PROCEDURAL DIVERSITY IN ONTARIO'S - TSpace

PROCEDURAL DIVERSITY IN ONTARIO’S

NON-DEGREE SECTOR

A Study Describing Educational Processes in a Private Career College and a College of Applied Arts and Technology

by

Richard Edward Davey

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education

Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the

University of Toronto

© Copyright by Richard Edward Davey 2004

ivi National Library of Canada du Canada

Acquisitions and Bibliographic Services

395 Wellington Street Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the

National Library of Canada to reproduce, loan, distribute or sell

copies of this thesis in microform,

paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the

copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts from it

may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's

permission.

Bibliotheque nationale

Acquisisitons et services bibliographiques

395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A ON4

Your file Votre référence

ISBN: 0-612-91650-2

Our file Notre référence

ISBN: 0-612-91650-2

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant a la

Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduire, préter, distribuer ou

vendre des copies de cette thése sous la forme de microfiche/film, de

reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L'auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protége cette these. Ni la thése ni des extraits substantiels

de celle-ci ne doivent étre imprimés

ou aturement reproduits sans son autorisation.

In compliance with the Canadian Privacy Act some supporting

forms may have been removed from this dissertation.

While these forms may be included

in the document page count,

their removal does not represent

any loss of content from the dissertation.

i+E

Canada

Conformément a la loi canadienne sur la protection de la vie privée,

quelques formulaires secondaires ont été enlevés de ce manuscrit.

Bien que ces formulaires

aient inclus dans la pagination,

il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector

A Study Describing Educational Processes in a Private Career College and a College of Applied Arts and Technology

Doctor of Education 2004

Richard Edward Davey

Department of Theory and Policy Studies in Education University of Toronto

Abstract

Ontario's competitive postsecondary non-degree sector provides the

context for this study of for-profit colleges’ (FPCs’) contribution to procedural

diversity. As well as a description of Ontario’s private career college sector, the

thesis includes a comprehensive review of the literature about FPCs focusing on

their functions, governance and administrative practices and linking these

attributes of control to procedural diversity. Given the differences in control

(public vs. for-profit-ness), it follows that educational processes will be different

in for-profit colleges.

A best practices model of educational processes based on three research-

grounded models provides the conceptual framework to investigate this

hypothesis. The Educational Processes Model presents 13 neutral best practices

statements categorized under the general categories of curriculum, instruction,

out-of-class environment and assessment and continuous improvement.

Specific research questions derive from the model, as does the methodology to

analyze the data. Two best practices institutions in the sector—a private, for-

profit college and a publicly funded community college— provide the sites for this

comparative case study.

Educational processes, as implemented in similar programs at each site,

are described and analyzed, focusing on the similarities and the differences

within the similarities. The study finds that the student experience is different in

a for-profit college and that cross-site themes consistent with the literature about

differences in control (public versus for-profit-ness) explain how and why the

student experience is different. These themes include differences in faculty and

administrative roles and responsibilities, resourcing, the accountability framework

and responsiveness.

The study concludes that educational processes in FPCs do represent real

choice for postsecondary learners and are implemented to increase

postsecondary participation and student satisfaction. However, FPCs tend to

have standardized processes that must fit in a policy framework to achieve their

designed benefits. The study also tests the Educational Processes Model,

concluding that it may have general applicability to improve educational practices

in postsecondary institutions.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..........::sssssesscreeceeeeecesssceuseseusueeeeeeseeuseeaeeesenaunees 1 1.1. BaCkQround ANd PUrPOSES...........:cccccscesseecceueeesecsesuscucerseeeeeeeterseeeeeeaeneces 1 1.2. Problem StateMent............::cssssssssseeeeeeeeceseesseeessseeeeeveseuseseaeceecenseaseeneness 4 1.3. Stuy BOUNCATICS .........:ecseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseessnsessaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuaseeeeesseuseesersens 6 1.4. Organization of the Theis ...............ccccsssseccesseesncenseseveneeeucuceeseneneeseeaeesas 7

CHAPTER 2: THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY.........00000ssssseueussseeeeacseseseneseneeeasees 10 2.1. Diversity in Higher EQuCation ..........cccccsssssseseccescceeccccccecersusssusueeueeeeeees 10 2.2. For-Profit EAUCAtION ...........csssesecnreeeessessscneeseneeuseusesescuceneneeerenseeeenenseas 19

2.2.1. The Education BUSINESS ......::scccccccssssssscrsseeeeessuscsssessneesaeeeeeessereees 19 2.2.2. For-Profit Colleges: Literature REVIGW ......ccccccsccsceseerseeseseeeeeseseueres 22

2.3. Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector ......:cccssssssssscccesesersseseseerseeeeas 64 2.3.1. For-Profit Colleges in Ontario’s Non-Degree S@CtOr ....sccceccsccccceeeees 68 2.3.2. Clientele Served and Areas of Study.........cccccccssssesecessssseeeseaeeceesees 80

2.4. Chapter Summary: Does Control Matter?........ccccccccccsssssssssssseeesseeeeerses 99

CHAPTER 3: THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: AN EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES MODEL... ...seeeccecnesseeeecesssseeesceceaaseeeeeusessscesesaccaeusensneasueussueeuseuseneeuseessenaeensea 101

3.1. Educational Processes in For Profit [email protected] 101 3.2. Best Practices MOEIS ...........cccccsesseecersessesseneeeecuussssensuauueeeseseseeeuususs 112

3.2.1. Gardiner’s Model of Educational Processes ........:::sssssseccceeueeseusenees 114 3.2.2. Donald's Model for Improving the Environment for Learning......... 120 3.2.3. O’Banion’s Learning College Model ........cccccccccsccccsssscsssrteeneeeseeeeees 126

3.3. An Educational Processes MOdel.........ccccccccssssssssssseseseneseeeeseenesseeeeeen 132 3.4. Specific Research Questions.......ccssscccsssssscesscenecssevsensnseeeeeaneneeeeeeacees 136

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY ...........::cscccsecccssccccssseueeeeenenaees 138 4.1. Overall Design of the Study ................:ssccccssssensssssssssssssccccensesssseeseers 138 4.2. Site Selection ......... cc ccessseceecccesssseuececcuseeeeesseucessesseuseseeseeucerseenaeecees 144

4.2.1. The For-Profit College Sampling Frame.........:::ccscssssssesuvescsseessseers 144 4.2.2. Selecting Best Practices Sites ......ccccsccsssscccscssecsececeesesseeseensenueseaes 148 4.2.3. Site Selection: A Story ........ccccsssssssssssseeeeeeeseesnsneceeseceueseeseeeeeseeens 149

4.3. Field Methods ............cccsssscceeccssssecsceeccussesssssecueesesucueseseecuneeaseusersea 153 4.3.1. Document AnalySis .........ccccccccccccsssssssssseeeeeeeeeussuseuuueeeunesseaaaesseess 153 4.3.2. INCOPViCWS....ccccccsccsecssecsucsceccceeceseneusnausuureucusasesauseueeavenevenecusensags 153

4.3.3. Case Study Database...........ccccssssssssscccncseusscssunecseceecesueneneeneneesees 155 43.4 EQNICS 0... cecccessessssssssseeeeeeeeeeceeseenseauasesececeeeeeeuseseeaueeueuueuenseauageeeees 156

4.4. Description and AnalySis ...........::::c:::cccerecceeserssssssseseusseseuseceusranueeeeeee 156 4.4.1. Describing Educational Processes .........::::sscsssssssssssssssssssssssseueeeees 156 4.4.2. Analyzing the FIndingS.......cccsccscccsscsscsssssccecereaseeseeseuseneceueeeeeeneas 160

1v

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS—EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES AT SHERIDAN COLLEGE AND DEVRY COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY .......ccssccscscccceuecsessrsessesuensesseuueeceueaseeeuvens 162

5.1. Site Profiles........cccccscssseeeceessseeeesecessseeeeeseseueessusuuueuaueueeeuueeeeseneneneess 162 5.1.1. Profile of DeVry College/DeVry University ........cccccccccsssssssenssseneeess 162 5.1.2. Profile of Sheridan College .....ccccccccssssssssssecccssssseceneeserseaeseneeerseanes 165 5.1.3. Best Practices SIt€S ......cccccssssecesssesccccssecensesssnsesesvessseneceuseaeeeseusess 167

5.2. Educational ProceSS@S—CurriCulum.......ccccccccecsessnseesseeeusessesuecuseeseeereea 168 5.2.1. Curriculum at Sheridan .........cccccccsssecscsssccssesessecsevereeseesaueaeeneasenses 168 5.2.2. CUrriCUlUM At DOVIY .......ccccceceeceeceessusscsseuceeeueeeceueecesseceeeeeeeeeeeetens 186 5.2.3. Cross-Site Comparison of Curriculum [email protected] 202

5.3. Educational ProceSSeS—INStruction .......cccccccccsssssssseeeeuseeseeeceseseunenenes 208 5.3.1. Instruction at Sheridan ...........ccccccsessseceeccessseeeessuuuseesaeeaseeseeeeerees 208 5.3.2. Instruction at DOViry ........cccssseceerecessseeeseceeeseeeeceeeussusnseesesersasaeees 226 5.3.3. Cross-Site Comparison of Instructional ProcessSes........cccssesssensenees 244

5.4. Out-Of-Class ActivitieS..........cccccccssssssecccuccsssussessuuseeeaccuaseeeeceeceeeeeeesess 250 5.4.1. Out-of-Class Activities at Sheridan........ccscccscsssssssssssessssseerseesenaens 250 5.4.2. Out-of-Class Activities at [email protected] 263 5.4.3. Cross-Site Comparison of Out-of-Class ActivitieS........ccccccccseseeees 278

5.5. Assessment and Continuous Improvement........cccccccssessssscsesseseeereeees 284 5.5.1. Assessment and Continuous Improvement at Sheridan................ 284 5.5.2. Assessment and Continuous Improvement at DeVry...........:0008 298 5.5.3. Cross-Site Comparison of Assessment and Continuous Improvement PIOCESSES ...cceccseceeeeeeeeeeeeeneesuseuecasesenesssesaeseaeeeuesesscessassraeseussuueausseusareaess 314

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS ........::ssssssssecccucesesussenseneceeeeeeeens 321 6.1. The Research Questions ReviSited ........cccccccccssssssssssssesseseeusscsssseereeeees 321 6.2. Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector... 322

6.2.1. Procedural Diversity at the Case Study Sites ..........cccccccccrsssssssssene 322 6.2.2. Linking Differences in Educational Processes to Function, Governance ANC AdMINistration .............c cc ssesssscccseesssseesessssesenseaueusuceuausussaneeeeeeseesnseds 331

6.2.3. The Impact Of COMpetition ....ccscscsssssseeeesssccceceesssererreressssereaeees 335 6.3. The Educational Process Model ...........c::cssssecccucesseuseessecceeeeeeueseeeceesess 338 6.4. Implications Of the RESCArCh..........:::sccccsssssceesssssccseuseeecueeeeeeeecseesaeenens 340

6.4.1. Implications for POICY...........cccccccesseceescsccsceueceuccsuueetsasssueaeneesenees 340 6.4.2. Implications for Practice ..........cccceccccsscssesssesscceecseeseceveseseaseeeeeeaees 342

6.5. Final REfICCtIONS.............ccsseecccccsssseeeeceessseeecceeeuseeseusneucuustseuseeeeaeneueen 343

REFERENCES ..........ccecceccecceeceeceeccecceecesteetenegecaeseucuesuscusnesasausaueseaeneueneeeusenes 345

