Once in a while we get what we deserve. Thank you to all the students who took the time to fill in the NSSE surveys; to the faculty who help create the engagement; and to the staff who support the whole enterprise. Bravo. The following is from Ken Steele's Academica Top Ten which was posted today.
Trent surpasses provincial average in NSSE: Trent University reports that it has surpassed Ontario results in all 5 survey categories in this year's National Survey of Student Engagement. The university also exceeded the North American average for Level of Academic Challenge and Supportive Campus Environment. 88% of first-year students and 87% of senior-year students surveyed rated their education experience at Trent as either "excellent" or "good," compared to 82% and 77%, respectively, in Ontario and 86% and 85% in North America. 87% of first-year Trent students said they would attend the institution if they could start over again, compared to an average of 85% across Ontario and North America. 82% of senior-year students at Trent affirmed their choice as well, compared to 76% in Ontario and 82% in North America. Trent News Release | Add/Read Comments
Thursday 1 December 2011
Thursday 24 November 2011
Brenda's Top Ten
Today it's a pleasure to host a guest blog from Dr Brenda Smith-Chant, Chair of Psychology. Bravo!
This is an email I received from a prospective student along with my response. My response is somewhat rough (it was quickly written to ensure that my response was rapid), but it articulates my perspective as a Trent Alumni (Undergraduate Class of 1994), faculty member, and a colleague in the Department of Psychology. It is based on our departmental discussions on our OCAV expectations for students and learning. It reflects what we have identified as our ‘value added’ and ‘unique identity’ for our program at Trent. It also encompasses our reflections on how our program fits into our Trent Mission. This is also how we want to properly recruit students.
The email I received:
Hi!
Thank-you for taking the time to email me. What I'd like to do is to figure out if I'm a good fit for your program.
I've read everything I can get my hands on about your psych department. Out of all the Universities that I've seen, it interests me the most. I like the course descriptions and overviews. As well as general vibe of the University.
From a professor's standpoint what do you see in the students that excel that sets them apart?
Thank-you again,
M**
My response:
Dear M**
We are having an open house in Oshawa this Saturday from 10-2. I will be there along with some of our other faculty. I would love to meet you if you can come by.
For fun, here are the top 10 things you can do to ensure that you 'stand out' from the crowd:
10. Sit near the front in lecture. Really. Make sure you go to EVERY lecture. We actually notice people near the front and care about having them there. My best students are usually in the first few rows.
9. Avoid texting, updating your FB status, or watching downloaded Twilight episodes while in class. We really, really hate that.
8. Take notes. According to lots and lots of research, taking lecture notes is highly associated with improved academic performance. It seems to be due to 2 factors: The act of forcing you to process and summarize the content and also preventing passive listening.
7. Ask great questions. Avoid asking questions about things in the syllabus (that’s what we call the course outline we are required to give at the beginning of a course). Know and refer to the syllabus for dates, details and such. Instead, ask questions that reflect you are thinking about the material and trying to make sense of it. In this, there are no 'dumb' questions. Some of the most amazing questions are about trying to sort through a supposedly simple concept.
6. Realize that being 'wrong' is important. Putting up your hand and being right is actually boring for me. When people put up their hand and say something different than expected--as a Prof, I have a teachable moment. There is something I can do to help you work through a concept. As a student--stop worrying about being wrong. Take chances. Make mistakes. Get messy! (Magic School Bus had it right).
5. Take responsibility for your own learning. Got a boring (or less than optimal) prof? Don't expect them to provide YOUR motivation and challenge. Can't understand a concept and find it dull? Find the fascination for yourself. Read about it. Talk about it. There is more to content than just the assigned readings.
4. Be a critical thinker--but this means more than being negative. Examine what you believe and learn. What is the evidence supporting or in conflict with this belief? Be like a thoughtful judge--weigh the evidence and make your own decisions based on a reasoned approach. Be open to new ideas.
3. Make sure that your academic career is balanced. Don't think that we want obsessive students who do nothing but study! Get out and have other interests! Have hobbies--see shows--go dancing! Join clubs and associations--Whatever good clean fun you can have. Learn to balance academics with fun. Your outside interests will sustain you through the difficult times (which there will be) and also help you to become a more interesting person.
2. Make contact with your professors. We hold office hours and often no one comes. Talk to us about an assignment or test. Ask for help. Let us do what is part of our life's work: Mentor you.
and
Number 1: Find your passion and joy and follow it. Put your heart into your work. If you find something interesting, if you find something touching, if you find something enraging--follow it up. Academics is not about learning content (that is just the vehicle for the work). It is about discovering what you need to meet the challenges that you will face all your life. It is about identifying the conditions and resources you need to foster to become the best person you can endeavour to be. It is about finding a way to meet the bar that will be set for you and exceeding expectations. As a professor, my job and my passion is to support my students to excel. I succeed when you succeed. I want all my students to surpass what I am able to accomplish myself. To do this--you need to love what you do. We want you to find your passion.
M**, I know this may not have been what you expected--but it is what I truly believe. It is our philosophy at Trent and in our Department of Psychology. I believe these ideas make Trent unique. I know it is what makes our students some of the top students in Canada.
