OUSA

Govenor General-Designate with OUSA's Sam Andrey

As you no doubt already know, it was confirmed this morning that University of Waterloo President David Johnston will succeed Michaelle Jean as the governor-general of Canada. The Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance would like to congratulate Dr. Johnston on this exceptional honour and extend our thanks for his contributions to the university sector over his esteemed career. Dr. Johnston has worked at many of our member schools, including time spent at Waterloo, the University of Western Ontario, and Queen’s University, while also providing leadership to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

I worked with Dr. Johnston in my time as a student representative at the University of Waterloo and I came to know him as a man of great integrity and leadership with a strong vision for post-secondary education in Canada and the world. Hearing the news networks this morning speak about his Grandpa Book nickname reminded me of Dr. Johnston’s incredible storytelling, his desire to interact with students, and his ability to take a diverse group of people and opinions to a place of common purpose. I am excited to see him bring these skills and his passion for education to his new leadership role for the people of Canada.

Sam Andrey
Director of Research & Policy Analysis
University of Waterloo, BSc’10

Hey Everyone,

We have just finished our most full day here at the Strat Con in Collingwood and needless to say it was extremely productive. During our sessions we choose which topics Home Office and Steering Committee will be authoring research papers about. These include student financial aid, early outreach, internationalization, ancillary fees, and aboriginal students, just to name a few. We have set some very ambitious goals for OUSA this year, and with those in mind we also laid out our priorities for the upcoming year, which will be released and extended upon at a later day.

I have been happy with the great amount of work that has been accomplished here at the strategy conference, but I think the most important thing is that we have been able to hash out these topics and discuss normally polarizing issues in a manner that would make most students unions green with envy. This is going to be a fantastic year for OUSA, which means sensational results for students.

Joe Finkle
OUSA VP Administration
MSU VP Education

Hello to all from lovely Collingwood, Ontario, where we are holding our annual OUSA Strategic Planning Conference (StratCon)!

We are now entering day three of our four day conference here at Blue Mountain Springs Chalet.  On Sunday OUSA Steering Committee and home office drove into Collingwood and, that evening, had a quick introductory and a session around our Long Term Plan: Leverage to Leadership.  Monday was our first full day where we went through a series of workshops led by the experienced Randy Boissonnault from Xennex designed to help us interact as a team and plan the year ahead.  Among the workshops we had were The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Grounded Leadership, and the Six Thinking Hats.  Randy also led a session that helped us flesh out our SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analysis that will be very useful when we sit down later today to develop our list of action items.

Bringing in an external facilitator such as Randy was a first for OUSA – our StratCons are traditionally led by our President and Executive Director – and it was a very interesting experience.  Randy is practiced, engaging, and knowledgeable about Student Governments and after experiencing his workshops I believe he was a good fit for OUSA.  And I’ll stress that: after experiencing his workshops I thought his presence was justified. This year holds a lot of promises and Randy facilitated our plan and our ambition.

Day three and I think we’re all starting to feel ready.

Cha Gheill!

Kieran Slobodin
Academic Affairs Commissioner
Queen’s University

From the title of the most recent Canadian Council on Learning (CCL) report, you’d think our schools, colleges and universities are seedy dens of corruption where students learn only the art of huckstering. The report, “Liars, fraudsters and cheats: Dealing with the growth of Academic Dishonesty,” attempts to identify the prevalence of academic dishonesty in Canada, the reasons students cheat, and how best to address this concern. A summary of the report can be found on the CCL website here: http://bit.ly/aiPiGF

But before I make any more judgments on the appropriateness of the title, let’s take a closer look at the report. First, the report suggests that cheating is a serious problem, pointing to a survey where “nearly three-quarters of first-year university or college students in Canada admitted to committing one or more serious acts of academic dishonesty while attending high school.” That’s a shocking statistic, and it’s quite clear that the prevalence of academic dishonesty is a serious problem.

Next the report takes it a step further, stating, “over the past decade, researchers and teachers have reported a dramatic climb in the occurrence of academic dishonesty among students in high schools and post-secondary institutions.” But as evidence for this claim, we are given two studies, one from the U.S. that covers only the period from 1963 to 1993 and a second from the University of Waterloo that reports an 81% increase in instances of plagiarism over three years in the early 2000s. The problem with the latter study is that it can be explained simply by increased faculty vigilance and mandatory reporting. In fact, if the recommendations of the CCL report were implemented, we would expect to see just this kind of increase in the recorded instances of academic dishonesty. All in all, the evidence presented is insufficient to justify the claim of a significant increase in cheating. As the report itself acknowledges, “large-scale data on trends in Canada are unavailable.”

