-year degree, which has been in existence in Ontario for the past 40 years, is generally not recognized in Europe and the United States and has become a fall-back for students who cannot complete 4-year degrees. Three-year degrees from European countries that have a 13-year secondary school system appear to be more widely recognized in the United States than three-year degrees from other countries. However, in discussing 3-year degrees for Ontario, Dr. Jones asked: Why not think about offering 3-year degrees via the college sector, especially since the majority of students from some countries across Europe are graduating with 3-year degrees from the non-university sector that look more like 3-year advanced diplomas at Ontario’s colleges?

As for the international dimension, Dr. Jones highlighted that the MTCU’s paper only uses the word “international” twice. He asserted that the importance of learning languages is critical to ensure the global competitiveness of our graduates. In Europe, Dr. Jones mentioned that students tend to leave the postsecondary education system with fluency in at least two, and up to three to four languages. Moreover, when the Bologna Process was initiated, key emphasis was placed not only on state quality assessment mechanisms, non-university institutions, and student learning and outcomes, but also on offering students international experiencesthat would work to enhance postsecondary education participation rates. Therefore, Dr. Jones pointed out that if Ontario were to learn from Bologna, it is imperative that serious thought be given toexpanding international opportunities for our students.

Finally, Dr. Jones articulated the need for an Open University in Ontario that would be based on the notion of open access. This facility would allow for marginalized populations and socio-economic groups that are being left behind to participate in postsecondary education and more effectively enter the labour market.He proposed that such an Open University would provide leadership in on-line programming, recognize student’s prior learning, work with existing institutions to effectively facilitate the transfer of credits, and also grant its own degrees. In conclusion, Dr. Jones identified that Ontario’s postsecondary education system should move forward by maintaining its internationally recognized 4-year degrees and reviewing the 3-year degree option for universities and colleges; taking into account important international considerations; and structuring an Open University with a mandate to focus on open access.

Panel Two: Quality Teaching and Learning Outcomes

Experts on the second panel for the symposium were Dr. Erika Kustra, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Windsor; and Dr. Nicola Simmons from the Faculty of Education at Brock University. The moderator for the panel was Dr. Katherine Janzen from the Higher Education Group at OISE. Ms. Mary Catherine Lennon from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO), listed initially as the third presenter, was not able to attend. She had sent her presentation and Dr. Janzen introduced the content to the audience.

Dr. Janzen started out by giving a brief background of the theme, presenting the definition of learning outcomes and listing relevant policy documents. She noted that the panellists would address the theme as it applies to the graduate level programs, however, most of the content is applicable to the undergraduate level as well. Dr. Janzen linked the theme to the points discussed in the previous panel, noting that learning outcomes are an important aspect of the Bologna Process in the European Union, where the focus is on the program outcomes, skills, and attitudes gained in the completion of a course.

Learning outcomes refer to the specific skillset defined in the beginning of the course/program about what students are expected to be able to demonstrate that they know, that they can do, and what they value when they complete that course or program. This skillset involves learning in terms of the cognitive skills (content), study skills (such as analytical and synthesis skills) and affective skills (attitudes).

Defined learning outcomes, also referred to as the “degree level expectations” (DLE), are linked to quality assessment of higher education programs in Ontario. In January/February 2005, the Ontario Council of Graduate Studies 9 (OCGS) adopted official Graduate University Degree Level Expectations (GDLE). In December 2005, the University Undergraduate Degree Level Expectations (UDLES) were adopted. The UDLES are incorporated into Review and Audit Guidelines by the Ontario Council of Academic Vice Presidents. The GDLES are inserted into Graduate Program Review Process – OUC “Quality Assurance Framework”.The learning outcomes are typically defined in a more broader and comprehensive scale at the graduate level than at the undergraduate level.

Dr. Kustra’s presentation, titled “Graduate Degree Level Expectations and Learning Outcomes”, focused on explaining why learning outcomes are needed and what advantages those might bring. The list of potential benefits of learning outcomes included the following:

It provides a certain clarity for the instructor about the course content and method used;

Students’ motivation increases as they understand why certain components have been included into the course;

It helps to choose appropriate teaching methods and adapt according to the students’ needs considering what could be alternative ways of reaching a specific learning outcome (e.g. having a blind student in class helps to assess what adaptations need to be made);

It provides a strategic and relevant assessment on how instructor is going to authentically reach the end goal;

It allows constructive alignment: intentionally building course outcomes into program outcomes and degree outcomes feeding into provincial expectations;

It helps to ensure consistency across universities;

It provides a platform for provincial level conversation (currently we talk about things differently, too much of divergence between courses and programs);

It allows setting a basic quality level.

Towards the end of her presentation, Dr. Kustra presented a rubric to assist instructor’s in developing course learning outcomes and examples as they would apply to different programs and levels (such as, formulating research questions, undertaking research, and evaluating research outputs within a discipline, but also within an interdisciplinary context (Master level in social work);competently conduct independent research using at least one research paradigm (mixed, qualitative, or quantitative) (PhD in social work).

Dr. Simmons offered a more critical approach to learning outcomes. Her presentationentitled “(Dis)engaging students in Higher Education”, focused on some of the concerns related to the topic, questioning the concepts and benefits of the exercise. The overall question she raised was that if learning outcomes are so useful, why is there a strong resistance in application? Dr. Simmons presented and elaborated on several challenges raised in the academic literature. For example, studies show that:

Learning outcomes can make students passive learners. A focus on outcome might not create deep and meaningful learning experiences, and students might get less and poorer quality feedback. How do we get that back?

The exercise might be more meaningful for an instructor than for students. We might end up with a ‘shopping list’ instead of the big picture students are aiming for.

Outcomes-based education can run the risk of emphasizing the accumulation of discrete items of content rather than the meta-cognitive and transdisciplinary thinking and problem-solving. Behavioural engagement is always easier than cognitive and psychological engagement, making learning rather narrow and short-term.

Pressure for accountability and outcomes may lead to less accountability as measurable indicators reflect a considerable loss of public trust in education.Quality assurance processes tend to inhibit innovation in teaching and learning rather than advance it.

Influence on innovation. Students will be getting the jobs that do not exist today. We need to provide them with the skillset that encourages transdisciplinary thinking and innovation. Is it appropriate that we define the narrow skillset for future situations that need creative thinking?