Brenda Smith-Chant
Chair, Department of Psychology
Trent University
This is an email I received from a prospective student along with my response. My response is somewhat rough (it was quickly written to ensure that my response was rapid), but it articulates my perspective as a Trent Alumni (Undergraduate Class of 1994), faculty member, and a colleague in the Department of Psychology. It is based on our departmental discussions on our OCAV expectations for students and learning. It reflects what we have identified as our ‘value added’ and ‘unique identity’ for our program at Trent. It also encompasses our reflections on how our program fits into our Trent Mission. This is also how we want to properly recruit students.
The email I received:
Hi!
Thank-you for taking the time to email me. What I'd like to do is to figure out if I'm a good fit for your program.
I've read everything I can get my hands on about your psych department. Out of all the Universities that I've seen, it interests me the most. I like the course descriptions and overviews. As well as general vibe of the University.
From a professor's standpoint what do you see in the students that excel that sets them apart?
Thank-you again,
M**
My response:
Dear M**
We are having an open house in Oshawa this Saturday from 10-2. I will be there along with some of our other faculty. I would love to meet you if you can come by.
For fun, here are the top 10 things you can do to ensure that you 'stand out' from the crowd:
10. Sit near the front in lecture. Really. Make sure you go to EVERY lecture. We actually notice people near the front and care about having them there. My best students are usually in the first few rows.
9. Avoid texting, updating your FB status, or watching downloaded Twilight episodes while in class. We really, really hate that.
8. Take notes. According to lots and lots of research, taking lecture notes is highly associated with improved academic performance. It seems to be due to 2 factors: The act of forcing you to process and summarize the content and also preventing passive listening.
7. Ask great questions. Avoid asking questions about things in the syllabus (that’s what we call the course outline we are required to give at the beginning of a course). Know and refer to the syllabus for dates, details and such. Instead, ask questions that reflect you are thinking about the material and trying to make sense of it. In this, there are no 'dumb' questions. Some of the most amazing questions are about trying to sort through a supposedly simple concept.
6. Realize that being 'wrong' is important. Putting up your hand and being right is actually boring for me. When people put up their hand and say something different than expected--as a Prof, I have a teachable moment. There is something I can do to help you work through a concept. As a student--stop worrying about being wrong. Take chances. Make mistakes. Get messy! (Magic School Bus had it right).
5. Take responsibility for your own learning. Got a boring (or less than optimal) prof? Don't expect them to provide YOUR motivation and challenge. Can't understand a concept and find it dull? Find the fascination for yourself. Read about it. Talk about it. There is more to content than just the assigned readings.
4. Be a critical thinker--but this means more than being negative. Examine what you believe and learn. What is the evidence supporting or in conflict with this belief? Be like a thoughtful judge--weigh the evidence and make your own decisions based on a reasoned approach. Be open to new ideas.
3. Make sure that your academic career is balanced. Don't think that we want obsessive students who do nothing but study! Get out and have other interests! Have hobbies--see shows--go dancing! Join clubs and associations--Whatever good clean fun you can have. Learn to balance academics with fun. Your outside interests will sustain you through the difficult times (which there will be) and also help you to become a more interesting person.
2. Make contact with your professors. We hold office hours and often no one comes. Talk to us about an assignment or test. Ask for help. Let us do what is part of our life's work: Mentor you.
and
Number 1: Find your passion and joy and follow it. Put your heart into your work. If you find something interesting, if you find something touching, if you find something enraging--follow it up. Academics is not about learning content (that is just the vehicle for the work). It is about discovering what you need to meet the challenges that you will face all your life. It is about identifying the conditions and resources you need to foster to become the best person you can endeavour to be. It is about finding a way to meet the bar that will be set for you and exceeding expectations. As a professor, my job and my passion is to support my students to excel. I succeed when you succeed. I want all my students to surpass what I am able to accomplish myself. To do this--you need to love what you do. We want you to find your passion.
M**, I know this may not have been what you expected--but it is what I truly believe. It is our philosophy at Trent and in our Department of Psychology. I believe these ideas make Trent unique. I know it is what makes our students some of the top students in Canada.
Brenda Smith-Chant
Chair, Department of Psychology
Trent University
Wednesday 23 November 2011
Cannibals, Divas
I've been thinking a lot lately about the meaning and etymology of the word "collegium". Most dictionaries define the word as a "college" but also--surprisingly--as either a board of officials that administered a commissariat in the former Soviet Union or The College of Cardinals in the Vatican. Signs taken for wonders. I certainly didn't expect the last two definitions. But in a way I shouldn't have been that surprised, given the nature of the academic community. We are both a collective and a hierarchy. We are both/and, and not either/or. We were always a community of scholars who shared certain common goals, and in this sense we were something of a community collective. But as a "vocation" or calling, academia has always had an air of evangelicalism about it and, as such, has always had its share of extraordinary, virtually shamanistic practitioners. Some good (Newman), some not so much (Svengali). As highly complex organizations, moreover, universities have always had political dynamics that at times bordered on both the autocratic and the democratic. Both/and.