List of Tables

Table 1: The For-Profit Education Industry (U.S.)............ccccsscecsesseeceersnaseeneeees 20 Table 2: Differences Between Proprietary Schools and Community Colleges ....31 Table 3: FPC Functions/Comparison with CAAT FUNCtIONS.............cceeecsnseseeeens 44 Table 4: FPC Governance/Comparison with CAAT Governance ........0ssccssesseeeene 51 Table 5: FPC Administration/Comparison with CAAT FUunctions...........sssscccccees 63 Table 6: Ontario’s Largest Private Career Colleges: 2000/2001 ..........ccccssseseees 71

Table 7: Profile of First Year Students at Ontario CAATS. ......cccccssssssseeeeeeensneenes 86 Table 8: Profile of CAAT and For-Profit College Students on OSAP 1999/2000..87

Table 9: Profile of Canadian Private Career College Student ...........2:cccsssssseees 88 Table 10: Clientele Served/ CAAT and FPC Comparison .......:ccccsssssssesssseaseeeenae 90 Table 11: Private Vocational Schools’ Areas of Specialty—Canada Wide........... 94 Table 12: CAAT Postsecondary Registrants by Division—1999.............::ceesseures 95 Table 13: Registered Programs by Program Type in Ontario Private Career

COMOGES «2... .eeeececeeceesseeeeneeesseeeneceeaaseneeesesauseeeecesaaaaneesssaaaeeeeeeauseeeusoageeeseaes 97 Table 14: Areas of Study/CAAT and FPC Comparison ...........::cccccccsssssssseeteeenas 98 Table 15: Gardiner’s Model of Educational ProceSSes..........::ssssccsssssersereneerees 119 Table 16: Donald’s Model for Improving the Environment for Learning.......... 124 Table 17: O’Banion’s Leaning College Model ..........:ccccscsssesssccssssssseneceeesaeeeaes 131 Table 18: Common Elements of the Gardiner, Donald and O’Banion Models .. 133 Table 19: PCC Sampling Frame with Areas Of Study .........ccccsssccrsssessssssensenees 147 Table 20: The Study’s Participant List..........ccccsccesscsececcsseseesesecceesssenneevereees 155 Table 21: Key Performance Indicators/Case Study Programs and Colleges..... 168 Table 22: DeVry University’s Curriculum Development Process........cccsessssees 188 Table 23: Similarities and Differences in Curriculum ...........:csccesesececcursseuseenes 207 Table 24: Grading Schemes at DeVry and Sheridan............::ccccccccsssessseeeeeeees 242 Table 25: Similarities and Differences in INStruction .........ccccssccesssssessesesseenees 249 Table 26: Similarities and Differences in Out-of-Class Activities ............:ss0000 283 Table 27: Sheridan’s Graduate Satisfaction KPIS .........sccccsssssseecencsseeeeseensreees 287 Table 28: DeVry Undergraduate Student Profile 2001 and 1992.............:.c000 300 Table 29: Similarities and Differences of Assessment and Continuous

IMProveMent PrOCESSES .......cccsseeeessseeccssscensnsneessaeesesueeeeaeeeeseseeuerensanees 320 Table 30: Procedural Diversity in the Case Study Sites ..........:::ccscsssesssseeesees 329 Table 31: Matching Differences to FPC Functions, Governance and

ACMINiStratiOn ............cccsecesseecessecenseceseceeeesnuusnssuseerenaeeccutsnessenesearsnagens 332

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1: A Conceptual Model of Diversity...........ccccssssssssssseeescessseeccsseseeeersaness 11 Figure 2: A New Control Typology for Higher EduCation......ccccssssceesessseseeeerseee 37 Figure 3: Educational Processes Model ...........cssssssssesecceeeeesesssecesssaunenecereneees 135 Figure 4: The Study’s Conceptual Framework ......sssssssssssssssssssecceccssssssssceseens 142 Figure 5: Best Practices Chart .........c:ccssssssssssseeeereeeesssesseseueuesesssasuneanessseeeeea 149 Figure 6: The Study’s Complete Conceptual Framework ..........:ssessssseeseesseeees 336 Figure 7: Educational Processes ASSESSMENE FOIIM .......ccccccccesecseceeeeeeeeceesnsees 339

List of Appendices

Appendix A: PCC Area of Study Charts ........cccsssssseeccceusssuessssceseenseeeeeareaeneens 359 Appendix B: Documents Review Schedule ........c:cccccccceessssssssssrsseessesneesseenss 362 Appendix C: Documents List by Site ...........cccssssscsessesessssscneccsesesseveneeneeeneees 364 Appendix D: Interview Schedules........cccccsssssssssceseceeccesssssensnsseseseueueesuecasensas 367 Appendix E: Informed Consent Letter.........csscccsssssssserssessnnsssessseeeeceuesssseenaes 369 Appendix F: Approval letter from the Education Ethics Review Committee .....371 Appendix G: Map of Case Study Site LOCatiIONS.........ccccccccsscseesersesessseeereneseees 372 Appendix H: Organization Chart: DeVry College of Technology ...........::s0000008 373 Appendix I: Organization Chart: Sheridan College of Applied Arts and

TOCANOIOGY .ecccssseceeseeeseseeeeenneeeeesessaesaaaaaaeeseeeeeeeuseseseesssseeeueussaeauaasceueeeeea 374 Appendix J: Examples: Program Map and Detailed Program Map (Sheridan)..375 Appendix K: Example: Program of Study (DeVry) .........::sssscsscceceeueeesennenenseuas 280

vil

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background and Purposes

Postsecondary education is undergoing significant changes in Ontario. In

three years, a relatively stable environment has been transformed into a sector

characterized by increasing competition and the promise of increased

institutional diversity. Within the context of these changes and issues, this study

describes educational processes in a for-profit college and a public college to

discover whether there are any differences and to explore whether differences

can be explained by institutional control (public versus for-profit.)

In describing these differences and how and why they exist, the study

contributes to our understanding about the diversity of Ontario’s non-degree

postsecondary sector. A diverse higher education system offers three benefits.

First, a diverse system matches student needs with institutional characteristics,

thereby increasing accessibility. Second, a diverse system provides for the more

specialized use of resources. And finally, a diverse system allows the co-

existence of alternative models (Skolnik, 1986).

Very little has been written about Ontario's private career colleges,

especially in comparison to the province’s public community colleges. While as

many as 60,000 Ontarians attend regulated private career colleges every year,

no study attempts to understand the differences in the educational practices and

whether these practices reflect fundamental differences of control (public versus

for-profit). These colleges remain a curiosity. The Association for the Colleges

of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario (ACAATO) in its Environmental Scan

2000 notes,

“...private vocational schools continue to be competitive training providers despite tuition and related costs that are substantially higher than those of

community colleges” (Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario, 2000, p. 37).

How these competitive for-profit colleges contribute to the diversity of

Ontario’s non-degree sector is a timely question. The current government has

adopted policies to increase the number of private providers and to improve

overall market responsiveness. These are means to fulfill its commitment to

providing quality and choice to postsecondary learners, to promoting

improvement and excellence in the postsecondary system and “to make our

postsecondary system more responsive to the needs of students and working

adults” (Government of Ontario, 2001). The following policy and government

actions demonstrate the range of activities undertaken in the last three years:

a The Post-secondary Education Excellence and Choice Act (2000) was passed, providing transparent standards and guidelines for private

degree granting universities and institutions to receive ministerial consent to operate in the province.

aA Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board and secretariat have been established. To date 34 applied degree programs proposed by the public college sector have been approved, and one religious-based private college has received approval to offer secular degrees.

a The Private Vocational Schools Act was renamed the Private Career Colleges Act, a change designed to improve the public image of the for- profit sector.

a The Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act (2001) was passed and proclaimed, giving increased authority to public college boards of governors to approve programs and to undertake entrepreneurial and other activities designed to increase market responsiveness.

QA Private Institutions Branch was created, joining the University and College branches of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Postsecondary Education Division. This new branch “provides a focus for the Ministry's responsibilities for private postsecondary education as set out in the Postsecondary Education Choice and Excellence Act and the established regulatory responsibilities under the Private Career Colleges Act" (internal MTCU documeng).

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 1: Introduction

a Three Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology have been re-designated as Institutions of Technology and Advanced Learning; these former community colleges can now provide up to 15% of their programming in applied degree programs.

While these actions represent significant activity, they may not address

the policy objectives of quality and choice, improvement and excellence, and

increased services and access. Ontario has no secular private universities and

limited experience in assessing cross-sector policies to improve market

responsiveness. However, for-profit career colleges comprise the largest number

of institutions in Ontario’s non-degree sector. In other jurisdictions, for-profit

universities have evolved from the career college sector and are significant

contributors. In describing how educational processes are implemented in a for-

profit and public college, the study provides insight about the current and future

contribution of for-profit providers to the diversity of Ontario’s postsecondary

system.

Contributing to our understanding about diversity in Ontario’s non-degree

sector is an important rationale for the study. The genesis, however, evolved

from my observations after joining a for-profit college. Like many studies in

applied doctoral programs, this enquiry started with a personal curiosity. For me

it led to an intuitive hunch.

Before joining DeVry Institute of Technology as chief academic officer of

the Ontario campuses in 1999, I had built my career in the public college system,

starting as a part-time faculty member at Humber College when I was 23-years

old. I was an instructor (a teaching master and then a professor) for 15 years

at Sheridan College with a wide range of professional experiences, including

teaching remedial communications courses; content courses in career programs,

specifically media and business; and general education courses. Furthermore, I

started a program in media writing that I coordinated for 5 years, and I taught

and coordinated in the continuing education division. For nine additional years, I


had been an administrator in the public system with increasing responsibilities in

program, general education and cross-college staff and line functions.

These broad and significant experiences should have prepared me for

leadership in the for-profit sector (I presumed), yet, when I started to

understand my new DeVry environment, I sensed that many aspects, including

the teaching and learning, were different, and in fundamental ways. In my first

terms at DeVry, I was fascinated by questions of student motivation, choice and

investment. I would read writing samples from every first term student who

wrote about why they chose DeVry. These samples portrayed intelligent

consumers who had made a reasoned and informed decision. They were

optimistic and committed. They were also paying $3800 for that first term of

studies—almost as much as they would pay for an entire 4-term program in the

same subject area at Sheridan. My curiosity seems ingenuous now, but this

study started with a straightforward question:

Why do students choose to pay as much as four times more to attend a private career college in a province that has invested so heavily in accessible, public career education?

In addition to these questions about choice and the contribution to our

understanding about diversity, the study adds to the body of knowledge about

teaching and learning in post-secondary career education. The study presents

and tests an educational process model derived from best practices literature.

1.2. Problem Statement

The objective of the study is to explore whether for-profit colleges

contribute to the procedural diversity of Ontario’s competitive non-degree

postsecondary environment. To address this objective, the study has three

purposes:

1. To describe the educational processes in a for-profit college and a college

of applied arts and technology.


2. To identify differences in the educational processes in the case study

sites.

3. To determine the extent to which any differences can be explained by

institutional control (public versus for-profit-ness).

The term ‘educational process’ is not defined in the literature. Skolnik

(1986) uses the term as an attribute of interest in referencing the diversity of

Ontario’s non-degree sector. A similar concept is expressed by Dill and Teixeira

(2000) who reference institutional or organizational processes and factors of

production. For purposes of this study, I use the term ‘educational processes’ to

describe a sub-set of institutional activities, policies and procedures that impact

how the students experience their education. Included in the use of the term

are four general categories representing the ‘educational’:

1. Curriculum, defined as “the content or subject matter taught (and

presumably learned), together with any particular instructional

methodology, within any particular timing or sequencing (or structure)

associated with the content” (Johnstone & Maloney, 1998, p. 24);

2. In-class activities, including instructional strategies and student

evaluation;

3. Out-of-class activities;

4. Assessment which Wolverton (1994) defines as “the means by which

educators gain feedback about what works and what needs to be

improved... The ultimate goal is to enhance classroom effectiveness in

order to improve student learning” (Wolverton, 1994, p. 1).

