The Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education (CSSHE) will hold its annual conference at the University of Victoria from Monday, 3 June until Wednesday, 5 June 2013 within the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences. Website for registration, accommodation, delegate services is congress2013.ca
Partial Travel Reimbursement
To view and print the 2013 form, please click here.
Affinity Group Meetings
Affinity Group on Blended Learning :: 3 June 2013 :: 3:00 P.M. :: Room A451 H/SD
Affinity Group on International Higher Education :: 3 June 2013 :: 4:30 P.M. :: Room A451 H/SD
Affinity Group on Student Services :: 3 June 2013 :: 4:30 P.M. :: Room A170 H/SD
Affinity Group on Community Engagement :: 4 June 2013 :: 3:00 P.M. :: Room A170 H/SD
Affinity Group on Governance and Leadership :: 5 June 2013 :: 3:00 P.M. :: Room A170 H/SD
Available in January 2013 at Congress Registration
|BEFORE 1 APRIL||AFTER 31 MARCH|
** – CSSHE conference registration DOES allow access to the CASAE and CSSE conference sessions.
† – Retired, Student, Unwaged
‡ – includes a one-year membership in CSSHE
Proposals for CSSHE Organized Paper Sessions Congress 2013
Below, please find ideas for 20 organized sessions, submitted by your colleagues across the country. The organizers of each session listed below can accept up to 4 presentations per session. A total of 90 minutes will be available for a 4-paper session. Due date for proposals is 28 January 2013. Potential presenters must submit an extended abstract (750 words maximum) and title for their paper. Please submit your proposals to the organizers whose contact information is included below. Student submissions are invited. Should your proposal for inclusion in an organized session not be accepted, you may have the option of letting it stand as an individual paper.
1. Post-secondary Aspirations and Choices: A Life Course Perspective
Maria Adamuti-Trache, University of Texas at Arlington [email@example.com]
Karen Robson, York University [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Post-secondary education (PSE) has become indispensable to securing meaningful employment in rapidly changing knowledge economies. Canadians understand the importance of getting an education and pursuing further education and training over life course. This mentality is particularly noticeable among recent adult immigrants many of whom engage in post-secondary education as a strategy to improve their labour market opportunities after arrival to Canada. Immigrant parents also tend to set up high academic standards for their children – a factor leading to noticeable differences in post-secondary participation by various ethnic and immigrant groups in Canada. The post-secondary aspirations and choices of native and foreign-born populations in Canada, either youth or adults, are important issues for research and policy. A better understanding of learner profiles would help PSE institutions to design programs and support services that respond to the needs of diverse student population.
This organized paper session will address issues related to PSE aspirations and/or choices from a life course perspective which looks at how age, social context, common life transitions shape people’s lives. We will mainly focus on examining PSE profiles of Canadians of various ages, living in different provinces and/or facing challenging life experiences. The overarching research question addressed in this session is: “What are the PSE pathways pursued by Canadians and how do pathways correlate with their specific life course circumstances?” For instance, we will explore how Grade 12 course selection (i.e., proxy for students’ PSE aspirations) is matching the choice of PSE institutions for British Columbia high school graduates. We will also examine factors that predict the PSE goals or intentions of continuing education adult learners, immigrant and non-immigrant, who completed secondary school in Ontario’s Toronto District School Board. We welcome other presenters who would like to contribute to the topic of PSE aspirations and choices to join our session.
2. From the Edge to the Core: Bringing Praxis into the Heart of Learning
Malama Tsimenis, University of Toronto [email@example.com]
Maria Athina (Tina) Martimianakis, University of Toronto [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Experiential education can take many forms including apprenticeships, community service learning, fieldwork, outreach, etc. As one of many approaches to teaching and learning, it is found across disciplines from the Humanities to the Sciences. While experiential learning is gaining momentum in recent years, and its impact on student learning and experience is increasingly being documented, it still largely functions as a corrective or an “add-on” to mainstream pedagogical approaches. For this session, we are inviting papers that explore rationales for giving students the opportunity to extend their learning beyond the boundaries of the classroom. We are interested in both empirical and theoretical papers that address themes such as the impact, approaches, and possible limitations of experiential pedagogies, including the use of technology. We also welcome papers that address the politics and governance of experiential education, including ways to de-marginalize such pedagogical approaches through innovative evaluation strategies, advocacy, formal recognition, as well as papers that reflect on the career opportunities or barriers afforded to faculty engaging in this form of pedagogy.