What fascinates me in thinking about the contemporary Collegium is, not so much how such noble roots continue to underpin our enterprise, but how often these ancient roots have also, simultaneously, been allowed to wither. I am mesmerized by how many of our founding ideals both persevere, yet have also become corrupted in the 21st-century university. Consider, for example, two founding principles: collectivism and evangelical enthusiasm.
The sense of a collective enterprise with common goals is extraordinarily difficult to sustain in a resource starved environment. The notion of a cooperative where everyone works for the common good can (and has) easily become an individualistic marketplace of competing aspirations and ambitions. There are obvious examples like the high-marks-at-any-cost oriented student, or the erstwhile former colleagues who now fiercely compete for the gold rings of tenure, research fame, or public awards. People on desert islands revert to cannibalism; in lean times academic citizens become territorial, baronial, or at worst, utterly indifferent to the good of the whole. And who can blame a demented Head, driven mad by hunger, who sacrifices the good of the whole for his or her own particular slice of the world? The imperative, then, for all members of the Collegium is to clearly articulate their common goals and directions, and then to demand that we collectively put our money where our mouth is and allocate resources fairly--which does not necessarily mean equally.
Another wrinkle on this notion of an old root persisting, yet simultaneously deforming in its contemporary manifestation, is the notion of being "sacred" or "special". Needless to say, not all university people in the past were saints, but I want to acknowledge how post-secondary participation in the past WAS reserved for an elite body of students taught by an elite professoriate that held a position of social privilege. That this elitism is no longer the norm is a good thing. But the deformed legacy of this past is the narcissistic sense of entitlement that has replaced respect as a way of being in the Collegium. Make no mistake: the vast majority of academic citizens are salt of the earth people who work and study hard, care about each other, and do the right thing. But a small percentage has mistaken "privilege" for "right". Hence the individual who disses a staff member, or another who disrespects a colleague. Hence the sad need for a policy around a respectful workplace and learning environment. A sad day when we need a policy to ensure that our citizens act in a civil manner to each other. But better a policy and civility than no policy and brutish behaviour.
The short version is that as we move into the future at Trent our Collegium should have no time for divas, no time for the sense of entitlement that leads to disrespect or toxicity. No time for cannibals either for that matter.
What fascinates me in thinking about the contemporary Collegium is, not so much how such noble roots continue to underpin our enterprise, but how often these ancient roots have also, simultaneously, been allowed to wither. I am mesmerized by how many of our founding ideals both persevere, yet have also become corrupted in the 21st-century university. Consider, for example, two founding principles: collectivism and evangelical enthusiasm.
The sense of a collective enterprise with common goals is extraordinarily difficult to sustain in a resource starved environment. The notion of a cooperative where everyone works for the common good can (and has) easily become an individualistic marketplace of competing aspirations and ambitions. There are obvious examples like the high-marks-at-any-cost oriented student, or the erstwhile former colleagues who now fiercely compete for the gold rings of tenure, research fame, or public awards. People on desert islands revert to cannibalism; in lean times academic citizens become territorial, baronial, or at worst, utterly indifferent to the good of the whole. And who can blame a demented Head, driven mad by hunger, who sacrifices the good of the whole for his or her own particular slice of the world? The imperative, then, for all members of the Collegium is to clearly articulate their common goals and directions, and then to demand that we collectively put our money where our mouth is and allocate resources fairly--which does not necessarily mean equally.
Another wrinkle on this notion of an old root persisting, yet simultaneously deforming in its contemporary manifestation, is the notion of being "sacred" or "special". Needless to say, not all university people in the past were saints, but I want to acknowledge how post-secondary participation in the past WAS reserved for an elite body of students taught by an elite professoriate that held a position of social privilege. That this elitism is no longer the norm is a good thing. But the deformed legacy of this past is the narcissistic sense of entitlement that has replaced respect as a way of being in the Collegium. Make no mistake: the vast majority of academic citizens are salt of the earth people who work and study hard, care about each other, and do the right thing. But a small percentage has mistaken "privilege" for "right". Hence the individual who disses a staff member, or another who disrespects a colleague. Hence the sad need for a policy around a respectful workplace and learning environment. A sad day when we need a policy to ensure that our citizens act in a civil manner to each other. But better a policy and civility than no policy and brutish behaviour.
The short version is that as we move into the future at Trent our Collegium should have no time for divas, no time for the sense of entitlement that leads to disrespect or toxicity. No time for cannibals either for that matter.
Tuesday 22 November 2011
Open Response Letter to CUPE
November 22, 2011
Dear CUPE Colleagues:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful, critical, and civil open letter which I have read very reflectively. (See http://cupe3908.org/index.php?id=264).
Yours is a substantive letter that surely merits a thoughtful response; you raise many excellent issues, pose solid critiques, and ask thoroughly legitimate questions. May I take this opportunity to respond?
You are absolutely spot on when you comment that "the Academic Plan was meant to provide an overarching framework – a vision of the university – that would serve as the foundation for long-term financial planning". This is why the draft plan begins with an affirmation that the academic enterprise is paramount at Trent. And why it argues that we must stop "chasing the money" and concentrate, rather, on 72 recommendations that cross all executive portfolios (Academic, Administrative, External Relations, and Research.) These recommendations are designed to articulate clearly Trent's unique academic identity.