The definition of process is “a particular method of doing something,

generally involving a number of steps or operations” (Webster's, 1968, p. 1434).

A description of an institution’s educational processes would therefore include

the what, how and perhaps why of these methods. The term was attractive to

me because of its neutrality and essentiality. Also as my background suggests, I


approach issues from the teaching and learning perspective, so the origin of the

term within teaching and learning proved comfortable for me’.

1.3. Study Boundaries

The study concentrates on educational processes in Ontario’s non-degree

sector. The study is defined by the following boundaries:

1. For-profit education in Ontario's non-degree sector. The for-profit college

sector is important because of its size, scope and the fact that it is the

only for-profit sector in Ontario’s postsecondary system. However, little

has been written about this sector, and the literature about for-profit

education is international; most studies and citations are from U.S.-based

literature. This fact represents both limitation and opportunity.

2. Career education as defined by practice in Ontario’s non-degree sector.

In both the community colleges and for-profit colleges, programs are

developed and delivered to achieve specific competencies that attach to

an occupation and/or career. This focus on career education has

implications for educational processes because of how curriculum must

connect with the employer community and how student choice includes

not only institution but also career choice.

3. Educational processes at the institutional level. This is the unit of study,

undefined at the outset but fully developed through the development of a

conceptual framework.

1 Perhaps not coincidentally, I have authored a writing text titled 7he Writing Process. Clearly ‘process’ is an abiding term in my lexicon.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector Chapter 1: Introduction

And finally, the study does not attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of

the educational processes at the two case study sites but rather to describe and

to discover any differences.

1.4. Organization of the Thesis

The dissertation is organized into six chapters:

Chapter One provides the context of the study, the rationale as well as

the problem statement and the purposes of the study.

Chapter Two provides the context of the study beginning with an

introduction of the issue of diversity in higher education. On balance, more

diversity is perceived as positive, and its study examines the extent and nature

of differences, including differences in institutional control (public vs. private)

and procedural diversity. Policy defines the marketplace in which the dynamics

of diversity are played out. Theoretically all institutions are impacted in this

competitive situation, resulting in innovation and increased diversity.

In section 2 of the chapter, I review the literature about for-profit

colleges, with a specific focus on the attributes of interest associated with their

control—the functions, governance and administration of for-profit colleges. This

section uses a comparative approach to distinguish the dimensions of control of

the for-profit sector vis-a-vis those of public institutions. It uses Ontario colleges

of applied arts and technology as the comparator.

As a final piece of context building, I describe Ontario’s for-profit college

sector and the marketplace in which it operates. Literature about both its

clientele and programming are summarized and compared to those of the

province’s community colleges; together these two sub-sectors define the non-

degree sector. Chapter Two leads to a conclusion: Control matters. Anda

hypothesis: Because of the inherent differences in their functions, governance


and administrative practices, it follows that educational processes will be

different in for-profit colleges. This procedural diversity is a natural outcome of

the systematic diversity of Ontario’s non-degree sector.

In Chapter Three I review the literature about educational processes in

the for-profit sector. This body of work, while minimal, does link procedural

diversity to differences in control. Furthermore, the literature cites innovation

and implies a connection between educational processes and the marketization

of higher education.

In the second section of Chapter Three, I build a conceptual framework,

first summarizing current themes about educational processes in postsecondary

education (as opposed to only those references to procedural diversity in the

literature of for-profit education) and then developing a best practices framework

to prompt the research questions and to structure the analysis of the data.

Three research-grounded models of effective educational processes are analyzed

and then synthesized into an Educational Processes Model. The chapter

concludes with a description of the usage of the model along with specific

research questions.

Chapter Four rationalizes my use of a comparative case study

methodology and summarizes three parts—site or ‘case’ selection, field methods

and analysis. It also presents the fully developed conceptual framework,

representing three frames: the theoretical framework, the problem statement

and the purpose of the study.

This is a descriptive study without evaluation. The chapter describes my

attempt to identify two well-regarded colleges with the same or similar programs

and then to obtain permission to use these two colleges as case studies.

The final sections of the chapter describe the field methods and analysis,

addressing issues of ethics, validity, and reliability.


In the first section of Chapter Five, I profile each of the sites with an

emphasis on those attributes that define their control: function, governance and

administration/management. One of the interesting outcomes of the final site

selection is that variations in market variables are somewhat controlled, thereby

optimizing differences in educational processes.

Findings about each of the four categories of the Educational Processes

Model are presented in the remaining four sections of the chapter. The

description of the public college’s processes is presented first, followed by that of

the for-profit college. At the conclusion of each section, the similarities are

presented as are the differences within those similarities, thus introducing a level

of analysis that adds depth to the findings. A summary chart of the similarities

and differences for each section is provided.

In Chapter Six, I explore whether the differences can be explained by

institutional control (public vs. for-profit) and whether ‘for-profit-ness’ results in

procedural diversity and real choice for Ontario’s postsecondary learners.

The study finds that the student experience is different in a for-profit

college and that cross-site themes consistent with a competitive sector explain

how and why the student experience is different. Furthermore, most differences

in educational processes can be explained by the different function, governance

and administrative practices that define for-profit colleges.

These findings and conclusions, as well as an assessment of the

Educational Processes Model, have implications for both policy and practice. The

thesis concludes with recommendations associated with these implications.


10

CHAPTER 2: THE CONTEXT OF THE STUDY

2.1. Diversity in Higher Education

External diversity” in higher education systems is defined as “a condition

of differences” among individual institutions or groups of institutions (Stadtman,

1980 in Skolnik, 1986, p. 1). These differences are a fundamental property of

higher education systems and their study examines the structural distribution of

functions and programs among institutions as well as the relationship between

institutions and types of institutions. Conceptually, diversity can be arrayed on a

continuum with the polarities representing two theoretical systems. At one end,

each function, program, target clientele and pedagogic orientation are addressed

by a unique institution dedicated to that focus. A single, comprehensive

institution providing the same functions is situated on the opposite end of the

continuum. The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1°.

* External diversity is distinguished from internal diversity, which refers to diversity within an institution; for example the range of programs. Internal constituential diversity is used to describe the mix of students, faculty and staff. External diversity is generally shortened to ‘diversity’. In this thesis, the term diversity will mean external diversity.

3 This model is presented in Professor Skolnik’s class notes for course TPS1821 at OISE/University of Toronto.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector Chapter 2: Context of the Study

11

Figure 1: A Conceptual Model of Diversity

L__|

Uo CT

LJ Multiple, unique Single, comprehensive institutions institution

more diverse

This model also represents the inherent dynamics of higher education

systems. Either they are becoming more diverse—differentiating or diversifying.

Or they are becoming less diverse—de-differentiating. One line of research is to

study the tendencies in this regard and the forces that support each

phenomenon (Huisman, 1998; Levy, 1999). A second line of enquiry measures

or describes the differences within and across systems. The terms ‘attributes of

interest’ or ‘dimensions of diversity’ are used to describe the specific differences

being studied. Various writers have used sets of terms to describe attributes of

interest including Stadtmam (in Skolnik, 1986) who identified programmatic,

procedural, systemic, constitutional, or reputational differences. Skolnik supplied

the following list: institutional status, structure and organization; educational

philosophy, mission and objectives; program delivery approaches; admissions

and completion requirements; and clientele served” (Skolnik, 2000, p. 2).

Birnbaum includes programmatic, procedural, systematic, constituential,

reputational and structural differences (Birnbaum, 1983, p. 55). He comments


12

on two dimensions of diversity that are particularly relevant to this study—

systematic diversity and procedural diversity.

Systematic diversity refers to differences in institutional type, size and

control and is defined in the U.S. by the Carnegie classification system. This

classification system divides institutions into six major categories—doctoral-

granting institutions, comprehensive colleges and universities, liberal arts

colleges, two-year colleges or institutions, professional schools and institutions

for nontraditional study. Each of these categories is further divided based on

criteria that includes institutional size. However as Birnbaum (1983) notes:

“But the separation of institutions into several categories fails to capture the immense range of institutional size. ... 668 (21 percent enrolled fewer than 500 students, and 84 (3 percent) enrolled 20,0000 students or more... Most institutions are relatively small, but most students are enrolled in the larger ones...” (Birmbaum, 1983, p. 46).

The third systematic variable is control, which refers to an institution’s

legal authority. Birnbaum adds proprietary institutions to the traditional

dichotomy of public and private, noting the range of differences attributed to the

control variable:

“Public institutions may fall under state, local, state and local or federal control, or they may be identified as ‘state-related.’ Private institutions can be identified as independent/nonprofit, proprietary (profit-making), or religiously controlled” (pp. 46-47).

Procedural diversity is the second dimension of diversity under

investigation in this study. Birnbaum distinguishes procedural diversity from

programmatic diversity and identifies three types of procedural diversity:

“Programmatic diversity refers to what is offered; procedural diversity is related to Aowit is offered. At least three types of procedural diversity can be identified: delivery systems, student policies and administrative

processes” (p. 43).

He goes on to review the impact of each of these types and concludes,

“the contributions of procedural differences to institutional diversity are minor

compared to the impact of programmatic diversity” (p. 45).


13

Most studies about diversity have been intra-system, measuring the

change in particular attributes of interest over a period of time (Skolnik, 2000,

pp. 5-6). Birnbaum’s (1983) early and influential study of institutional diversity

over time in the U.S is the most cited example. In this study he “...employs a

composite measure of diversity using as indicators: institutional control;

institutional size, minority enrolment; production of female students; program

types and degree levels” (Dill & Teixeira, 2000, p. 102).

Studies have tended to use one of three methodological approaches:

“critical analysis, structured qualitative studies and quantitative studies” (Skolnik,

2000, p. 6). Skolnik goes on to warn about the shortcomings associated with

qualitative studies, noting that “given their holistic nature, it is not always clear

just what particular aspects of diversity are being examined” (p. 7). He also

commends

“comparative studies within the same jurisdiction (which) can be a fruitful source of knowledge... The fact that units within the same jurisdiction

share many contextual elements may allow the researcher to focus more effectively on the elements of variation... (ibid.).

But why study diversity? These elements of variation are worthy of study

because of the benefits and potential adverse consequences attributed to

institutional differentiation. Birnbaum has hailed institutional diversity as one of

the “ideological pillars” of American higher education (Birnbaum, 1983, page ix)

while Skolnik has summarized the benefits to include the

“facilitating a better matching of student needs with institutional characteristics; providing for a more specialized use of resources; and allowing the co-existence of alternative models” (Skolnik, 1986, p. 2).

Skolnik also identifies two potentially adverse consequences. One is

associated with the likelihood of more specialized institutions providing a

narrower range of interactions. The second questions the quality of experience

within a diverse system:

“while diversity may enhance the opportunities for large numbers of people to experience some form of postsecondary education, there is

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 2: Context of the Study

14

likely to be a good deal of inequality of opportunity with respect to the nature of those experiences. The greater the diversity of the system, the more difference it makes which institution an individual attends, in regard to the quality of the education received and future options for subsequent education and employment” (Skolnik, 1986, pp. 4-5).