3. Governing Higher Education: Challenges, Issues and Themes in College and University Governance
Glen Jones, University of Toronto [email@example.com]
This session will provide a forum for the presentation of recent research on university and college governance in Canada. Universities and colleges are extremely complex organizations that are increasingly subjected to outside pressures (from government, industry, private benefactors) who seek to influence the strategic direction of the institution, and internal tensions associated with struggles between and within constituencies and differing views on the future direction of the institution. How does institutional governance balance these often competing pressures while making decisions that are in the “best interests” of the institution? Is the role of institutional leadership and administration changing in a world of scarce resources and increasing government expectations for student accessibility and research productivity? Are governing boards providing appropriate oversight? Do they have the appropriate balance of membership and the organizational capacity as boards to ensure that these institutions are moving in the “right” direction? What is the role of the academic senate in an era of increasing managerialism, and what is the appropriate relationship between academic self-governance and collective bargaining?
4. The Gender Imbalance in Higher Education Enrollments: Beyond the Literacy Issue
Patrick Tierney, Brock University [firstname.lastname@example.org]
The asymmetric gender enrollments in higher education began more than three decades ago and has continued to grow such that the ratio of aggregate enrollments in many Western institutions is 60:40 (females to males) or higher. Card, Payne, and Sechel (2011) believe that, if the current trend continues unabated, “the long[-term] earnings capacity of one half of the labour force” is threatened. In Canada, efforts to address boys’ problems in education continue to focus primarily on literacy, making invisible the myriad problems many boys confront, regarding school achievement and engagement and physical and mental health….studying boys (and men) as other than victimizers and the privileged can and does engender moral outrage, whereas the problems of boys and literacy seem a relatively safer, more reasonable site for academic, educational, and media discourse.(Gosse & Arnocky, 2012, p. 1).
Non-cognitive skills, such as time management and the ability to work in groups, were found to be a strong contributor to boys’ academic attainment, and at par with socioeconomic and cognitive ability factors (Jacob, 2002). Other factors that influence boys’ inability for academic achievement need to be addressed and further studies conducted to determine what can be done to reverse the trend without eroding the gains made by females. For this organized paper session, papers are invited, particularly from students, that go beyond descriptions of current and emerging issues but rather explore other potential contributors and propose innovative, holistic approaches reversing the gender imbalance.
5. A Year after the Maple Spring: Student and political activism @the edge
Alexandre Beaupré-Lavallée, Université de Montréal [email@example.com]
In 2012, Quebec students took to the streets to denounce the 75% hike in tuition fees decreed by the then-government. The widespread discontent was labeled “Maple Spring”, a quirk reference to the “Arab Spring” movement of 2011. Yet this discontent was only the latest of many student flare-ups, both in the Western and non-Western worlds.
Student movements have always been seen as a staple of contestation of authority, as far as the anti-war movement of the 60’s in the United States, the “soixante-huitards” of the summer of 68 in France, or the Islamists student revolts of the 70s in Iran. More recently, students have been at the forefront of the protests against neoliberal reforms in England, the “Occupy” movement of 2012 and the commercialization of higher education. This last topic strikes particularly close to home for higher education researchers and practitioners, as the students’ preoccupation echoes that of many scholars in the field.
How does social and political change impact mobilization and the thirst for equality and reform, then? What lessons can be learnt from the Maple Spring, from the Arab Spring, from the London Summer of 2011, and from all those Springs that go sub-publicized? What place do faculty, administrators and policymakers have in the changes that underline these flare-ups? Ultimately, are students and protestors at large successful in their attempts to redefine their educational universe?
For this organized paper session, we invite papers, particularly from students, that describe current issues surrounding marketization of higher education and its impact on popular mobilization (not necessarily limited to students) as well as contributions regarding political action from university stakeholders at large, in every national and international context.
6. Post-secondary finance policy @the Edge
Deanna Rexe, Simon Fraser University [firstname.lastname@example.org]
There are very few areas of post-secondary public policy that attract the amount of tension and attention as that of post-secondary finance, both in Canada and around the world. In the past few years, proposed changes to government funding, student financial aid, and tuition policy triggered significant action in the public sphere. Large scale mobilization of protesters has occurred here in Canada, with students in Quebec holding the largest and longest student strike in Canadian history. Similar protests have been held in England, United States, Scotland, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Turkey, Greece, Jordan, Argentina, the Philippines, South Africa, the Netherlands, and Puerto Rico.