Moving to the causes of academic dishonesty, the main culprit, unsurprisingly, seems to be students’ desire to get a good grade or pass the course. The increased use of technology simply makes the process even easier. But the report also cites evidence that students may not be aware of the rules they are breaking and that students often have different definitions of what constitutes cheating. This points to a significant problem in the system – how can we hold student accountable to rules of academic integrity that are often confusing, contradictory, and improperly taught? We need to see more funding for academic support services, such as Writing Centres, improved academic orientation, and a renewed focus on teaching and learning at our post-secondary institutions.

This brings us back to the title of the report. To be frank, it sounds like a cheap way to grab media attention, and it seems to have worked. To be called a liar, fraudster or cheat, one must be intentionally misleading others. But by the report’s own admission, many students don’t know that what they’re doing is wrong.

Finally, I’d like to draw attention to one thing that’s missing from the report – the need for faculty to lead by example. For instance, it’s not uncommon for students to ask why their professor is allowed to submit elements of the same article to multiple journals when the student is not allowed to reuse previous work. Additionally, anecdotal evidence suggests that the definition of what constitutes excess collaboration or improper referencing can vary greatly from professor to professor, and even more so from program to program.

Moreover, as universities have slowly moved from the academic dishonesty model toward a focus on academic integrity, consideration of whether the student intended to mislead others has been removed from the finding of guilt. We’re essentially assuming students should know better when the data says the opposite. What is most concerning about this is that faculty collective bargaining agreements continue to require clear proof of dishonest intent in order to find a professor guilty of academic dishonesty. Are we truly content to hold our students to a higher level of accountability than their own professors?

None of this is to say that academic dishonesty by our students is not a serious concern or that the increased efforts by our institutions to track and create accountability measures for those that act dishonestly are unwelcome. However, the solution lies in increased resources and improved instruction to support students in the learning process. If provided the tools necessary for success, student behavior will reflect a more fair and honest approach to learning.

-Alexi White
Executive Director

With files from: Sam Andrey, Morgan Campbell, Chris Martin

Yesterday I had the opportunity to attend a meeting hosted by the Ontario Women’s Directorate (http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/owd/english/) on developing a plan in response to sexual violence on campuses in the province of Ontario. The meeting was a preliminary step in the information gathering process towards developing a comprehensive and diverse sexual violence action plan on the part of the Ontario government. It brought together experts in the field, community organizations, and stakeholder representatives to that end, including some of our partners — notably, the COU, OCUFA, and the MTCU. The meeting began with remarks from Hon. Laurel Broten, Minister Responsible for Women’s Issues and Minister of Children and Youth Services, in which she spoke about the importance of this project and laid out the consultative steps that will be taken in the coming months. We then proceeded into discussion, guided by general questions concerning what kinds of education strategies are most effective, what promising practices currently exist, and what would be the best approach to a comprehensive plan given Ontario’s fiscal situation. The discussion was long and detailed, with many different suggestions from all sides of the room on the best way to move forward with a public action plan. I will do my best to summarize some of the major points we touched on.

The first thing I should stress is the group’s insistence on how real and systemic of a problem this issue really is. Typical administrative estimates of sexual assault incidence tend to be under 10 individual cases per year, but these are based solely on numbers reported to campus security departments. Some of the faculty in the room had performed research that showed as many as 8% of women attending post-secondary education in a given year experience sexual harassment or assault. The group identified this discrepancy as a significant challenge moving forward, and urged that all future educational efforts include thorough research in order to identify the full breadth of the problem.

One recurring theme was that any public education initiative would need to meaningfully address the role men play in sexual violence on campuses in Ontario. Research shows that an overwhelming percentage of reported cases are perpetrated by against women by men that they know, and the group felt that it was important to teach men how they can speak to each other about the kinds attitudes that enable sexual harassment and assault against women. It was specifically brought up that most men have not heard the word ‘feminist’ before they get to post-secondary education, and if they have it is largely in a negative context. Possible methods of education included bystander training, in which men can learn about how they can react in group situations when sexist or violent utterances occur, and ally training, in which men can learn to pro-actively seek ways to speak out against violence against women.

In terms of implementation of these programs, the group stressed the necessity of a permanent staff member on each campus dedicated to these issues, who could take pressure off already overburdened human rights/equity offices. While we acknowledged that financial resources are hard to come by at this time, the group felt that without this position, a sustained sexual violence action plan would be nigh impossible. This staff member would work in conjunction with community groups to develop campus networks dedicated to education and awareness-raising around issues of sexual violence on campus. Once these networks are set up, a province-wide strategy would be much easier to implement centrally.

Another popular measure around the table was the development of a sexual violence education and awareness toolkit which would be ready-made for local adaptation. This package would be made available online and easily accessible. It would include information on how to run educational campaigns, research on campus violence, and provide lists of community resources for administrative use.