The introduction of benefits and consequences prompt three distinct views

about diversity and how it is approached in higher education research and public

policy. While Birnbaum sees diversity as a goal of higher education, Ben David

(1972) in his study of American higher education concluded that diversity was an

outcome of the system. Relevant to this study is his observation about the link

between competition, innovation and diversification:

“Having been required to cater to so many different tastes and not backed by any official authority, the system was an easy target for attack. Since, however, it was a decentralized system, the conflicts were dispersed and

rarely, and only for short periods, crystallized into nationwide issues. Competition forced the institutions to be opportunistic and to extend the range of their services in order not to lose any potential support (Flexner, 1967, pp. 125-164). This led to innovations. And attempts by many institutions at gaining monopoly over part of the market gave rise to diversification” (Ben David, 1972, p. 35).

More recent work, especially related to the study of privatization in higher

education positions diversity as an instrument of public policy.

“The concept of institutional control, in the U.S. essentially public versus private, is a potentially interesting measure, but it is not clear whether it is in fact a measure of institutional diversity, or an indicator of government policy that may in turn influence diversity” (Dill & Teixeira, 2000, p. 102).

The authors opine that diversity should be viewed as a “social or public

value and therefore an outcome to be sought in the public interest” (p. 100).

They argue that studies of diversity should be framed by economic theory and

market forces (demand and institutional response through innovation). Such a

view has implication for research questions and methodology:

“By adopting the economic conception of innovation and systematically examining how the type as well as amount of academic innovation within institutions may vary, for example, by levels of demand, we will likely


15

achieve a more systematic understanding of the relationship between public policy and academic diversity” (p. 114).

Expansion of a higher education system by private providers is a related

phenomenon. Altbach (1999) notes, “private institutions ... are expanding in

scope and number and are increasingly important in parts of the world that have

relied on the public sector” (Altbach, 1999, p. 1). While the distinction between

public or government-sector and private is a judicial one based on legal

ownership, other characteristics of these institutions are noteworthy, especially

their financial base.

“Private institutions are responsible for their own funding, along with internal governance and management, the relationship to government and public authorities, and institutional planning” (p. 2).

Related to the study of diversity are the system-level relationships

prompted by the introduction of private providers. Altbach (1999) presents the

challenges, first to the institutions, which must become part of the system:

“Private institutions seek to fit into the academic system of a nation because their survival depends on being able to attract students and offering ‘products’ that are attractive and appropriate” (Altbach, 1999, p. 9).

And second to policy makers who must coordinate activities:

“Private higher education has become an essential part of the overall national system in a country. It is even more difficult than the public sector to coordinate, however, because its resources do not come from

public sources, ownership is not in government hands, and accountability is spread to many institutions and groups” (p. 8).

Yet the literature is not consistent about the role of public policy. While

Geiger (1986) warns that diversity and innovation are inhibited when private

institutions are responsible for the bulk of higher education (Geiger, 1986, p.

71), Williams explains the connections between diversity and policy:

“The World Bank, UNESCO, OECD as well as many national governments and academic economists and management theorists around the world have, in recent years, advocated complete or partial privatization as the

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 2: Context of the Study

16

best way of providing satisfactory mass higher education that meets the competing claims of quality, equality, diversity, responsiveness to client

demands and efficiency” (Williams, 1996, p. 39).

Geiger’s (1986) groundbreaking study of private sectors across

jurisdictions introduced four phenomena to conceptualize the market forces and

to explain the differences from country to country:

“individual demand and preferences for higher education, the collective interests of special groups, the state provision of higher education, and to

8) sure, the feasibility of providing private alternatives” (Geiger, 1986, p.

These variables impact the ways that governments intervene to alter the basic

conditions of operations. Some jurisdictions are highly regulated jurisdictions;

some are de-regulated. The choice is largely dependent on the practices of

systems management. Marginson notes that the American approach is to know

what is going on and to formulate policy decisions to influence the system while

the rest of the world is more prescriptive, relying on policy to design a system

(Marginson, 1997, pp. 461-462). Goedegebuure, Kaiser, Maassen & de Weert

(1993) use the terms ‘facilitatory state’ and ‘interventionary state’ to describe the

actual involvement in shaping and coordinating the higher education system

(Goedegebuure, 1993, p. 5).

Dill identifies three critical points of public policy intervention to introduce

or modify market behaviour. These pertain to the conduct of consumers and

suppliers, the structure of the market and the basic conditions within which

higher education operates (Dill, 1997, p. 172). He cites four kinds of policy

interventions as examples of these interventions:

1. policies that deregulate higher education and permit private colleges and universities to compete with publicly funded institutions;

2. the introduction of ‘quasi-market’ schemes that allocate public funding to increase efficiency;


17

3. the rapid diffusion of public policies requiring assessments of the quality of institutions and subject fields and the public provision of this

information; and

4. the growing interest in introducing or raising tuition and re-allocating government support from institution-funding systems to student- funding systems (pp 168-170).

While higher education systems de-regulate, private institutions are

typically more regulated, an action that introduces a paradoxical situation

according to Williams:

“An issue for national governments is to determine the degree of regulation that is possible and desirable [in private institutions]. How much responsibility should national governments have for protecting students, who are, after all legally adults in most countries, against excessive commercialism? One widely used solution is to create what are in effect legal monopolies by restricting the use of the title ‘university’ and the award of ‘degrees’ to institutions that conform to certain specified criteria and meet certain quality standards. The problem with this is that it encourages the bureaucratic rigidities and inefficiencies that privatization and quasi-privatisation of higher education is intended to overcome” (Williams, 1996, p. 45).

Consistent with Skolnik’s potential quality disadvantage of a more diverse

system, Altbach contends, “the issue of quality control remains ubiquitous, as

does the pricklier question of how the growth in the private sector can effectively

be harnessed to the greater public good” (in Cohen, 2001). Marginson provides

a useful list of policy areas that have the potential to affect the respective roles

of the public and private sectors: These include the amount of tuition subsidies

and student aid available to students in each sub-sector; the availability of

research grants; institutional rankings; quality assurance mechanisms; the

designation and registration of institutions; restrictions on land use; limits on the

number of students or the size or number of institutions; the restrictions and

expectations about curriculum content; the ability to grant degrees; standards

about staff qualifications; and the appointment of university leaders (Marginson,

1997, p. 461).


18

Newman and Couturier (2001) challenge policy makers to ensure that the

new competitive pressures positively impact the purpose and efficiencies of

higher education. They make the following policy recommendations:

1. Require a better flow of information so that students and others can make better choices.

2. Consider alternative policy structures “such as transforming institutions into charter universities and colleges, reducing the bureaucracy, and encouraging responsiveness to public needs”

3. Provide incentives for “the wise use of technology to enhance teaching and learning, expand access and improve efficiency”

4. Require the measurement of learning outcomes.

5. Design financial aid packages that reward merit while increasing access for the less-advantaged.

6. “Set up funding mechanisms that encourage institutions to be entrepreneurial, define their niches, and differentiate their missions” (Newman & Couturier, 2001, p. 16).

This section of the chapter has introduced the concept of diversity and the

related issues of private provider expansion and system-level public policy. On

balance, more diversity is perceived as positive, and its study examines the

extent and nature of differences of specific attributes or dimensions of diversity.

This study is about procedural diversity in institutions representing diversity of

control (public and for-profit). The literature recommends comparative studies

within the same jurisdiction (Skolnik, 2000); however it minimizes the

contribution of procedural differences to institutional diversity (Birnbaum, 1983).

This context provides the rationale for this study. Dill’s and Teixeira’s

(2000) argument is that the role of policy is to increase diversity, which in turn

will benefit society and the differentiating institutions. They identify four

activities that would improve the workings of the system—product innovation,

processes, factors of production and markets. They propose that we study the


19

correlates or predictors of these differences. While this study does not use

quantitative methods, it nevertheless is interested in the relationship between

institutional control and procedural diversity. Is there something inherent in how

institutions with different control (public vs. for-profit) implement their

educational processes? And do these different educational processes add to the

diversity of a higher education system?

Before these questions can be crystallized, I will introduce a second

context of the study—private for-profit institutions. These have been cited in

the literature of diversity. Birnbaum (1983) references private, for-profit colleges

as a sub-category of control and Altbach (1999) references the low reputation of

the private for-profit providers. In the next section of the chapter, I examine the

role of for-profit providers in post-secondary education and then examine their

function, governance and administration.

2.2. For-Profit Education

2.2.1. The Education Business

The annual education and training expenditures in the U.S. economy are

approximately $815 billion and growing (Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

2001). The range of activities covers the gamut:

“Companies are looking to make money by touching all corners of the education market. Some are teaching Homer and Shakespeare. Some are helping Johnny learn to read. Some are collecting tuition from moms and dads who want to pick up a master’s degree or brush up on a new technology to get a higher paying job. Still others are helping Corporate American shift employee-training programs to the internet...” (Sessa, 2001).

Estimates of the size of the for-profit industry within this overall

expenditure range from $70B to $105B (Eduventures.com Inc. 2001; Walsh,


20

1999). The composition of the industry is provided in Table 1: The For-Profit

Education Industry:

Table 1: The For-Profit Education Industry (U.S.)

Category Revenue Percentage | Corporate and government training $19B 27%

K-12 Education $18.5B 26%

Technology 4.8 Supplemental Materials 3.6 Textbooks 3.0 Private Education 2.6 Special Education 2.0 At risk/Alternate 1.0 Private Management .05 Teacher Training .05 Supplemental Instruction .05 Before/After school programs 05

Consumer products and services $13B 19% Books 3.0 Supplemental materials 2.5 Tutoring/test prep 2.5 Software 1.5 Test delivery 1.5 Language instruction 1.0 Toys 1.0

Early education and child care $11B 16%

Post-secondary education $8B 11%

(Walsh, 1999, p. 14)

Despite these numbers, education is still perceived as a cottage industry.

Its size restricts company’s access to low cost capital and the “free flow of

information and best practices within the industry” (Evans, 2001, p. 26).

Consequently, the usual features of an industry are not yet in place. These

include dedicated analysts, portfolio managers, dedicated consulting firms, and


21

market research firms, all with a significant part of their practice devoted to

learning (pp. 26-40).

Information is suspect, reliant on individual analysts, each with different

ways to measure and describe. Definitions and context change as well. Take,

for example the study of the corporate university sub-sector. Corporate

universities emerged in the 1970s as a response to the continuous learning

needs of employees who were not being serviced by traditional colleges and

universities. In his study of corporate universities, Thompson (2000) examined

how corporate colleges compare with traditional universities and colleges. He

uses a very limited definition of the corporate university that was used in studies

in 1985 and 1987. His study tracks the evolution of 26 corporate colleges that

were expected to expand and threaten traditional postsecondary providers. His

conclusion is that they have not fared well and “corporate colleges present no

threat to the traditional postsecondary institutions” in Canada and the United

States (Thompson, 2000, p. 339). Yet, in a December 2000 e-mail to

EdResource Lists, James Morrison, editor of The Technology Source, writes about

his interview with Jeanne Meister, president of Corporate University Xchange:

“...there are currently more than 1,600 organizations titled ‘corporate universities, ‘corporate colleges’ or ‘institutes of learning’. She (Jeanne Meister) expects this number to rise to more than 2,000 in the next few years, and forecasts that by the year 2010 or so, corporate universities will outnumber traditional universities” (Morrison, 2000).

The postsecondary education industry is the smallest part of the overall

education industry representing only 11% of industry revenue. It may also be

the fastest growing and the ‘space’ with the most opportunity. It represents only

three percent of the estimated $260B spending on post-secondary education

(Wahlgren, 2002.) Growth is forecast at 15% a year (Eduventures.com, Inc.),

an estimate supported by an understanding of the marketplace and students’

choice decisions:

“,.. students make the decision to continue their education based largely on the expected difference in lifetime earnings they will gain, weighed


22

against the cost of their education. As the cost of postsecondary education rises, we believe that an increasing number of students will choose career-oriented schools that maximize their return on education investment (ROEI). We believe that the for-profit schools in our coverage universe will continue to capture market share as they offer students a higher ROEI than traditional schools by focusing curriculum on high- paying fields that are in increasingly high demand” (Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, 1999, p. 1).