Financing post-secondary education is a perennial issue for governments, an annual financial problem for institutions, an ideological issue for many organized interests, and a pocketbook issue for students and their families. The broader societal debate on the nature of higher education involves contesting views on the obligations of the state and the individual in the financing of higher education, as well as conflict over approaches to achieve public policy goals of access, affordability, and participation in post-secondary education. These contests occur in the context of profound issues of access, participation, affordability, and equity in Canadian society.
Building on the theme of Congress 2013, this session invites submissions that explore critical aspects of post-secondary finance policy in Canada from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. Papers addressing aspects of post-secondary finance at any stage of the policy cycle including policy formation, implementation, or evaluation will be considered. Applicable topics include student financial aid, tuition, public finance, and institutional adaptation to increased marketization. Papers considering policy at institutional, provincial, or federal level are welcome.
7. Joining the Edges: Leadership Scholarship and Practice
Deb Bartlette, Yukon College [email@example.com]
Middlehurst (2008) notes that after nearly a century of research, and increasing levels of scholarship in the last twenty-five years, there remains a gap between the scholarship and research on leadership and the practice of leadership in higher education (p. 322). In the increasingly complex and challenging world of leadership in education, this seems counter-intuitive, as ideally scholarship and research would assist practising leaders in doing their work. What is the cause of this gap between the scholarship and practice of educational leadership? How can scholarship support the day to day practice of leadership? Can today’s leaders be ‘scholarly practitioners’ or do the pressures facing institutions and their leaders preclude a thoughtful and academic approach?
In this session, practising leaders and leadership scholars will be invited to consider this gap and explore possibilities for ‘joining the edges’. Are today’s leaders too busy to consider the literature? Should leadership research seek to be applied in focus so as to support the practice of leadership? Can – or should- a practising leader maintain her academic life?
Each of the presenters will make a short presentation to be followed by a discussion among them on how this gap might be closed. The organiser will aim to have a balance of leadership scholars and practitioners in this session.
This session plus the proposed session on governance are to support and promote the Governance Affinity group, which will be meeting at the conference.
8. The influence of student experience on student outcomes: the intersection of student experience, learning and development
Elizabeth Wooster, OISE/University of Toronto [Elizabeth.firstname.lastname@example.org]
Student experience has been defined as all aspects in which the student engages that impact their success in the institution they are attending. This includes all academic and social interactions as well as the perceptions the students experience on these interactions. Students’ experiences have been demonstrated to be important factors in student development and seen to influence various student outcomes including completion rates, career choices, degree level outcomes, student satisfaction and persistence rates. How experiences influence these factors is still largely not understood or researched. The impact of institutional level factors has been studied by Kuh et al (Kuh et al, 2005), however, the exact role that teaching styles, learning styles, teaching formats and delivery formats is still largely unexplored. How these factors interplay is especially important when we consider course delivery outside of the traditional forms of delivery (i.e.: e-learning and distributed learning) as well as non-traditional types of students (i.e.: mature students, second entry, and first generation learners). The breadth of questions that exist within this topic is immense. The purpose of this session is to explore questions related to the interaction between student experience, student outcomes and student learning. This session will be of interest to student development professionals, student affair professionals, and those with an interest in student experience and the factors influencing student success.
9. The Graduate Student Experience: Supporting our next Generation of Leaders and Educators
Peggy Patterson, University of Calgary [email@example.com]
In September 2012, the results of a study commissioned by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Canadian Association of Graduate Studies (CAGS) ( Rose, 2012) made a number of recommendations regarding ideas, observations and best practices for supporting the professional development of graduate students in Canada. In addition, the experiences of Graduate Students have been explored and assessed since 2007 by both the Canadian Association of Graduate Studies (CAGS) and by many institutions themselves.
However, although such research is very instructive, it is unclear what individual institutions, departments or programs are actually doing to act on the recommendations and findings. How this attention to graduate education and to the experiences of graduate students translating into the day-to-day education and experiences and the overall education and the professional apprenticeship of masters and doctoral students in our institutions of higher education in Canada?
In this organized paper session, it is proposed that research that describes and evaluates programs and activities that could both enhance and support graduate students’ learning, their experiences and their professional development will be showcased and discussed.