You are also spot on when you remark that "money continu[es] to be a driving concern." Financial instability is a major concern across the post-secondary sector in Ontario and only a very foolish academic citizen would ignore this reality. This was one of the major challenges in writing the draft: how to be realistic about money yet maintain one's academic vision and integrity? With great respect, I think you are inaccurate in the statement that "the Academic Plan has become something of an adversarial exercise; somehow, imagining a vision of Trent University has got lost in the shuffle.". I would like to point out (a) that the Plan remains, at this point, a living draft (which was posted on the Trent website November 21) and offered to the entire community for more critique and feedback throughout the rest of November and all of December; and (b) with over thirty-five consultation meetings (many of which were attended by LTAs) the process has been anything but adversarial. On the contrary, the draft could not exist in its present form without collective input. I say this with respect.
It is true "that the Academic Plan Committee comprises only full-time faculty members and [one member of] administration [me ]." The Committee was struck in late May/early June through an extensive consultation with the Chairs and Deans. No one disputes the incalculable contribution that CUPE members and LTAs make at Trent, but the feeling around the Provost's Planning Group was that preliminary long-term planning should be initially restricted to tenured faculty who are presumably here for the long term, conditional upon extensive consultations with all members of the community (many of whom are also here for the long term). I agreed (and still agree) with this sentiment; not an ideal solution but one for which I am totally responsible. Quite simply, the Committee needed to be small enough to be nimble and efficient, yet it had to be flexible enough to share "authorship" of the Plan with all who provided input. For this latter reason we were meticulous about seeking input from all of our bargaining units--CUPE, OPSEU, TUFA, as well as many student groups, alumni, and other academic colleagues.
Once again, I thank you for your letter and for the tone it adopts. Please do read through the draft plan and continue to provide feedback. In my opinion, it's only through honest debate and civil argumentation that we can achieve true solidarity and collegiality.
Dear CUPE Colleagues:
Thank you very much for your thoughtful, critical, and civil open letter which I have read very reflectively. (See http://cupe3908.org/index.php?id=264).
Yours is a substantive letter that surely merits a thoughtful response; you raise many excellent issues, pose solid critiques, and ask thoroughly legitimate questions. May I take this opportunity to respond?
You are absolutely spot on when you comment that "the Academic Plan was meant to provide an overarching framework – a vision of the university – that would serve as the foundation for long-term financial planning". This is why the draft plan begins with an affirmation that the academic enterprise is paramount at Trent. And why it argues that we must stop "chasing the money" and concentrate, rather, on 72 recommendations that cross all executive portfolios (Academic, Administrative, External Relations, and Research.) These recommendations are designed to articulate clearly Trent's unique academic identity.
You are also spot on when you remark that "money continu[es] to be a driving concern." Financial instability is a major concern across the post-secondary sector in Ontario and only a very foolish academic citizen would ignore this reality. This was one of the major challenges in writing the draft: how to be realistic about money yet maintain one's academic vision and integrity? With great respect, I think you are inaccurate in the statement that "the Academic Plan has become something of an adversarial exercise; somehow, imagining a vision of Trent University has got lost in the shuffle.". I would like to point out (a) that the Plan remains, at this point, a living draft (which was posted on the Trent website November 21) and offered to the entire community for more critique and feedback throughout the rest of November and all of December; and (b) with over thirty-five consultation meetings (many of which were attended by LTAs) the process has been anything but adversarial. On the contrary, the draft could not exist in its present form without collective input. I say this with respect.
It is true "that the Academic Plan Committee comprises only full-time faculty members and [one member of] administration [me ]." The Committee was struck in late May/early June through an extensive consultation with the Chairs and Deans. No one disputes the incalculable contribution that CUPE members and LTAs make at Trent, but the feeling around the Provost's Planning Group was that preliminary long-term planning should be initially restricted to tenured faculty who are presumably here for the long term, conditional upon extensive consultations with all members of the community (many of whom are also here for the long term). I agreed (and still agree) with this sentiment; not an ideal solution but one for which I am totally responsible. Quite simply, the Committee needed to be small enough to be nimble and efficient, yet it had to be flexible enough to share "authorship" of the Plan with all who provided input. For this latter reason we were meticulous about seeking input from all of our bargaining units--CUPE, OPSEU, TUFA, as well as many student groups, alumni, and other academic colleagues.
Once again, I thank you for your letter and for the tone it adopts. Please do read through the draft plan and continue to provide feedback. In my opinion, it's only through honest debate and civil argumentation that we can achieve true solidarity and collegiality.
Monday 21 November 2011
First Base
Sorry for the long silence, but I've been busy with the Committee putting the final touches to the discussion draft of the Academic Plan. Radical Recovery: The First Academic Plan for Trent University (2012-2015) was posted this morning on the Trent homepage and can be accessed at:
http://www.trentu.ca/vpacademic/documents/Trent%20Academic%20Plan%202012-2015.pdf.