Six companies represent approximately half the market share of the

postsecondary industry. These include Appolo (University of Phoenix), University

of Phoenix Online, Career Education, Corinthian Colleges, DeVry and ITT

Educational Services (Walhgren, 2002). Additional companies in the sector

include Education Management, EduTrek International and Strayer Education

(Credit Suisse First Boston, 1999).

Each of these publicly traded companies operates for-profit colleges and

universities in the United States and Canada. Collectively they represent a new

phenomenon in higher education—the public, for-profit institution. In the next

section of the chapter, I introduce for-profit colleges (FPCs) and the ways in

which they have been studied in the literature.

2.2.2. For-Profit Colleges: Literature Review

In the U.S., from which most of the literature derives, approximately 20%

of all traditional and non-traditional post-secondary students attend a private

institution. These private institutions are categorized into four groups:

1. prestigious private universities and colleges such as Yale, the University of Chicago and Williams;

2. religiously affiliated universities and colleges;

3. secular private colleges and universities; and

4. proprietary (profit making) specialized institutions (Altbach, 1999, p. 3).


23

Altbach (1999) characterizes the proprietary sector in the context of both

reputational diversity and market demand:

“For-profit higher education is without question a major phenomenon worldwide.... Few, if any, for-profit institutions are high prestige. The largest number of these institutions are small vocationally oriented schools, many of which do not have authorization to offer degrees. Nonetheless they offer services that are in considerable demand, and it is possible to earn profits from delivering educational products” (Altbach, 1999, p. 7).

The proprietary, or for-profit, sector is not a new phenomenon in higher

education, either in the United States, Canada or around the world. However, its

emergence over the last several years within the study of higher education and

in the business and popular press has been remarkable. Writing in 1995, Clowes

(1995) called proprietary schools the ‘silent partner’ in American higher

education. He noted that in the 1992 edition of the Encyclopedia of Higher

Education (Clark and Neave, 1992), proprietary education achieved but one entry

among the 300 provided (Clowes, 1995, p.5). Altbach also notes the fact that

the sector has been largely ignored: “In the United States, a largely ignored

proprietary profit-making postsecondary sector has long existed, largely focusing

on vocationally oriented fields in the lower end of the prestige hierarchy”

(Altbach, 1999, p. 7).

Yet, for-profit, vocational education has a rich history in North America.

Honick (1995) notes, “the proprietary school developed its current operating

principles in the context of expanding commerce—the needs of business and of

students” (Honick, 1995, p. 27). In Canada, the private sector was the first to

respond to “the proliferation and reorganization of clerical positions” (Jackson &

Gaskell, 1987, p. 185). The first private business college in Ontario opened in

1860. Through the next 50 years, private colleges dominated business-based

vocational education, developing and promoting familiar practices:

“It was the private entrepreneurs who developed the most successful commercial courses.... Business Colleges played up their differences from, and advantages over the public schools.... The colleges boasted


24

that they were business enterprises run by successful entrepreneurs... They stayed open during the summer.... Their programs were short and flexible, and they required no entrance exam. They boasted of better facilities, teachers and texts than the public schools.... They promised specialist teachers who taught only business subjects.... Perhaps most importantly, the business colleges promised jobs to their students... They allocated resources to contracting employers and placing their students” (Jackson & Gaskell, 1987, p. 186).

The last large scale study of proprietary schools in the United States was

published in 1990 (Lee & Merisotis, 1990). The study is not a history of

proprietary education, but rather “it is about the current world in which private

career schools exist and the lessons to be learned from research and analysis

about the issues” (Lee & Merisotis, 1990, p. 3). Two aspects of the historical

context are noteworthy, however, because they predict current enrolment

patterns. First, proprietary education in the late 19" and early 20" centuries

provided women with the opportunities to join the workplace. Before the

invention of the typewriter, women were forced into teaching. However:

“business schools recognized that women were an untapped source of students and therefore offered incentives for them to enroll. As early as 1890, the percentage of women students enrolled in a proprietary and stenography schools exceeded that of men (Bolino 1973, pp. 152-155). Thus in their own way, private business schools assisted the gradual progression of women’s increased participation in the work force in the

20" century” (p. 7)

Also the passage of the GI Bill at the conclusion of World War II provided

another market segment for proprietary schools. Nearly “twice as many veterans

chose enrolment in a vocational school than in a college or university” (p. 10).

The study examines management and administrative practices, especially

the different traditions that exist in proprietary schools where the “many school

owners are first and foremost business executives” (Lee & Merisotis, p. 73). It

also reviews the curricula at proprietary schools as well as the characteristics of

students who choose to attend these schools. A significant part of the study


25

examines the outcomes of proprietary schools; the authors note that knowledge

is fragmentary and

“,.. little credible research has been accomplished, partly because the federal government and many states have poor mechanisms for collecting data and disseminating information when it comes to proprietary schools” (p. 35).

Wilms’ (1987) large-scale study examined the business practices and their

historical origins, noting the public affairs campaigns that have resulted in

accreditation and access to public student loans for students attending for-profit

institutions. In addition, the study examines the student body and outcomes of

for-profit schools, notably retention, placement and student satisfaction. In

addition, he examines institutional structures, programs and enrolment.

Robert Sweet (1991, 1993, 1996) has studied various aspects of the

Canadian for-profit sector using a similar comprehensive structure. His 1993

study of Canada’s Private Vocational Training Schools is set in comparison to

Canada’s public colleges and institutes and in this comparative design is aligned

with my study. His concern is “primarily with the structure and operation of the

institutions” (Sweet, 1993, p. 38). He notes that “(s)ize plays a role in

determining the level of educational technology and even pedagogical

sophistication available to a school” (p. 42). This observation is important in the

study’s rationale and site selection as is his statement:

“The internal organization of community colleges and PVTS (private vocational training schools) is highly similar in the sense that classroom instruction in both is characterized by use of the same pedagogical techniques and strategies” (p. 43).


26

2.2.2.1. Thematic Approaches to the Literature

Three themes run through the literature of for-profit education. The first

is criticism:

“Today’s proprietary schools are known for their niche vocational programs and for their aggressive advertising campaigns on television and print. They are also known for their instability. Proprietary schools have attracted a large number of critics throughout history because of these characteristics” (Honick, 1995, p. 29).

Organized labour has been critical, accusing the proprietary schools of

providing strikebreakers to business and industry beginning in the late 1800s.

And ironically big business joined the anti-proprietary crusade in the 1920s.

“Big business stood to benefit from a tax-supported vocational education program that would train workers. In addition, industry felt control over public instruction offered it more influence in society than backing a loose affiliation of private schools” (Honick, 1995, p. 35).

Today, for-profit education is most frequently attacked for questionable

practices that include training for jobs that do not exist (United States House of

Representatives, 1997A) and abuse of student financial aid (Evaluation of Private

Career Colleges, 1997; United States House of Representatives, 1997B). Lee and

Merisotis (1990) contend that proprietary schools became a “front burner issue”

for policy in the mid-1980s:

“The impetus for this increased interest can be traced to one key indicator: rapid increases in the amounts defaulted by students participating in federally guaranteed student loan programs... students in proprietary schools were found to default at twice the rate of students in other sections, causing a firestorm of criticism and scrutiny of private career schools that continues to the present” (Lee & Merisotis, 1990, p. 45).

Some of the literature approaches advocacy research. Commissioned

studies demonstrate the financial contribution of the for-profit sector (Council for

Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, 1996) or refute the findings of


27

previous studies (American Association of Cosmetology Schools, 1997; Evaluation

of Private Career Colleges, 1997).

For-profit education is also criticized for the nature of its educational

experience, a criticism that links back to a potential disadvantage of diversity—

the narrow range of interactions. Typical of this criticism is an argument

forwarded by the Canadian Association of University Teachers in condemning the

Alberta government for granting degree-granting status to the DeVry Institute of

Technology:

“Private educators are not interested in providing a broad-based education, instead focusing narrowly on course content in current demand in the marketplace. What they provide are, in truth, diplomas or certificates of competence in a narrow range of skills” (Morley, 2000).

Pusser and Doane (2001) elaborate this argument, providing a key

distinction between nonprofit and for-profit production of higher education:

“for-profit providers are fundamentally oriented to the production of a private benefit: enhanced labor market outcomes for individuals. While non-profits are also committed to producing that benefit, their missions have long incorporated the production of public benefits as well. Moreover, in their institutional behavior, nonprofit institutions have justified public subsidy by focusing on public benefits—for example, long- term research that contributes to basic knowledge, community service and liberal education—over commercial activities” (Pusser & Doane, 2001, p. 21).

The profit motive is another focus of criticism, evoking strong statements

about motivation and function. Kutz (1989) argues that an organization driven

by profit is not able to address the social purposes of higher education. On the

other hand, John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix, contends that

his decision to organize the university as a profit-making business was a key

determinant in the university’s success (Sperling, 2000, p. 74). Taking a more

balanced view, Lee and Merisotis (1990) note that the real question is “whether

the profit motive has an effect on meeting the needs of students and the

community” (Lee & Merisotis, 1990, p. 16).


28

Wilms (1987) notes, “the proprietary schools are the ones singled out for

opprobrium, probably because of the deep-seated public mistrust of the owners

who operate schools for-profit” (Wilms, 1987, p. 17). His description of the court

case that brought this issue to a head provides both context and representation

of the for-profit theme. The story begins in 1964 when the federation of

accrediting commissions issued a policy statement that denied regional

accreditation to for-profit institutions. A small proprietary school, Marjorie

Webster College, sued the federation, citing restraint to trade. During the

ensuing court case, the federation produced 26 witnesses: Here’s an example of

one of the briefs:

“If they [the two goals] of profit-making and education] are both in the same institution, it is quite obvious that a question of return on capital must be the first and primary consideration because if capital leaves the institution, the institution no longer exists for whatever secondary and tertiary function it may try to provide and so that a primary profit motive, which all profit organizations must necessarily have to survive, would seem to make the educational goal or the educational motive secondary” (pp.17-18).

The college rebutted the federation’s argument citing the lack of “any

empirical data or research on the relationships between the quality of the

educational program and the proprietary corporate form.” Its brief extolled the

profit motive and its link to the marketplace:

“The profit motive is perhaps the most effective device which has been developed by our society to stimulate quality through the freedom of public choice among competing institutions. Bureaucracy and inefficiency threaten higher education at this time. The proprietary approach would make it possible for market factors to induce efficiency and reduce educational cost. The profit motive would force institutions to provide strong, effective programs, since weak programs would be rejected by the public” (Wilms, 1987, p. 18)*.

* The lower court ruled in the college’s favour. On appeal, a higher court overturned the decision and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.


29

Despite the eventual success of the proprietary sector in achieving

accreditation, some writers contend that it will always remain outside the

mainstream:

“... the philosophical issue of education being a for-profit activity remains outside the mainstream. Whatever quality proprietary institutions might achieve, even if such quality is measured against traditional standards, it will be difficult to overcome this bias on the part of many in the higher education establishment” (Chaloux, 1995, p. 91).

Ruch (2001) cites Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman who

suggests “that the terms for-profit and non-profit should be dropped altogether

from the higher education lexicon in favor of the more descriptive tax paying and

tax-exempt (Ruch, 2001, p. 10). Winston (1999) compares the distribution of

profits in a institution to the non-distribution constraint in public and private, not-

for-profit organizations, a point that Ruch crystallizes with his observations about

higher education’s dependency on private funding:

“Both the for-profits and the non-profits depend on other people’s money for their solvency and long-term survival” (Ruch, 2001, p. 10).