10. Understanding and influencing the adoption of active and student-centred teaching in higher education
Brad Wuetherick, University of Saskatchewan [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Active and student-centred teaching has been increasingly cited within the literature as a form of best practice in teaching and learning in higher education. Broadly stated, active and student-centred teaching represents a shift from traditional knowledge transmission understandings and practices of teaching to a focus on how students learn and approaches that have demonstrated the facilitation of learning, such as: emphasizing active and deep learning rather than passive and surface learning; increasing autonomy and responsibility in the learner; emphasizing experiential learning opportunities; utilizing assessment measures not for the sole purpose of grades, but as tools to promote learning; and furthering a more reflexive and interdependent approach to teaching and learning (Trigwell & Prosser, 1999; Lea et al., 2003; O’Neill & McMahon, 2005; Prince, 2004; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001; Wohlfarth et al., 2008). Active learning fosters an environment that facilitates high levels of social interaction and collaboration to promote student-centred learning through embedding meaningful learning activities and opportunities that engages students and allows for them to apply their learning within the classroom, as well as receiving feedback from peers and teachers (Armbruster et al., 2009; Prince, 2004; Pundak et al., 2009).
Despite increasing evidence that documents the benefits of active and student-centred teaching, a majority of faculty members remain hesitant to reform their teaching (Bok, 2006; Johnson et al., 2009; Pundak et al., 2009). What has been less explored within the literature is an examination as to what factors can influence faculty to adopt active and student-centred teaching attitudes, approaches and/or behaviors, as well as what factors continue to constitute the salient barriers to faculty adoption. This session will explore the factors influencing faculty adoption of active, student-centred teaching practices and explore what higher education institutions might do to facilitate the improved adoption of these evidence-based practices.
11. Reflect for the Best: Best Practices for Fostering Learners’ Reflection across Disciplines
Li-Shih Huang, University of Victoria [email@example.com]
The concept of reflection dates back to the work of John Dewey (1933), who first pointed out that experience alone does not constitute learning; instead, for an experience to become a source of learning, a conscious realization must occur. Since the publication of Schön’s (1983) influential work, The Reflective Practitioner, the literature on education has been enriched by a wealth of research on reflection. The Vygotskian approach to learning also emphasizes the importance of explicit reflection as situated cognition and the roles of both reflective control and deliberate awareness as critical components of formal learning (Vygotsky, 1978). From this perspective, reflection is a valuable mediational tool that helps foster the critical thinking and self-assessment that can contribute to learning. Although educators across disciplines have long recognized its importance and applicability across a wide variety of educational settings, they have more difficulty understanding how to put the concept into practice. Specifically, how to best enact methods to foster reflection among students of different levels of engagement remains elusive and unresolved (see Huang, 2012). This calls for more empirical evidence derived from rigorous classroom-based empirical research. This organized paper session intends to elicit proposals that can illuminate approaches, methods, and techniques toward effectively implementing theoretically integrated and empirically substantiated reflective practices across disciplines. Priority will be given to proposals related to research carried out in various teaching and learning contexts in higher-education settings that has the goal of supporting the learning needs of the ever-growing number of international English-as-an-additional-language students that more and more academic institutions are accepting or trying to attract and support locally, nationally, and internationally.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the education process. Boston, MA: D. C. Health.
Huang, L.-S. (2012). Use of oral reflection in facilitating graduate EAL students’ oral language production and strategy use. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6(2), 1-22.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12. Toward pedagogical change: Dealing with teaching and learning in current higher education (Special Session, COHERE)
Marti Cleveland-Innes , Athabasca University [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Regardless of education delivery mode – face-to-face, online, distance or some combination through blended learning – teaching (and learning) in higher education is changing. It is critical that we consider how major social change is and should influence teaching and learning, but we must also ask how the existence of online and blended teaching and learning is changing the role of face-to-face teaching and the support structures required for teaching.
Online and blended teaching and learning offers a range of pedagogical practices previously unavailable in either distance or face-to-face higher education. Online inquiry-based learning can be conceived of as the new education, where issues such as interaction and dialogue are introduced back into the model. But broader than interaction and dialogue, the new teaching model, online and otherwise, involves “adopting a set of assumptions and practices congruent with the ideal of a community of inquiry found in the mainstream of higher education” (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2010, p.19).
Answers to key questions must still be answered. How is this model scalable? How can increasing class sizes fit with new pedagogies? Rather than recipes and best practices, we see teaching in the new higher education as constructed and crafted, based on content, student needs and the available technologies. This special session is meant to draw research papers addresses these and related issues. Drs. Heather Kanuka, Kathleen Matheos, and Marti Cleveland-Innes will share the chair. This is a joint session of the blended and online teaching and learning affinity group and COHERE.