This version of the draft has been created by the Academic Planning Committee which first met in June 2011 at the start of the planning process. Members of the Committee were elected by the Provost's Planning Group from a slate of nominees put together by the Chairs and Deans during the Spring of 2011. The Committee needed to be representative of the Collegium, but also small enough to meet and act with the maximum of efficiency. Members of the Committee are Gary Boire (Chair); Cathy Bruce (Education); Craig Brunetti (Biology); Jim Buttle (Geography); Sally Chivers (English & Canadian Studies); James Conolly (Anthropology); Doug Evans (Environmental Resource Science); Moira Howes (Philosophy); Joe Muldoon (Secretary); David Newhouse (Business & Indigenous Studies); and Colleen O'Manique (Political Studies).
Since the late summer there have been over thirty-five consultations with as many members of our community as possible. This draft is very much a distillation and articulation of what the Committee has heard since late August until now. But this document is still very much a draft, merely the first stab at charting what directions we wish Trent University to follow over the next three years.
As a first draft, this document also constitutes an invitation of sorts to all members of the Trent community. Nothing herein is written in stone; everything written is necessarily open to debate and further discussion. Our final draft will be presented for approval at Senate and at the Board of Governors, in January and February 2012 respectively. Between now and then we invite you to read, reflect, critique, and to send your recommendations for improvement to apfeedback@trentu.ca. The Committee will then reconsider and revise our draft in light of the feedback received over the next couple of months.
The Committee will continue to engage the Collegium on revisions and recommendations through Faculty Board, Senate, and divisional meetings within the Faculty of Arts and Science, as well as the Schools of Education, Nursing, and Graduate Studies. Dates of meetings will be provided shortly via internal email to Chairs and Deans.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and critiques as we work as a Collegium to refine and improve our University.
http://www.trentu.ca/vpacademic/documents/Trent%20Academic%20Plan%202012-2015.pdf.
This version of the draft has been created by the Academic Planning Committee which first met in June 2011 at the start of the planning process. Members of the Committee were elected by the Provost's Planning Group from a slate of nominees put together by the Chairs and Deans during the Spring of 2011. The Committee needed to be representative of the Collegium, but also small enough to meet and act with the maximum of efficiency. Members of the Committee are Gary Boire (Chair); Cathy Bruce (Education); Craig Brunetti (Biology); Jim Buttle (Geography); Sally Chivers (English & Canadian Studies); James Conolly (Anthropology); Doug Evans (Environmental Resource Science); Moira Howes (Philosophy); Joe Muldoon (Secretary); David Newhouse (Business & Indigenous Studies); and Colleen O'Manique (Political Studies).
Since the late summer there have been over thirty-five consultations with as many members of our community as possible. This draft is very much a distillation and articulation of what the Committee has heard since late August until now. But this document is still very much a draft, merely the first stab at charting what directions we wish Trent University to follow over the next three years.
As a first draft, this document also constitutes an invitation of sorts to all members of the Trent community. Nothing herein is written in stone; everything written is necessarily open to debate and further discussion. Our final draft will be presented for approval at Senate and at the Board of Governors, in January and February 2012 respectively. Between now and then we invite you to read, reflect, critique, and to send your recommendations for improvement to apfeedback@trentu.ca. The Committee will then reconsider and revise our draft in light of the feedback received over the next couple of months.
The Committee will continue to engage the Collegium on revisions and recommendations through Faculty Board, Senate, and divisional meetings within the Faculty of Arts and Science, as well as the Schools of Education, Nursing, and Graduate Studies. Dates of meetings will be provided shortly via internal email to Chairs and Deans.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and critiques as we work as a Collegium to refine and improve our University.
Monday 7 November 2011
What experiment?
Have you heard the one about the prof who walks into a classroom and engages with students face to face? Apparently this innovative experiment is a smash hit out west. Indeed, universities across the land are thinking about equally radical interventions in the post-secondary classroom.
Thanks to Bill Atkinson (Physics and Astronomy) who flipped me the link, you too can read all about it at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/universitynews/experiment-giving-undergrads-more-face-time-with-profs-a-hit/article2218337/
Now, I am delighted that students in Calgary are gaining access to profs and that profs across Canada are experimenting to create face time (as best they can) within the constraints of large lectures. But I'm also feeling slightly smug knowing that this is exactly what Trent has been doing for over forty years. The academic plan will have to recommend some hard choices, but sacrificing an interactive pedagogy is not an option. It's one of our differentiating practices and one, that for my money, makes this place so very special.
Thanks to Bill Atkinson (Physics and Astronomy) who flipped me the link, you too can read all about it at:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/universitynews/experiment-giving-undergrads-more-face-time-with-profs-a-hit/article2218337/
Now, I am delighted that students in Calgary are gaining access to profs and that profs across Canada are experimenting to create face time (as best they can) within the constraints of large lectures. But I'm also feeling slightly smug knowing that this is exactly what Trent has been doing for over forty years. The academic plan will have to recommend some hard choices, but sacrificing an interactive pedagogy is not an option. It's one of our differentiating practices and one, that for my money, makes this place so very special.