Finally, it was stressed that any approach would need to incorporate principles of anti-racism and anti-oppression. Without these kinds of understandings, any plan would lack the systemic perspective necessary to enact real, lasting change.

The Ontario Women’s Directorate will continue to hold these meetings throughout the summer, looking to ultimately enact something concrete this fall. This work is vital for creating an inclusive and safe space for women on our campuses, and am happy that OUSA will continue as a partner in this process.

Chris Rudnicki
Vice-President (University Affairs)
Alma Mater Society of Queen’s University

Hello Everyone,

My name is Kieran Slobodin and I’m the Academic Affairs Commissioner (2010-2011) for the Alma Mater Society, Queen’s University.  I came to Queen’s in 2008 from Whitehorse, Yukon, where I was born and raised and have thus far enjoyed two wonderful years at university.  I am currently entering my third year of studies with a major in Economics and a planned International Studies Certificate in the works.  I would like to talk about my involvement with the Alma Mater Society here at Queen’s as well some of the issues facing my Commission this year.

I’ve been involved with I have been involved with this commission since October 2008 when I was hired to be an Academic Affairs Intern.  Since then I’ve been a Deputy Commissioner and now, Commissioner.  I’m also heavily involved in our Orientation Week as a Gael and Orientation Coordinator (different divisions of orientation leadership).  Up until this year I was employed with our safety service, Walk Home, and continue to indulge myself in the outdoors through Queen’s Outdoors Club one of our 200 plus clubs.

The Academic Affairs Commission is in an excellent place to start the 2010-2011 year.  The result of the efforts of many past commissioners, the commission is offering a key service to students this year in the form of an online Syllabus Bank and USAT publication site, to be released sometime in the fall.  Additionally, this year is a very important time at our university as our new principal, Daniel Woolf, has begun an immense undertaking to draft a new Academic Plan and driving plan for our university.  This is a critical time for students to weigh in on their academics at Queen’s and the commission will play a big role in facilitating that dialogue.  Finally, for those of you planning to attend an OUSA General Assembly this year, if you come in the winter Queen’s will be your gracious host and we welcome you to come to campus.

Over the next year with OUSA I am hoping to be involved in researching and drafting our revised Financial Aid policy and, like my fellow Steering Committee member, Saad Aslam, I am very interested in the provincial government’s plans for the proposed Ontario Online Institute.  I have very high hopes that this initiative will not only increase access and affordability to students by making university courses available online, but I am hoping this will lead to less restrictive inter-university credit transfer policies.

The upcoming year has a lot of exciting opportunities before it, both at home and across Ontario and I am proud to be a member of such an excellent team representing students across Ontario.  I encourage you to visit the OUSA website often as it offers excellent updates on post-secondary education and if you have any questions for me individually you can contact me at aac@ams.queensu.ca or, if you’re ever at Queen’s, stop by our offices in the JDUC.

Cha Gheill!

Kieran Slobodin
Academic Affairs Commissioner
Queen’s University

TORONTO, June 29 /CNW/ – After reviewing the latest research on targeted student success interventions in Ontario universities, students are excited by the positive results and encourage the provincial government to champion broad implementation of these programs across the Province.

For the past three years, the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario (HEQCO) has sponsored research into intervention programs designed to promote access, retention and quality in post-secondary education. Results of these interventions, released today, demonstrate the significant impact targeted programs can have on student success.

For instance, at Carleton University, a Peer-Assisted Study Session (PASS) was implemented in courses with high failure rates. Controlling for admission average, participants showed significant improvements in academic success, understanding of course concepts, and self-confidence. Academic success improved with the number of hours of participation, up to an overall improvement of 1.75 grade points.

“This research has confirmed once more that targeted initiatives to support struggling students can significantly improve student success,” said Meaghan Coker, President of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance (OUSA). “It’s now up to the government and institutions to come together and take real action on these findings.”

OUSA’s recent survey of over 10,000 Ontario undergraduate students showed over half were not satisfied with academic advising, career counseling, and services for students with disabilities. Direct government funding for student support services and early warning systems is needed if Ontario is to see widespread improvements in student persistence and success.

Holla OUSA,

Allow me to introduce myself, my name is Joe Finkle and I am the Vice President (Education) of the McMaster Students Union and the Vice President (Administration) of OUSA. I just finished my fourth year of Honours History and was elected at the beginning of April for a one year term.

Personally, I am extremely excited to be working with OUSA. My university involvement began when a friend of mine forced me to come to a meeting of the McMaster OUSA Street Team, and it has been all uphill since then. Over the past few years I have been exposed to the amazing work OUSA has undertaken and I am proud to say that I am a member of this organization. I have seen how education changes lives for the better and I want to continue improve the condition and experiences of students through OUSA.