13. Refiguring an Institution: Contestations of University Practice and Identity in Canada
Robert Fleming, BC Council on Admissions and Transfer [email@example.com]
In an era when the university is but one of many knowledge generating systems, Considine (2006) calls for delimitation of “cultural distinction[s] that [create] boundaries” to situate identity (p. 256). University boundaries are maintained through the vision, values, and educational practices an institution carries out in keeping with peer expectations. These boundaries delimit identity but paradoxically are dynamic rather than static markers at the contested edge of the illegitimate and legitimate. Fittingly, Scott (1993) critiques attempts to “impose some overarching idea, or principle” on the university, for this “[fails] to capture the historically determined diversity of university practice . . . or . . . [limits] the university’s capacity to adapt and survive” (p.
4). Institutional identity formation is ongoing, emerging in the tension between internal conception and external validation (Pedersen and Dobbin 2006).
The contested discursive field of universities in Canada is informed by the creation of several new universities, as well as shifting mandates within existing universities, colleges, and institutes across the country. Institutional responses to imperatives such as mass access and career preparation have contributed to the dissolution of some boundaries between further and higher education. For example, delineating differences between applied degrees and access pathways in colleges and universities is increasingly difficult. Still, reflecting on the former university colleges in BC, Dennison (2006) argues that while they are likely to develop unconventional approaches to “issues relating to their credibility as legitimate degree granting institutions” (p. 115), they “must defend their decisions to find new ways to protect both [their] academic and performance integrity” (p. 122). Given the dynamics of identity formation, it seems fitting to extend this proviso to all universities, which individually and collectively are negotiating the edge boundaries of practice and legitimacy. Practice areas Dennison (2006) identifies include accreditation, autonomy, governance, and faculty roles, but there are others, such as research, programming, and access. Papers in this session will consider educational practice(s) that may be perceived as contesting normative university practice(s) and/or how the pursuit of legitimacy may be affecting institutional identity.
Considine, M. (2006). Theorizing the university as a cultural system: distinctions, identities, emergencies. Educational Theory, 56(3), 255-270.
Dennison, J. D. (2006). From community college to university: A personal commentary on the evolution of an institution.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 36(2), 107-124.
Pedersen, J.S., and Dobbin, F. (2006). In search of identity and legitimation: bridging organizational culture and neoinstitutionalism. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 897-907.
Scott, P. (1993). The idea of the university in the 21st century: A British perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies, 41(1), 4-25.
14. Current Conceptualizations of the Utilization of University Research
M. A. Lemay, OISE/UT [firstname.lastname@example.org]
Two distinct fields of research define the literature that explores the fate of university research: 1) Technology transfer/commercialization research is interested in the business, legal, intellectual property, market, organizational and economic implications and aspects of the discoveries and inventions that result from university research, mostly in the natural, physical and life sciences that tend to lead to new technologies that can be developed into new products, processes and services. Research in technology transfer and commercialization tends to be conceptualized around economic growth and market competitiveness through technological innovation. 2) Knowledge mobilization research focuses on the processes, techniques, and barriers related to the diffusion, transfer, exchange and implementation of knowledge produced mostly through social science and humanities research. Knowledge mobilization research is typically conceptualized around evidence-based policy and practice and the implementation of best practices and social innovation.
Each stream of research has developed distinct models, theories and conceptualizations that advance understanding and improve the effectiveness, efficiency and impacts of the associated research. There is very little overlap or sharing between the two areas of inquiry – quite distinct bodies of knowledge have evolved.
Despite growing expectations for the contributions of universities to innovation at the national, regional and local level, the understanding of how university research is used remains poorly conceptualized. This session will bring together papers on current models and theories for knowledge mobilization and technology transfer/commercialization. The ensuing discussion will compare the various models and theories and seek to find possible commonalties and synergies that could lead to novel conceptualizations that link these two distinct fields of research. The session will specifically target new scholars who are interested in exploring this topic.
15. Governance in Higher Education: Sharing examples of policies, practices, and processes
Anne C Charles, Conestoga College [email@example.com]
A diversity of form and practice exists with relation to governance in Canada’s higher education institutions. Relationships with governments, institutional specific mandates, missions, historical frameworks, and stakeholder groups add complexity. Governance arrangements are often specific to institutional types (universities, university colleges, polytechnics, institutes, colleges and more), but can vary considerably from institution to institution. What are the similarities and differences? What examples can be shared? What lessons can be learned? What are the challenges and opportunities for good governance?