This is but one element of comparison between for-profit and traditional

higher education, the second theme that runs through the literature. In the U.S.

this study compares for-profit institutions to not-for-profit private institutions as

well as public colleges and universities. In Canada, which does not have a

tradition of private not-for-profit higher education providers, the comparison is

with traditional public colleges and universities. Two distinctive perspectives

about this comparison have emerged.

The first of these comparative approaches examines the practices of the

for-profit sector and the differences to those of traditional higher education.

Some examine the practices of the for-profits and declare them a threat to

and/or a provocateur of change for traditional higher education. Davis and

Botkin (1994) assert that companies providing knowledge for-profit will dominate


30

the 21* century marketplace. Winston’s (1999) examination of the financing of

market entry concludes that

“for-profit competition will do what privatization is supposed to do—push toward a wider range of products at lower costs and toward the elimination of inefficient and inappropriate schools. While the new information technologies may play a significant role in that push, I suspect that as large a part of it will come from the break with emulated traditions” (Winston, 1999, p. 19).

And Ruch contends that traditional higher education could learn from the

for-profits in four areas: responding to market forces, adapting the organizational

structure, redefining shared governance and developing a stronger customer

orientation (Ruch, 2001, pp. 130- 149). These and other differences will be

described in detail later in this section of the chapter.

A second perspective is to advance the notion that traditional higher

education and the for-profit sector are converging. In introducing his

convergence thesis in the New Directions For Community Colleges issue on

community colleges and proprietary schools, Clowes (1995) asserts, “within

postsecondary education, the community college and the proprietary or career

school are most alike... in providing a specialized form of education and training

beyond secondary school” (Clowes, 1995, pp. 6 and 13). This convergence is

most apparent at the program level and is the result of accreditation demands

which “bring the two types of institutions closer and closer together in

curriculum, financial aid policies and management practices” (p. 11).

Some writers disagree with this convergence theory, contending that the

impetus for growth is fundamentally different:

“While both types of institutions may seek growth, the reasons they wish to grow are fundamentally different. Proprietaries seek to grow as long as the marginal cost of adding students is less than the marginal revenue additional students generate. Community colleges will seek growth to better serve their communities or to achieve status for the faculty and staff in the eyes of other institutions; thus community colleges may seek growth, even when growth will generate more costs than revenue” (Moore, 1995, pp. 74-76).


31

Moore (1995) has developed a comprehensive table summarizing the differences

between proprietary schools and community colleges. This table is reproduced

as Table 2.

Table 2: Differences Between Proprietary Schools and Community Colleges

Feature Public Community Colleges Proprietary Schools

Mission Complex and ambiguous; Simple and focused aim: Profit for includes: Academic transfer the owner, through offering short- programs, vocational training, term vocational training community service, remedial education, preserving the jobs and status of faculty and staff

Governance | Complex: elected state and local | Simple: owners and professional boards, state legislation, faculty | managers, state and federal governance, state and federal legislation regulation.

Time horizon | Long term Short term

size Large Small Links to the | Strong systematic ties through Limited links to four-year institutions rest of higher | transferable credit and and other less-than four-year education articulation with four-year institutions. Transferability of credit

institutions and other community | is limited and ad hoc. May be part of colleges. Usually part of a a local, regional or national chain of statewide system schools with the same owner.

Cost Free or minimal tuition Significant tuition of $4000 or more for a vocational program.

Market Has assigned territory in which it | Has no assigned territory; moves to orientation is the only community college. find markets. Completely dependent

Some funding usually driven by enroliment. Some competition for enrollment with other public and private institutions.

No need to differentiate itself from other institutions and establish a competitive advantage.

on enrollments for revenue. Competes with other proprietary and public institutions in market.

Must differentiate itself from other public and private competitors to establish competitive advantage that will warrant higher tuition charges.

(Moore, 1995, p. 75)


32

Policy development is the third theme that runs through the literature.

Policy also links the literature of for-profit education most directly with the

literature about diversity. Altbach says the “issue of quality control remains

ubiquitous” (Altbach, in Cohen, 2001). Kutz (1989) expresses this same

concern:

“Most persons I spoke with emphasized the fundamental differences between educational organizations that are accountable to the public through systematic and comprehensive monitoring/reporting mechanisms, and those which have only the profit motive to satisfy” (Kutz, 1989, p. 53).

Information asymmetry and consumer protection is a second and related

policy issue. Pusser and Doane (2001) describe the issue:

“Students are particularly vulnerable to information asymmetry....a degree program is difficult to assess in advance, requires significant time for completion and takes even longer to evaluate. It is hard to redress damage or to design an appropriate remedy when an institution does not deliver the goods. ... Nonprofit production of higher education is meant to minimize the chances that this asymmetry will lead to fraud” (Pusser & Doane, 2001, p. 20)

To address these two issues, proprietary schools in the U.S. are

increasingly subject to the same oversight triad as traditional education. This

triad includes state governing or coordinating boards, the federal government

through the Higher Education Act and the voluntary private accrediting

community (Chaloux, 1995, pp. 82-83). This oversight responsibility has

challenged many states that did not have mechanisms in place but that are now

required to “take responsibility for quality assurance”:

“AS more proprietary school move to degree-granting status, new challenges are emerging for the states. The degree/non-degree classification system allowed many states to move oversight to nonacademic agencies that are often tied to the nature of the program to be reviewed” (p. 88).

Moore (1995) describes how proprietary schools in the United States are

subject to the same federal regulation as other institutions (amendments to the


33

Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1992). “Thus, this regulation has become the

primary policy intervention for controlling the behaviour of proprietary schools”

(Moore, 1995, p. 76). These regulations increased the length of eligible

programs and introduced credit hours as the measure of program length. They

also restrict the percentage of revenue that can be realized through student aid

and prohibit commission payments to admissions representatives (p. 73). One

consequence of these regulations is also predicted in the literature: “The federal

government has put stricter limits on the behaviour of other types of institutions

as well” (Leatherman, 1993 in Moore, 1995, p. 76).

The 1992 amendments to the HEA also encourage institutions and “their

external evaluators... to assess quality by including outcome measures” (Prager,

1995, p. 62). These outcome measures include student completion rates,

student learning outcomes and student placement results and introduce an irony

that does not go unnoticed by those who champion for-profit higher education:

“Interestingly, and somewhat ironically, there is a shift underway in most states toward assessment strategies and measures for accountability and efficacy of traditional higher education programming.... The irony is that the proprietary sector has historically collected and made available this information to its customers, believing that the single best measure of quality is whether students, after successfully completing a program of some kind, can get employment in that field and can successfully perform their duties. The move from traditional input measures to more output measures by states can only be effective, however, if the traditional measures are altered significantly. Collecting data on retention and completion rates, job placement rates, skill assessment, and other output measures can only be effective if all institutions—public, private and proprietary—are held to acceptable standards and that these standards are applied equitably to all educational institutions” (Chaloux, 1995, pp. 88-89).

Within this changing policy framework in the U.S., for-profit, publicly

traded accredited universities and colleges have emerged as the dominant for-

profit providers:

“within the past five years, postsecondary proprietary education has been transformed from a sleepy part of the economy, best known for mom and


34

pop trade schools, to a $3.5 billion a year business that is increasingly dominated by companies building regional and national franchises” (Strosnider, 1998, p. 1).

Two reasons have been suggested for their increasing presence. First,

because they have emerged from the proprietary sector with its market-place

orientation, they represent real diversity and a more apt response to the

massification of higher education:

“Higher education has come to include an astonishingly large part of the U.S. population without, it seems to me, an entirely realistic recognition of the Aeterogeneity of that larger population in its needs, interests, and abilities. That's the demand side. On the supply side, administrators, legislatures, trustees, and (maybe especially) faculties seem too often guided by the wish to emulate the schools, attitudes, and techniques that are appropriate for the top institutions. Striving to be Harvard-in-the- small, our institutions of higher education have assumed that what works for students and faculty at the top of the hierarchy—or something much like it—is appropriate for those who are serving very different student with quite different interests and needs. At the top of the hierarchy, higher education is dominated—even defined—by abstractions and first principles. Though it feels egalitarian to take the position that everyone deserves the best, in many cases this may have been unrealistic, leading to a product that many of our customers today simply don’t want to buy.

“If that’s right, what's coming—driven by the for-profit sector—is a sharper differentiation of product with a greater variety of educational choices to match the greater variety of educational needs and interests inherent in a radically expanded and more heterogeneous student population” (Winston, 1999, p. 18-19),

Second, each of these educational companies is described by a business

model whose objective is growth and return on investment. As a result, they

increase the incentive for private resources to go into higher education (Sperling

Tucker, 1997; Strosnider, 1998). Ruch’s study (Ruch, 2001) of these new for-

profit providers provides an insider’s look at their practices in relation to those of

traditional higher education. He distinguishes between the traditional

stakeholders who “have varied and sometimes incompatible interests and

concerns” and stockholders:


35

“To ensure a steady influx of private investment capital, the for-profits must demonstrate an ability to generate a return to stockholders in the form of equity” (Ruch, 2001, p. 13).

A related feature is employee ownership. Ruch notes that “when faculty

members... become investors in their own university... they soon develop a

personal stake not only in the academic matters but also in the financial success

of the enterprise” (p.13). This move from stakeholder to shareholder impacts

traditional internal governance structures.

A second consequence of the growth of for-profit education is the impact

on higher education’s accountability practices. Traditionally, regulation and

accreditation have placed a higher value on admissions selectivity, faculty

credentials and an array of extracurricular programs and activities (Ruch, 2001,

p. 20). These input criteria have been the subject of continued criticism from

the for-profit providers led by John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix

and Chief Executive Officer of the Appolo Corporation. Sperling criticizes non-

profit status as an input requirement in the old paradigm and links it to

information asymmetry:

“,..regulation...is based upon the presumption that it is nearly impossible to otherwise determine the value (educational effectiveness) of a service that the consumer has paid for in time and money... the regulators persist in believing that consumers of educational services—even intelligent, well- educated adults—cannot adequately judge the value of the services they receive.

“Because of these unfounded beliefs, the regulators have constructed a thicket of capital- and labor-intensive ‘input’ standards that they assert will lead to, cause, or are, at the least, necessary conditions to ensure academic quality in the institutions they license or accredit. These input

standards include such matters as specifications on physical plant, faculty qualifications, and seat-time-per-credit formulas. They also address the

ethical probity of those who operate the enterprise. For many regulators, one of the most important indicators of ethical probity is a non-profit status” (Sperling & Tucker, 1997, p. 53).


36

Ruch also comments on the accreditation practices he has witnessed as a

dean in both public institutions and DeVry University. He quotes Judith Eaton,

president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation who summarizes the

core academic values as institutional autonomy, collegiality and shared

governance; intellectual and academic authority of the faculty; the degree;

general education; and site-based education and a community of learning. Ruch

contends that the lack of institutional commitment to even one of these values

“is cause for sanctions, from additional scrutiny of an institution to withdrawal of

accreditation.” According to Ruch

“What must be acknowledged is that for-profit providers operate under a different hierarchy of values, especially as they pertain to the second and third values listed above (collegiality and shared governance)” (Ruch, 2001, p. 142).

Furthermore, he agrees that the for-profit universities tend to place greater

emphasis on educational outputs and that they allocate resources and assess

educational quality based on student satisfaction, retention rates, completion

rates and placement rates (p. 20).