My key issue lay in quality of education, which OUSA has been a leader in. I want to ensure the quality of learning and teaching in Ontario, and OUSA is simply the best way to do so.

Best,

Joe Finkle
Vice President (Education), McMaster Students Union
Vice President (Administration), OUSA

It’s Day 3, the final day of the STLHE conference in Toronto, but interesting breakout sessions have driven great turnout for an early Saturday morning in an otherwise deserted city. I’ve been looking forward to this particular breakout session for a while, though I was somewhat surprised by the conclusions that emerged.

Presented by Elizabeth Wooster and Tony Chambers of OISE, the session’s title pretty much says it all. OISE is in the midst of a longitudinal study on the effects of small classes on first year undergrads and the preliminary results are interesting.

But first, a review of the literature on small classes yielded mixed results. It seems that we can’t say definitively that small classes in any discipline actually generate more learning, critical thinking, or other competencies. Intuitively, those who have experienced small classes can say yes, it was a positive experience. But we don’t yet have the data to back up this conclusion and there are almost no longitudinal studies in this area.

Graduate students, with some professorial support and significant involvement from the Registrar’s Office, are leading the OISE study. Students were divided into a treatment and control group and the treatment group was given a small class experience in either a one- or two-term course. Pre and post surveys were used to gather qualitative data. Unfortunately, nothing quantitative is yet available. The Registrar’s Office will be providing marks data soon and NSSE scores will also be looked at, so the quantitative results are coming.

From the survey results, a few things stood out. Most striking was that results between the treatment and control groups were more or less identical across the board. In the pre survey, all students rated strong research credentials as the most important quality in a professor; coming out, the most important characteristic changed to the ability to maintain students’ attention and hold their interest, but again, it didn’t matter if you were in the treatment or control group.

When Dr. Chambers was asked whether we should focus new investments in lowering class sizes, his answer was striking. Based on the data, he suggested we should spend money on improving the quality of teaching in courses that currently exists before lowering class sizes. After looking at further data, a new response may emerge, but this is what the data tells us right now.

We have collectively made the assumption that you get greater student-faculty interaction and a better overall education in a small class. Certainly, small classes provide the potential, perhaps even the probability, that students will receive a better experience. But on a macro scale, we just don’t know how to measure if this potential is fulfilled.

One thing at least is certain: small classes alone do not ensure quality.

This post concludes OUSA’s blogging form the STLHE conference. Hope you enjoyed reading.

Alexi White
Executive Director

The University of Alberta’s Faculty of Science has implemented an innovative first year program, and I had the pleasure of hearing about and viewing their results in one of the STLHE’s breakout session. The students in the faculty have the option of enrolling in SCI 100 as a replacement for all of the science courses typically taught by subject in first year (i.e., no chemistry, biology, physics, or earth sciences classes). Instead this group of 40 students are taught by a set of nine instructors about all aspects of science in an interdisciplinary way. Over the course of the year, the students perform over 70 labs and receive dozens of one-hour lecture sessions on a mix of core scientific concepts and real-world examples ranging from non-renewable energy sources to radioactivity to water management. Field trips, scavenger hunts, and collaborative learning techniques are common. The focus throughout the first year is on instilling the scientific method, discovery research techniques, and the formation of a basis on which to build their next three years of more content-based learning.

Considering this began relatively recently, the evaluation of the impact of this program is still underway. But the results thus far look impressive as the students are getting better grades, are giving better course evaluations, and seem genuinely more engaged. The employment of well-studied active teaching techniques has no doubt had an enormous effect on these students.

While I doubt that many institutions have (or could) replicated this highly-resource-intensive program across entire faculties, discussions with people from all across the country indicate that many universities are attempting to move towards a model where first year students are exposed to a high-impact experience. A 100-level course that overviews the discipline and future careers and teaches broad thinking and communication skills are being implemented in many programs, as are first-year seminars and commitments to ensure that every first-year student has at least one course with a low student-to-faculty ratio. One particularly good example from Ontario came from the president of the University of Guelph who shared with us about the problem-based seminar that students are exposed to in their first year.

Julia Christensen Hughes, the co-author of Taking Stock, talks frequently about the importance of “high-impact” experiences on student engagement, particularly in the first year. I look back at my first year experience at a research-intensive university, and I don’t think that a single one of my ten classes had fewer than 100 students and certainly all employed a lecture-only style of teaching. It is encouraging to hear that a few universities have moved to improve this situation, and I look forward to working with our institutional partners and government on how to broadly implement these practices so that all Ontario university students receive the benefit of an engaging and rich education.

Sam Andrey
Director of Research and Policy Analysis