Using a World Café format, this session will draw upon knowledge from presenters, each of whom will be invited to make a short presentation, following which there will be an opportunity for session participants to engage in conversations about the policies, practices and processes which underpin governance in higher education institutions.
Presenters will be invited to share examples from research, case studies, comparative examples, and practice. Roundtable topics may include: theories, models and structures of governance, roles and fiduciary responsibilities of governors, the interface between governance and operations, strategic recruitment of talent, board development and self-evaluation, accountability and performance, government relations, system-level governance, community models, collegial self-governance, corporations, desire for autonomy, internationalization and transforming contexts, adaptability, values, and community engagement. It is anticipated that the ‘conversations’ will continue to inform and shape continuing dialogue and stimulate interest in further research by way of interfacing with the CSSHE’s Affinity Group on Governance in Higher Education which will be meeting at the conference.
16. How social interactions and processes impact learning in higher education
Jagjit Kaur Singh, Institute of Technology [firstname.lastname@example.org]
How do we learn? How do our students learn? Very simply put, the complexity of discussions, theories, and approaches that have been developed, critiqued, and shared is mind-boggling. From discussions of how we learn alone and by doing (behaviorist/cognitivist theories, Deweyan philosophy), to how we learn in groups and pairs (cooperative or collaborative learning, Piagetian, constructivism), to how we learn in social milieu (Vygotskian perspective, constructivism), to the understanding that we learn from connections we make in a networked way between people, things, readings, social media, and technology (connectivism), what we certainly want a grip on, is, how we can help students in higher education learn deeply, so that they can be happy productive members of society and of their families.
Students have learned by a variety of ways from centuries ago- from being told, to doing and exploring, to discussing with friends, teachers and family, to learning from technology, etc. An emphasis since Piaget and Vygotsky, which is increasing hundred-fold, now, is how the social aspect of students’ lives plays a pervasive role in their learning. What has also emerged over the last one to two decades is how technology has initiated an evolvement of students’ ways of knowing and learning.
There are two goals/themes of this organized session: 1) to discuss how social learning has impacted higher education and what we, as teachers, can do to apply these general social learning theories to facilitate deep learning in students, and 2) to discuss how technology has impacted the social nature of learning and knowing and how we, as teachers, can intertwine the general social learning theories and the ones shaped by technological innovation, with the affordances of technology to facilitate deep learning in students.
When submitting proposals, participants are encouraged to identify the goal/ theme they are targeting. Conceptual or research-based presentations and student proposals are welcome.
17. International Perspectives on Higher Education Curriculum Renewal Processes: Trends, practice, and prospect
Valentine Mukuria, University of Western Sydney (Australia) [email@example.com]
What in the World is happening in Higher Education? Curriculum renewal, graduate capabilities, competence frameworks, graduate attributes…these seem to be buzz words in the morphing higher education landscape.
As the higher education landscapes re-shapes in response to some forces in society such as technological advancements and globalisation, it becomes increasingly necessary to engage in discourse on how universities are preparing their students for a turbulent and ever-changing world. What are some of trends, challenges and practices encountered in the processes of curriculum renewal at higher education institutions around the World? What are some of the strategies that universities are applying towards their curriculum renewal processes and what are the outcomes? How is experiential learning, online and blended learning shaping the educational experience and preparing students for their careers and work-and-life beyond the university? What can institutions, educators, researchers, practitioners, students, learn from counterparts around the World on the delivery of relevant curriculum? How can we share best practices on curriculum renewal and what works, what does not work and how it can work better? What potential exists for local and international collaborations when it comes to preparing our students for global leadership and global citizenship competencies?
The objective of this session is to invite discussion on higher education curriculum renewal processes from international perspectives and explore best practices of (disciplinary and/or interdisciplinary) initiatives or collaborations among institutions that are enhancing the delivery of “renewed” curriculum that equips students with the necessary graduate knowledge, capabilities, skills, and competencies, to confidently engage as active change agents in the turbulent, ever-changing society (local, national, global). It is anticipated that this session will yield valuable insights into best practices that may be applicable to various higher education contexts around the world.