Consequently, and consistent with the evidence that regional accreditors

appear to evaluate for-profit institutions according to the same criteria and in the

same fashion as other postsecondary institutions (Prager, 1995, p. 64), these

new institutions have introduced a broader accountability:

“For-profit universities offer several advantages over nonprofit institutions, among which are the for-profit’s accountability for educational effectiveness, operational efficiency, cost benefits, and the time it takes them to respond to changes in the nation’s education needs” (Sperling & Tucker, 1997, p. 1).

Not only are these new institutions accountable to the oversight triad but

also to the investment community. That is, even though the education sector is

not yet a mature business sector, analysts and investors provide another element

of public scrutiny to these for-profit institutions. The result is a new kind of

higher education institution, the public, for-profit institution. Figure 3, A New


37

Control Typology for Higher Education, presents a new typology of control that

differentiates for-profit higher education institutions and distinguishes the smaller

privately owned for-profit colleges from the large publicly traded corporations?.

Figure 2: A New Control Typology for Higher Education

Distinguishing Features Public Private

Non-distribution constraint

(Cannot distribute operating surplus)

Tax-exempt

Public universities and

colleges Private, for-principle

universities and colleges

Can distribute profits

Tax-paying Publicly-traded higher education companies

Privately held higher education companies, career colleges and private vocational schools

Security and exchange regulations and policies as well as emerging and

more stringent corporate governance guidelines impact the operation of these

new for-profit institutions. As these commercial policies are outside of the scope

of the study, I have chosen not to describe these although they certainly

represent an interesting new dimension of the accountabilities in higher

education.

> This model emerged during a private conversation with Dr. Michael Markovich, founder of Argosy Corporation, a for-profit, publicly-traded university, now part of Educational Management Corporation.


38

This section of the chapter has introduced the development of the for-

profit education business in the context of diversity and expansion. For-profit

education, while still a cottage industry, is nevertheless a growing phenomenon,

addressing the demand for both ‘more’ and ‘different’ postsecondary

opportunities. In this respect it represents more institutional diversity. At the

same time, these for-profit companies represent new ways for private funding to

be introduced into higher education. As well their existence raises policy

questions that impact these institutions’ place in higher education and the

practices of both institutions and consumers.

The next sub-section reviews the literature about those attributes of

interest that define the control of for-profit colleges (FPCs). As an organizer, the

section uses Skolnik’s (1986) terminology: function, governance and

administration. The comparison to public colleges and Ontario CAATs is meant

to enhance the readers’ understanding of for-profit colleges rather than to

provide an exhaustive review of traditional post-secondary education.

2.2.2.2. Function, Governance and Administration in For-profit Education

Function: Function is defined as “the normal or characteristic action of anything”

(Webster's, 1968, p. 741). From their inception, for-profit colleges have

responded to market opportunities. Sweet (1993) identifies this characteristic:

“PVTS appear organized to react to the demands of a market comprising students and employers while colleges are guided more by social imperatives as interpreted by provincial governments” (Sweet, 1993, p. 49).

Hittman (1995) reviewed the literature and developed a list of the

characteristics of successful proprietary institutions:

1. “Rapid response to provide training for new technologies as soon as they develop (Clark and Sloan, 1966)


39

“Emphasis on programs of shorter duration focusing on hands-on training as opposed to abstract or theory-based education

. “Development of the placement function designed to provide employment for the graduate (Simmons, 1975)

“Flexible program and course schedules designed to increase accessibility (Belitsky, 1969)

“Flexible curricula designed to make it easy for the student to enter, exit, and re-enter, thereby increasing the probability of enrollment and completion (Erickson, 1972)

“Flexible instruction to accommodate special student needs for individual attention, help, and encouragement (Kincaid and Podesta, 1966)

. “Sensitivity and responsiveness to changes in level of demand for trained manpower and emphasis on curriculum objectives (Katz, 1973) that reflect current hiring criteria (Simmons, 1975)” (Hittman, 1995, pp. 18 — 19)

The National Association of Career Colleges, which represents for-profit

vocational schools across Canada, lists eleven reasons why career colleges are

good at training people for good-paying rewarding careers. The for-profit

colleges’ functions are reflective of these characteristics:

1. They are responsive to the ever-changing needs of business and industry by developing new courses and making changes in instruction.

The curriculum is continually upgraded, comprehensive and meets the needs of employers.

. Cultural or liberal arts courses are not included in career school

programs.

A healthy learning atmosphere is produced; all students have the same

goals.

. Teachers are experienced practitioners.

Students pay for their education; they are more conscientious and complete in a shorter period of time.


40

7. There is more discipline; attendance, dress and appearance are generally regulated.

8. Students are considered clients; their occupational success determines the college’s success.

9. “Each student shares the reputation of the college. For this reason private college management is acutely aware of social opinion.”

10.A great deal of effort goes into job search assistance. “Those applying to private colleges have more assurance that their education will bear immediate fruit.”

11. There is constant awareness of the industry. (National Association of Career Colleges, 1998A, p. 11)

Underlying both lists is a focus on career preparation of an immediate

nature. Sweet (1993) notes, “the distinction between training and education is

often made in comparing the goals of the PVTS and community colleges” (Sweet,

1993, p. 50). He goes on to explain the issue:

“Vocational education typically is seen by the colleges to include building a context for skill development or as a means of enhancing the individual’s quality of life. In this form it frequently is claimed by the colleges as a curricular difference that enhances their graduates’ job mobility, if not also their job entry prospects” (pp. 50-51).

How do these functions compare to those of a traditional public college?

Monroe (1972) identified three objectives of the American community college,

including provision of a comprehensive curricula, maintenance of an open-door

policy and an orientation to community (Monroe, 1972, pp. 26-30). The specific

functions of the community college are described first by its courses and

programs; six kinds of curricula are provided. Additional functions address non-

academic needs and purposes (pp. 32-45). .

Comparing FPCs to Canada’s community colleges is somewhat confusing

in that there are five significantly different models for the organization of

postsecondary education (Dennison & Gallagher, 1986, p. 384). “All, however,

claim a commitment to high-quality teaching and student services” (Dennison,


41

1995A, p. 123). And like the American community college, Canadian colleges are

known for a comprehensive list of functions and activities (Gallagher, 1990;

Dennison & Gallagher, 1986). Across the country the following curricula are

included in colleges’ offerings:

a Vocational and trades training;

a Apprenticeship training;

og Career, technical and paraprofessional programs;

a University transfer programs;

a General academic programs;

a Personal interest and community development programs;

a Pre-college level or upgrading programs. These include remedial adult education courses, including English or French as a second language training;

a Contract programs, which are also called retraining programs. These are delivered to individuals who wish to upgrade their skills and/or to employers who require retraining of their workforce.

Furthermore, Canada’s colleges are defined by open admissions policies

and a quick responsiveness to newly identified education, training and

employment needs. “Instructional programs and services are in a state of

development, refinement and change” (Gallagher, 1990, p. 5). Student services

include co-curricular activities, athletics and placement services. Finally, like the

American model, Canadian colleges have a community orientation and have

developed close working relationships with a variety of stakeholders within their

communities (pp. 3- 6).

The Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology were created in the

1960s. In his statement in the legislature, Minister of Education William Davis

described his vision of the new colleges:


42

“We have in mind composite or comprehensive institutions, preferably with several buildings on the same campus, providing a wide variety of

programs of varying length, including work-experience programs, by day and in the evening, for adults as well as for youth, and for probably more part-time than full-time students” (Government of Ontario, 1965, p. 10).

The statement went on to list a range of offerings that corresponds to the

Dennison and Gallagher list, with one exception:

“You will note that I have not included in the list of courses what the Americans call the “transfer” or “college-parallel” courses, leading to advanced placement in universities, because there is no need for such courses in Ontario at the present time at least” (p. 13).°

Thus the Ontario college system was established and built with a “heavy

and sustained emphasis on technical and vocational education” (Dennison &

Gallagher, 1986, p. 36). Dennison (1995B) reviewed the impact of this vision 30

years later:

“these institutions are major players in the life of the province.... Thousands of their graduates, from many hundred diverse programs, hold positions at all levels of the workforce.... Reference was made to programs for women, retraining initiatives, new course developments, partnerships with industry, and even the problems of fundraising” (Dennison, 1995B, p. 43).

If anything, the Ontario colleges’ functions have increased through their

evolution. They have added to the comprehensiveness of their programming,

added instructional formats and increased their student services (Gallagher,

1995, p. 257).

The explicit public purpose is a distinguishing characteristic of the two

institution types. Writing about Canada’s community colleges, Gallagher (1990)

underscores this fact:

“First and foremost, these institutions are public. They are products of provincial or territorial legislation and function as instruments of economic and social policy implementation within their jurisdictions.... As public

® Nevertheless, today the colleges’ General Arts and Science programs function as university preparation programs while articulation agreements and transfer arrangements have been developed to improve college students’ access to university programming.


43

institutions, they are also key agents for broadening accessibility to postsecondary education” (Gallagher, 1990, p. 3).

Hawthorne (1995) contends that the profit-motive is an equally compelling

distinguisher:

“the one fundamental difference between career colleges and community colleges: the former are in education to make money, and the latter

accept money to provide education. This is a matter of values that drive decisions concerning admissions, curriculum and the selection of faculty...

These institutions are so alien to one another in their basic values and assumptions... (Hawthorne, 1995, p. 94)

Whereas, Sweet (1993), while acknowledging the profit motive, suggests

that attitude is more pervasive:

“The defining characteristic of this industry may not be the profit motive but rather a more general entrepreneurial attitude which views the student as a consumer... .. a PVTS can design, develop, and deliver only those courses an individual or business is prepared to buy” (Sweet, 1993, p. 47).

He notes that the continuing education departments in some colleges display the

same kind of attitude (Sweet, 1991).

In summary, the functions of FPCs are represented as more focused than

those of public colleges although there are numerous activities that are similar in

the two sub-sectors. Table 3: FPC Functions/Comparison with CAAT Functions

summarizes the literature about function in the FPCs, using the functions of

Ontario’ s CAATs as a comparator.


Apnys ayy

JO 7x@]U0}

:Z 4aydeyD

Jopes ceifeq-UoN

s,oue]UQ ul

AIsdeAiq |einpes0ld

‘uoneonpe Auepuodes

ysod 0}

sseo0e Buluepeoiq

soy sjueiy

“WSLINeUueidezqUa JO

PUD

awes 94]

Aejdsip sjuawpedap swos

WuSLINSsUsideiqUa pue

SAROW-JYOId Aq

peyeAnow

(swejboid uelpneuysy

*6°8) seonoeid

3S3U} Jdope

sweiGoid aBayjoo

aWOS

(sepod a0ueleedde

pue ssaip

‘a.uepusHe) suyjdiosip

alow Aq

pazuayeieyd JUsWUOIAUe

Buluiee)

soje|yye Bulpnpu!

SwesBoid sejNdWND-09

sapnjoul SOdIAUAS

JUSpNys aAisuayssdwo>

SadIAJaS 100129

SepN|oUy g0ueysIsse

YDueas gol

aziseydwa sadiues

JuapNys

Sasinod sue

je4aq!| JO

ye4NyND apnypou!

swesHO1g

spoujaw jeuoNoNuySU!

JO ebuei

Japeoig S9101]Od

suoissiwpe uedo

BIGIXey se

S}UaWeINb|! SUCISSIIPY

Japyoys sue

sweiBold AJsAljap

wesBod

aqisse22e pue

a/qIxe]4

[9A9| 8H3]|09-31d

JSOJBJU! [2UOSIBd

DIWAapPede JesaUay

Jajsues] AISIaAlun

BuiwweiBoid anisusyesdwoy

SjeyJew 4g01e9/qol

ul sebueyo

0} saisuodsay

pepei6dn Ayjenuguos

aie swesboig

uojesedaid jeuoeD0A

sooudi9yid SONME|IMIS

SLVVD

4M

UuosHIedwo5

suonouny soba j0D

WwWoAid-4104

suolqouny Lyy)

WIM UOsLedwo; /suooUNy

dd4 1€

BIGeL

bb

45

Governance: The study of governance includes “the very structures and

processes of institutions as well as the governing bodies that oversee and

interact with higher education institutions” (Levin, 1998, p. 2). These structures

and processes are often categorized as either internal or external. External

governance focuses on the relationship between the institution and its external

stakeholders while internal governance refers to internal decision-making

structures and leadership.