Wednesday 2 November 2011
Outing the Elephant (on commuters)
One of the more vexatious issues confronting small 21st century universities, ones that happen to be located close to a metropolitan centre, is the issue of commuters. Certainly "commuting" is an elephant in the room for many universities just outside the GTA--one thinks of WLU, Guelph, Waterloo, Brock, and Trent--and it's time to out the elephant before putting it to rest once and for all.
On one hand there are clearly good reasons to live in the same city as your place of University employment. You can easily attend guest lectures, run back to the office if you've forgotten your notes, regularly enjoy college food (!), save on gas, and participate in the politics of everyday life around the coffee maker more than once a week. Most importantly you can have spontaneous face time with students and colleagues and actually be a part of a culture of presence. I reckon these are some of the reasons that some European universities (like Zurich) actually have residency requirements for employees.
On the other hand there are also sound reasons why some individuals choose to live in a different city than where they are employed. They may well have family obligations, may need proximity to research intensive libraries like the Robarts, or may well simply prefer, in our case, Toronto or Ottawa or Kingston (or somewhere else) to Peterborough. As one colleague remarked to me last week, gone are the days of a family packing up the house to follow the main breadwinner to wherever the job may be. And of course there is always Skype, telephones, email, WebCT, and so on. We live in a global village and there's no need to insist on an old-fashioned physical presence. Moreover, many so-called commuters actually show up regularly for everything; many absentee colleagues live around the corner and/or have darn good reasons for staying at home in the evenings and on weekends.
I've thought a lot about these two options and have heard arguments on both sides. I've been taken to task for using the word "commuter" as short hand for absenteeism; I've also been reminded that where one lives is irrelevant so long as one fulfills the terms of ones employment. Fair enough. If the shoe fits and so on.
In the end I reckon the real issue is not really about physical face time or spontaneity or the politics of hallway presence. The real issues, I think, are about the quality of education provided, about the accessibility of professors to their students in ways that both parties are satisfied, and finally about workload equity, fairness, and collegiality. So long as every student is educated well, every professor provides access to students and has access to what she or he needs to do the job, and so long as no one member consistently gets the peach teaching times or meetings are not consistently and tediously scheduled around one individual's timetable, then what we need to do is think about, not what constitutes a "culture of presence," but rather about what we need to do to cultivate and foster a Collegium of engagement, be it physical or virtual.
On one hand there are clearly good reasons to live in the same city as your place of University employment. You can easily attend guest lectures, run back to the office if you've forgotten your notes, regularly enjoy college food (!), save on gas, and participate in the politics of everyday life around the coffee maker more than once a week. Most importantly you can have spontaneous face time with students and colleagues and actually be a part of a culture of presence. I reckon these are some of the reasons that some European universities (like Zurich) actually have residency requirements for employees.
On the other hand there are also sound reasons why some individuals choose to live in a different city than where they are employed. They may well have family obligations, may need proximity to research intensive libraries like the Robarts, or may well simply prefer, in our case, Toronto or Ottawa or Kingston (or somewhere else) to Peterborough. As one colleague remarked to me last week, gone are the days of a family packing up the house to follow the main breadwinner to wherever the job may be. And of course there is always Skype, telephones, email, WebCT, and so on. We live in a global village and there's no need to insist on an old-fashioned physical presence. Moreover, many so-called commuters actually show up regularly for everything; many absentee colleagues live around the corner and/or have darn good reasons for staying at home in the evenings and on weekends.
I've thought a lot about these two options and have heard arguments on both sides. I've been taken to task for using the word "commuter" as short hand for absenteeism; I've also been reminded that where one lives is irrelevant so long as one fulfills the terms of ones employment. Fair enough. If the shoe fits and so on.
In the end I reckon the real issue is not really about physical face time or spontaneity or the politics of hallway presence. The real issues, I think, are about the quality of education provided, about the accessibility of professors to their students in ways that both parties are satisfied, and finally about workload equity, fairness, and collegiality. So long as every student is educated well, every professor provides access to students and has access to what she or he needs to do the job, and so long as no one member consistently gets the peach teaching times or meetings are not consistently and tediously scheduled around one individual's timetable, then what we need to do is think about, not what constitutes a "culture of presence," but rather about what we need to do to cultivate and foster a Collegium of engagement, be it physical or virtual.
Tuesday 1 November 2011
This and That
Two new press releases are of great interest to all of us involved in postsecondary education. The first, from the Council of Ontario Universities, deals with "learner outcomes;" the second, from Harvey Weingarten at HEQCO, deals more extensively with the issues associated with these learner outcomes: quality assurance, differentiation, and mandate meetings with the government.
Happy Reading.
New COU report focuses on defining what students gain from their university degrees
Toronto, November 1, 2011 – Ontario universities are at the forefront of Canadian efforts to ensure that students, employers and universities in other jurisdictions know what skills, knowledge and understanding students have gained from their programs, according to a recent report about the new approach to quality assurance at the province’s universities.
Ensuring the Value of University Degrees in Ontario explains how universities define degree level expectations – the intellectual and creative development that students will acquire from a particular degree, and how these expectations are integrated into curriculum and the learning outcomes of specific courses.