18. Current Practices and Future Directions: Supporting Marginalized Students in the Universities
Alyson King, University of Ontario Institute of Technology [Alyson.firstname.lastname@example.org]
Programs to help provide improved access to university for racialized, at-risk and marginalised students have been successful in increasing the numbers of such students attending university; however, once these students are enrolled and attending university, it becomes important to provide the supports necessary for them to be able to successfully complete their university degrees and move into the workforce. Although some researchers such as Ross Finnie (2012) have identified groups of students most likely to drop out of university and college, there is little grassroots action research in Canada on methods of improving retention of racialized, at-risk, and marginalised university students. With current predictions by Statistics Canada (2010) that, at a minimum, one-third of Canadians by 2031 will be a visible minority, combined with the possibility of three new ‘primarily undergraduate, teaching-oriented’ universities in Ontario which will likely cater to recent immigrants and marginalized students, support for such students at-risk of dropping out of university is essential. For example, the ongoing overall increase in student populations in Ontario universities in recent years has meant (for some universities) an increase in the numbers of students with weak traditional literacy skills (and who are marginalized in other ways). Students with weak literacy skills are often those who are at-risk of not completing their education, especially at the university level.
Recent research suggests that, while other external factors are also important, success at university can be achieved by improving engagement in academic life, both in terms of scholastic achievement and social life at the university. The aim of this panel is to bring together research on current methods of and future plans for improving the retention and ultimate success of at-risk and marginalized students.
19. Bringing Retention Issues to the Edge and into Focus – Recent Retention Activities on Canadian Campuses
Janet Miller, Mount Royal University [JBMiller@mtroyal.ca]
This organized paper session will explore the issue of student retention in the Canadian context. Data shows that approximately 21% of Canadian post secondary students withdraw prior to graduation (Shaienks, Gluszynski, & Bayard, 2008), and most of those who leave will do so within their first two years of study (Gerdes & Mallinckrodt, 1994). Student success is likely a product of many factors – access and opportunity, academic preparedness, study skills, belongingness, financial resources, time management, motivation, coping skills relating to stress, goal-setting and career planning, and access to adequate supports during times of stress or crisis – to name but a few. Difficulty managing non-academic challenges appears to be a common reason why students withdraw or fail (Bean & Eaton, 2001-02; Brooks & DuBois, 1995; Isaak, Graves, & Mayers, 2006-07; Parker et al, 2005; Perry et al., 2001).
Studies of student retention, persistence and success have largely come from our American neighbours. While their findings and recommendations may inform our understanding of retention in a Canadian context, there is an appetite for more information about Canadian trends, experiences and interventions. Colleagues and students are invited to submit papers which relate to the Canadian post-secondary context that either present current, evidence-based research that advances our understanding of student retention and success, or showcases successful programs and best practices that support student retention and success.
Bean, J., & Eaton, S. B. (2001-2002). The psychology underlying successful retention practices. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 3, 73-89.
Brooks, J. H., & DuBois, D. L. (1995). Individual and environmental predictors of adjustment during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 347-360.
Gerdes, H. & Mallinckrodt, B. (1994). Emotional, social, and academic adjustment of college students: A longitudinal study of retention. Journal of Counseling and Development, 72, 281-288.
Isaak, M. I., Graves, K. M., & Mayers, B. O. (2006-2007). Academic, motivational, and emotional problems identified by college students in academic jeopardy. Journal of College Student Retention, 8, 171-183.
Parker, J. D. A., Duffy, J., Wood, L. M., Bond, B. J., & Hogan, M. J. (2005). Academic achievement and emotional intelligence: Predicting the successful transition from high school to university. Journal of the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition, 17, 67-78.
Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R. H., & Pelletier, S. T. (2001). Academic control and action control in the achievement of college students: A longitudinal field study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 776-789.
Shaienks, D., Gluszynski, T., & Bayard, J. (2008). Postsecondary education – participation and dropping out: Differences across university, college and other types of postsecondary institutions. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
20. On the Edge: Community Engagement and Higher Education
Tania Kajner, University of Alberta [Tania.email@example.com]
Is engagement with communities a part of a larger shifting role for higher education? To what end? What effects might scholarship that directly involves communities have on students, scholars, programs, curriculum, and organizational structures in the future? With many institutions of higher education poised to embrace community engagement, we might wonder what is on the “other side” of the edge. Will community engagement yield positive changes to communities and higher education?
This session will explore these questions and more through presentations that touch on such things as innovative practices, case studies, and theoretical explorations of community-university engagement. Papers that explore research, teaching, planning, administration, or other activities that include community are welcome. Papers that examine higher education more broadly and raise critical questions about engagement practices are also welcome.
Call for Paper Proposals
CSSHE 2013 Conference – Call for Submissions
The Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education (CSSHE) will hold its annual conference June 3-5, 2013 within the Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, hosted by the University of Victoria in Victoria, Beautiful British Columbia.