Degree level expectations and learning outcomes are at the heart of Ontario’s new Quality Assurance Framework, which sets out requirements for approval of new programs by the independent Quality Council, for cyclical reviews by the universities, and for periodic auditing by the Quality Council.
“Across all academic programs, our faculty and staff are actively engaged in defining what students acquire at every degree level,” says Alastair Summerlee, Chair of the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) and President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guelph. “Our students are the beneficiaries of this commitment to quality assurance, which ensures that Ontario university degrees are respected locally and internationally by graduate schools and employers.”
Ontario’s degree level expectations and quality assurance framework were developed in the context of international efforts to create more comparable, compatible and coherent higher education systems. They are also aligned with a directive from the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), which called for the provinces to develop more detailed frameworks that describe degree credentials.
“Ontario’s quality assurance system is one of the strongest in the world. We have been quick to evolve in response to international trends and internal demands for mechanisms that protect the quality of our degrees and set out clearly the learning outcomes students will have achieved at graduation,” says Bonnie Patterson, COU President and CEO.
And for a slightly different tweak, check the following link to Harvey Weingarten's most recent blog on the HEQCO site:
http://www.heqco.ca/en-CA/blog/archive/2011/10/31/the-diminishing-quality-of-ontario’s-universities-can-the-system-be-fixed.aspx
Happy Reading.
New COU report focuses on defining what students gain from their university degrees
Toronto, November 1, 2011 – Ontario universities are at the forefront of Canadian efforts to ensure that students, employers and universities in other jurisdictions know what skills, knowledge and understanding students have gained from their programs, according to a recent report about the new approach to quality assurance at the province’s universities.
Ensuring the Value of University Degrees in Ontario explains how universities define degree level expectations – the intellectual and creative development that students will acquire from a particular degree, and how these expectations are integrated into curriculum and the learning outcomes of specific courses.
Degree level expectations and learning outcomes are at the heart of Ontario’s new Quality Assurance Framework, which sets out requirements for approval of new programs by the independent Quality Council, for cyclical reviews by the universities, and for periodic auditing by the Quality Council.
“Across all academic programs, our faculty and staff are actively engaged in defining what students acquire at every degree level,” says Alastair Summerlee, Chair of the Council of Ontario Universities (COU) and President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Guelph. “Our students are the beneficiaries of this commitment to quality assurance, which ensures that Ontario university degrees are respected locally and internationally by graduate schools and employers.”
Ontario’s degree level expectations and quality assurance framework were developed in the context of international efforts to create more comparable, compatible and coherent higher education systems. They are also aligned with a directive from the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), which called for the provinces to develop more detailed frameworks that describe degree credentials.
“Ontario’s quality assurance system is one of the strongest in the world. We have been quick to evolve in response to international trends and internal demands for mechanisms that protect the quality of our degrees and set out clearly the learning outcomes students will have achieved at graduation,” says Bonnie Patterson, COU President and CEO.
And for a slightly different tweak, check the following link to Harvey Weingarten's most recent blog on the HEQCO site:
http://www.heqco.ca/en-CA/blog/archive/2011/10/31/the-diminishing-quality-of-ontario’s-universities-can-the-system-be-fixed.aspx
Friday 21 October 2011
$Teaching or Research$
I spent Thursday at Wilfrid Laurier University where there was a one day symposium entitled "Re-imagining the University in a Changing World". It was better than most gatherings of this type because speakers were asked to speak for only 5-10 minutes and then engage with the audience for an extended period. This engagement was most intense after Ian Clark's presentation on the cost effectiveness of universities.
Clark is one of the authors of both Academic Transformations and the upcoming Academic Reform, the former emanating from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). One of Clark's startling arguments is that teaching only undergraduate universities as envisaged by the current government would cost less than research focused universities and would produce surpluses which could then be reinvested into the hiring and training of more "teaching stream faculty".
Another iconoclastic argument was that there is no reliable research that shows any correlation between excellence in teaching and research productivity. Once the audience regained its collective breath he then delivered the coup de grace: there is some indication in his own research, he remarked, that excellent teaching and excellent research are actually independent of each other and bear no relation whatsoever. Check out the following link to another source: http://www.heqco.ca/en-CA/Pages/Home.aspx.
Talk about deconstructing an academic gospel.
Personally I find the arguments a challenge; even moreso when I realize that this separation of two activities which have long been assumed to be inter-relational is driving both the media coverage of undergraduate education in Ontario and government thinking about the postsecondary sector. Not to mention the shift of enrolments from universities to college training programs Have a happy weekend.
Clark is one of the authors of both Academic Transformations and the upcoming Academic Reform, the former emanating from the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO). One of Clark's startling arguments is that teaching only undergraduate universities as envisaged by the current government would cost less than research focused universities and would produce surpluses which could then be reinvested into the hiring and training of more "teaching stream faculty".
Another iconoclastic argument was that there is no reliable research that shows any correlation between excellence in teaching and research productivity. Once the audience regained its collective breath he then delivered the coup de grace: there is some indication in his own research, he remarked, that excellent teaching and excellent research are actually independent of each other and bear no relation whatsoever. Check out the following link to another source: http://www.heqco.ca/en-CA/Pages/Home.aspx.
Talk about deconstructing an academic gospel.
Personally I find the arguments a challenge; even moreso when I realize that this separation of two activities which have long been assumed to be inter-relational is driving both the media coverage of undergraduate education in Ontario and government thinking about the postsecondary sector. Not to mention the shift of enrolments from universities to college training programs Have a happy weekend.
Wednesday 19 October 2011
Navigating
Sorry for the long hiatus. It's been a busy month what with the start up of the new term and the need to navigate our way through the various drafts of the Academic Plan. A quick update:
All 26 academic units have been visited; we've also consulted with the library, TCSA and college cabinet members, the exec committees of CUPE and OPSEU, as well as the TIP Office. Still to come are the various other stakeholder groups--grad students, student affairs (including the Registrar's Office), TUFA exec, a town hall for all and sundry, and the SEM Committee. The Provost's Planning Group has begun discussing intersecting issues such as the upcoming mandate meetings with government, new program proposals, and the staffing plans for 2012-2013. Kudos to all the colleagues who provided candid and honest input. I especially enjoyed the thoughtful recommendation to abolish all administrators at Trent. Really.
I started drafting the plan from the first day of meetings and as each consultation ended the draft would undergo a variety of revisions. At 35 pages I decided it was time to test the waters with the committee who are now, at my request, critiquing the draft. Once we have a draft that we're comfortable with I hope to post it as a discussion paper on the intranet so that all members of the community can wade into the discussions. We're aiming to have a version ready for initial discussion at Faculty Board in November and/or December, an advanced draft for the Board in early December, Senate (which has exclusive authority over the academic parts) in January. with a final version ready for the Board to approve the fiduciary/financial parts in February.
The title, "Navigating," has been chosen deliberately. The plan is developing in an environment of incredibly radical changes on the horizon. We have government talking of three new "teaching only" undergraduate campuses being built in Ontario; HEQCO is just about to release its second volume on restructuring the post-secondary sector, entitled Academic Reform, and both MTCU and the Council of Ontario Universities are struggling with the complex issue of "learner outcomes". Not to mention mandate meetings between MTCU and the Universities to discuss "differentiation" and possible new funding formulae not based on growth; and being beaten up in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star for not providing a good "return on investment" in the marketplace. Writing our plan in this environment has hardly been a cakewalk; au contraire, it's beena difficult navigation amongst competing interests, colliding expectations, and impinging external and internal pressures. But I digress.
Short version: we have a fantastic community who cares deeply about this beautiful little quirky gem of a university. We have brilliant committee members who are working extremely hard on developing the best plan possible; we have students who are unabated in their passion for this place; and colleagues across the board who really do want this thing to work. As someone very wise remarked today, "I'm beginning to feel optimistic again. Sort of." Stay tuned.
All 26 academic units have been visited; we've also consulted with the library, TCSA and college cabinet members, the exec committees of CUPE and OPSEU, as well as the TIP Office. Still to come are the various other stakeholder groups--grad students, student affairs (including the Registrar's Office), TUFA exec, a town hall for all and sundry, and the SEM Committee. The Provost's Planning Group has begun discussing intersecting issues such as the upcoming mandate meetings with government, new program proposals, and the staffing plans for 2012-2013. Kudos to all the colleagues who provided candid and honest input. I especially enjoyed the thoughtful recommendation to abolish all administrators at Trent. Really.
I started drafting the plan from the first day of meetings and as each consultation ended the draft would undergo a variety of revisions. At 35 pages I decided it was time to test the waters with the committee who are now, at my request, critiquing the draft. Once we have a draft that we're comfortable with I hope to post it as a discussion paper on the intranet so that all members of the community can wade into the discussions. We're aiming to have a version ready for initial discussion at Faculty Board in November and/or December, an advanced draft for the Board in early December, Senate (which has exclusive authority over the academic parts) in January. with a final version ready for the Board to approve the fiduciary/financial parts in February.
The title, "Navigating," has been chosen deliberately. The plan is developing in an environment of incredibly radical changes on the horizon. We have government talking of three new "teaching only" undergraduate campuses being built in Ontario; HEQCO is just about to release its second volume on restructuring the post-secondary sector, entitled Academic Reform, and both MTCU and the Council of Ontario Universities are struggling with the complex issue of "learner outcomes". Not to mention mandate meetings between MTCU and the Universities to discuss "differentiation" and possible new funding formulae not based on growth; and being beaten up in the Globe and Mail and Toronto Star for not providing a good "return on investment" in the marketplace. Writing our plan in this environment has hardly been a cakewalk; au contraire, it's beena difficult navigation amongst competing interests, colliding expectations, and impinging external and internal pressures. But I digress.
Short version: we have a fantastic community who cares deeply about this beautiful little quirky gem of a university. We have brilliant committee members who are working extremely hard on developing the best plan possible; we have students who are unabated in their passion for this place; and colleagues across the board who really do want this thing to work. As someone very wise remarked today, "I'm beginning to feel optimistic again. Sort of." Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)