This conference is being planned in close collaboration with the Canadian Association for the Study of Adult Education (CASAE) and the Canadian Society for the Study of Education (CSSE) so that individuals attending one of these three conferences will also have the opportunity to attend sessions at one or both of the other gatherings.
A pre-conference, co-hosted with CASAE, will be held on Saturday, June 1. Information will follow.
This year’s theme
The Congress 2013 theme is “@the Edge.” CSSHE invites submissions that explore the overall theme or aspects of it as applied to the field of higher education. Papers addressing specific-but-related topics such as online learning, governance, research, informal and experiential learning, recruitment and student services will also be considered for inclusion in the program.
Who should attend?
CSSHE invites submissions from researchers in higher education and related disciplines such as political science, sociology, history, philosophy, psychology, women’s studies, economics, business, administration, and the professions. This conference offers an opportunity for graduate students, educators, policy makers, administrators, activists, and advocates to contribute, reflect, and share their perspectives on higher education and issues around student success. Graduate students, college and university faculty and administrators are encouraged to submit proposals for the 2013 conference. This year’s conference will include keynote presentations, organized paper presentations, individual paper presentations, and a poster session.
The 2013 Conference Program Chair is Dr. Dianne Conrad (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Submission of Proposals
CSSHE solicits three types of submissions:
(1) Organized Paper Sessions
Individuals who wish to organize a session on a related topic for the 2013 conference are asked to submit a proposal for such a session by email by 26 November 2012. The session proposal must include the name of the organizer, email address, institutional affiliation, and a 200-300 word description of the session (including a session title).
After a peer review process to select organized sessions, a list of accepted sessions will be sent out to the CSSHE membership and posted on the CSSHE website no later than 17 December 2012 At that time, session organizers will begin accepting proposals for their sessions (to a maximum of 4 presentations per organized session). Please note that session organizers are responsible for receiving paper proposals, reviewing and making selections from the proposals, organizing the session, and serving as session chairs at the conference. Potential presenters must submit a title and an extended abstract of their paper (not to exceed 750 words) directly to the appropriate session organizer. Organizers are strongly encouraged to include at least one student paper presentation in their sessions. Potential presenters must submit their proposals to the appropriate session organizer by 28 January 2013.
Session organizers will submit all information to the program chair no later than 11 February 2013, including: Session chair(s); names of presenters; titles of individual papers; order of presentation; institutional affiliation of presenters. All documents are to be submitted as Word docs. (No pdfs; please use Calibri 12 pt font)
Please observe this sample format:
Chair/Président: John Academic, Institution, Title of Session
1. First presenter(s), Institution(s), name of paper
2. Second presenter(s), Institution(s), name of paper
(2) Individual Paper Proposals
Proposals for research, conceptual, or policy paper presentations should include (a) a proposal, not to exceed 750 words and (b), in a separate file, contact information, and institutional affiliation The proposal should indicate the background, theoretical framework, research design and key expected findings (where appropriate), conclusions and significance of the study. Proposals are due on 26 November 2012. Individual paper proposals will be peer reviewed and presenters contacted no later than 7 January 2013.
Please submit your proposal in a separate file from your contact information. Submit in Word format, not PDF. Identify your proposal in the subject line with your LAST NAME, First name and full title or keywords. Contact information should include institutional affiliation. Titles or institutional placement (ie Dean, Director, etc) are not necessary.
A fully developed conference paper is not required for presentation. No proceedings will be produced. Successful proposals will be grouped according to theme/category and placed within either a 75 or 90 minute block of time.
(3) Poster Proposals
Individuals who wish to present a poster at the 2013 conference are asked to submit a proposal by email by 26 November 2012. The proposal must include the name of the presenter(s), contact information including an e-mail address, institutional affiliation, and a 200-350 word description of the poster (including a title). Poster proposals will be peer reviewed and presenters contacted no later than 14 January 2013.
A draft program for the 2013 conference will be posted on the CSSHE web site no later than 1 April 2013.
In order to present a poster, an individual paper, or a paper within an organized session at the conference, presenters must be members in good standing of CSSHE. Membership applications can be found online on the CSSHE web site at here.
Please forward proposals by email to:
Dr. Dianne Conrad
Centre for Learning Accreditation
Please format the subject line of your submission email like this:
LAST NAME, CSSHE, type of submission
(Example: CONRAD, CSSHE, poster)
PDF version: Call for submissions