As described in the previous section about policy and for-profit education,

external governance includes government oversight and accreditation. These

external governance requirements evolved as the for-profit schools began to

participate in student loan programs. Hittman (1995) explains:

“Traditional proprietary schools organized themselves to capitalize on the

characteristics of customer responsiveness (to students and employers), practical curricula, and flexibility. Since they were private, for-profit entities, there was minimal state oversight until the proprietary school students became eligible for federal subsidies. At this point, state approval and accreditation became requirements” (Hittman, 1995, p. 20).

Institutions in the sector seek external accreditation processes to assess

and assure the quality of their education and training. In the United States,

institutions are accredited either through one of the six regional accreditation

agencies, through programmatic accreditation or through their own associations

(Prager, 1995). Sweet (1993) describes the role of Canadian associations in

external governance in the private vocational sector. The National Association of

Career Colleges (NACC) represents the industry and provides accreditation

services along with advocacy services. The provincial chapter, the Ontario

Association of Career Colleges (OACC) has a code of ethics that members must

prescribe to.

Also the regulatory frameworks in British Columbia and Alberta have a

form of external accreditation and Newfoundland has initiated mandatory

accreditation for private vocational schools. Typically, these accreditation

processes impact both external and internal governance. For example, the six


46

U.S. regional accreditation agencies all expect that faculty will have a traditional

role in internal governance.

In Ontario, the proprietary sector is regulated by the Private Career

Colleges Act that gives the Superintendent of Colleges the right to examine any

aspect of a school operation at any time, including the method of instruction, the

books and records, and any advertising. Furthermore, under the act and

regulations, all courses and programs must receive approval; as part of this

approval process, the school must convene an advisory committee comprised of

employers who attest to the need for and the suitability of the program

curriculum being proposed. Faculty cannot be hired without the necessary

qualifications as set by the Superintendent. For the most part, these regulations

are a form of consumer protection and a means of ensuring that the schools do

what they say they will do (Government of Ontario, 1990).

Those for-profit schools offering programs that are eligible for the Ontario

Student Assistance Program (OSAP) have increased government oversight

controls. Their admissions, delivery practices and attendance policies are

dictated by OSAP performance requirements. Among other requirements, each

participating college must have an active participation policy and a means of

tracking students’ daily attendance and withdrawing OSAP funding for students

who are not participating. To be OSAP-eligible, FPCs are required to publish

graduation rates, program completion rates and loan default rates. Recent

regulations also restrict the percentage of overall revenue that a school can

achieve through OSAP funding and the amount of financial disbursement that is

based on tuition (Government of Ontario, 1997).

Internal governance in the for-profit sector is focused on ownership, an

aspect of for-profit college governance that distinguishes its literature from that

of public institutions. Sweet (1993) notes that “other than the stand-alone

school, there exists three major organizational relationships: branch schools,

franchises, and subsidiaries” (Sweet, 1993, p. 43). Each of these has its own


47

decision-making mechanisms. The branch school features local administration

but reports to central administration. The advent of franchises has in some way

been a response to the “difficulties associated with running a multi-campus

organization from a single administrative centre” (ibid.).

“Like franchises in other areas of business, the essential ingredient to a successful training franchise is a consistent organizational structure and set of operating principles” (ibid.)

Ontario also has examples of subsidiaries of larger U.S. companies. Sweet points

out the advantages that these schools receive, including access to U.S.

resources.

Lee and Merisotis (1990) note, “in a proprietary school, the owners or

corporate directors are more likely to make critical decisions regarding the

direction of the school” (Lee & Merisotis, 1990, p. 15). Size and corporate

organization tend to define this leadership:

“Only in the larger schools are managers found and ... many instructors are also school owners. The style of management necessarily is very ‘hands on’ and most owners are directly involved in all aspects of the training and administration of the school” (Sweet, 1993, p. 53).

Wilms (1987) also references the ‘individualistic’ character of the U.S.

owners, suggesting general characteristics:

“(For-profit school owners) share some basic qualities that set them apart from traditional educators: a libertarian outlook, a belief in the profit motive, an entrepreneurial spirit, a belief in the free market and a distrust of public planning” (Wilms, 1987, p. 16).

Owners, whether hands-on owner/operators or investors, are interested in

how their investment funds are used to increase their return. Marginal costs

must improve marginal revenues and so quality improvements are measured in

increased revenue, profits and return on investment. Lee and Merisotis (1990)

observe, “private school owners must by the nature of the enterprise focus

decision making on profitability, particularly with respect to facilities, course

selection, and faculty compensation and benefits” (Lee & Merisotis, 1990, p. 16).


48

Should the company be a publicly-traded company, the scrutiny intensifies; not

only is the investor interested in a quality investment but also he or she wants to

be associated with a quality organization. As such, owner financial interests are

tempered by regulations and industry context that focus on consumer protection,

government student aid policy and overall reputation.

Contrast this relatively straightforward governance environment with that

of the Ontario’s CAATs that is characterized by multiple external and internal

stakeholders within a politicized and changing environment. Until the

enactment of the new Colleges Act in 2003, Ontario’s colleges were legislated

Schedule III Crown agencies. As such, they exist to “implement the approved

government policy and programs” (Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and

Technology of Ontario, 2000, p. 5). Whereas, Canada’s universities are relatively

autonomous (Skolnik in Dennison, 1995E, p. 7), Ontario’s colleges exist within a

prescriptive, centralized structure. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and

Universities approves programs that are funded and allocates operations and

capital funding according to a formula. In addition, tuition policy is prescribed by

the Ministry. Starting in 1999, all colleges are required to publish Key

Performance Indicators (KPIs) in three areas: student satisfaction, graduate

placement and employer satisfaction; funding levels are impacted by these

indicators. In addition, the Ministry oversees the implementation of the Ontario

Student Assistance Program (OSAP), requiring colleges to publish their default

rates and to “participate in default sharing” should the colleges’ default rate

exceed the default threshold (Government of Ontario, 2001).

No accreditation process is in place in Ontario’s colleges. Programs are

approved by the Ministry with some consistency of nomenclature and consistent

program standards for some programs have been established. However, no

provincial review process is in place to assess and comment on either program or

college practices. The closest that the colleges came to accreditation was the

formation of the Colleges Standards and Accreditation Council which proposed a


49

program accreditation process. This initiative was abandoned in the mid 1990s.

Until the new act, a Council of Regents appointed by the Lieutenant Governor

advised the government about issues that impact the college system and

conducted centralized bargaining with the College’s faculty and staff.

Baldridge (1986) outlines the challenges of internal governance as one of

the organizational characteristics of traditional, multi-function higher education

institutions:

“,.. academic organizations have several unique organizational characteristics. They have ambiguous goals that are often strongly contested. They serve clients who demand a voice in the decision-making process. They have problematic technology, for in order to serve clients their technology must be holistic and adaptable to individual needs. They are professional organizations in which employees demand a large measure of control over institutional decision processes. Finally they are becoming more and more vulnerable to their environments" (Baldridge, 1986, p. 14).

Internal governing authority resides in the board of governors. Ontario

colleges’ governing boards have powers over all personnel matters and are

directed to appoint advisory committees for each instructional program. These

governing boards have four roles: (1) to set the college’s directions and

priorities; (2) to measure achievement; (3) to represent and link with the

community and (4) to select the president/C.E.O. (Dennison & Gallagher, 1986,

pp. 205-207). The boards are comprised of 12 members, appointed by the

Council of Regents. Four elected internal stakeholders are also included,

including one student, one administrative staff member, one support staff and

one faculty.

These boards, under the auspices of the Association of Colleges of Applied

Arts and Technology of Ontario (ACAATO), have successfully advocated for more

authority, arguing that that the current frameworks are “narrow” and “outdated”

and that they “limit the colleges’ rapid response to just-in-time training demands

and their capacity to source new revenue” (Association of Colleges of Applied

Arts and Technology of Ontario, 1999, p. 4).


50

The role of faculty in Canadian college governance has been a consistent

issue over the last two decades. Dennison (1994) argues that

“instructors in colleges are professionals dedicated first to the transmission of knowledge.... college faculty should participate formally in

decision-making activities appropriate to their background, responsibilities and qualifications” (Dennison, 1994, p. 34).

Skolnik in 1985, Pittman in 1986 and Gandz in 1987 all proposed that Ontario’s

college faculty should be given a more formalized role in college governance.

However, Levin (1998) notes that

“While other structures and arenas may provide for faculty engagement in institutional decision-making, the legal role of faculty in governance either in legislation or collective agreements is minimal, perhaps limited to one vote on a seventeen member governing board” (Levin, 1998, p. 14).

Within these governance structures, college leadership must be able to

balance the competing interests of the external and internal stakeholders in an

increasingly complex environment. The traditional role of the CEO is to carry out

the Board’s policies and to make recommendations with respect to changing

these policies. Various writers have noted the added challenges of leadership

within the current governance environment. (Dennison, 1995C; Levin, 1995)

In summary, external governance of the FPCs is similar to that of

Ontario’s CAATs in that the external stakeholders are represented by the

provincial government that imposes regulations and reporting requirements

although these are not the same in each sub-sector. However, internal

governance, while dependent on the organization and the leadership of the FPC

is neither as political nor as complex as that of a CAAT. Table 4 summarizes the

literature about governance in the FPCs, using the governance of Ontario’s

CAATS as a comparator.


Apnys aug Jo 3x@qUOD

:Z Jaydeyp Jopas

90169q-UON $,01J21UQ

Ul AIISIaAIC

|2INPeD0Jd

“SOA EIU!

AdJOd Jnoge

JuawWUseA0B sasiape

pue Bulurebieq

9A999]/09 BP|M-LW3}SAS

SPONPUOD sjuahay

jo |loUNOD

‘Buipun

O} pel}

B4e SINSSd

Id ‘Idy

udHDejsies Juepnys

Sepnjouy

Sa}

UOIUN} sasoduil

‘Bulpuny SapiAoid

JUBWLUSAOD

"‘paysod aie

$}/NSei pue

pejeysiulwpe aJe

Souileuuonsoenb Tqy

‘jeaosdde wesGouid

40) pesinbas

SeeTwwo7

AIOSIApy WeiBoidg

‘sJayew Auelpnpy

Jauj0 pue

dn -3yeW

pieog 0}

Bulureyed sajns

ahueyoxe Andes yy

Ajdwod sdd4

pepewr-Ajaqnd

"SONIA

UO SUOIIDUSAI

sesoduy ‘Aqyjenb

yo soueinsse

Auied-piiuy USI|Ge}Se

0} SUPBLU

BU} S}

UOIIEUPesDI0y

‘peysod aq

JSNW SJOJEIIPUT

SDUEWO}Iad

Ad» “a0ueysisse

jeloueuy Juapnys

0} SS900e

BAeY JEU}

SDq4 4JOJ

SuNjonys @PIAOId

sjUaWaIINbsy BDUeUUOJEd

“SSoPIWWOD AIOSIADe

WO

yndu! sesinbas

jeaoidde wesGoid

(DV DDd)

Suawnsuoo

ye}01d 0}

WING Ss!

JUsWUOUIAUS A1oje;nBay

|eulaXg

SodUdIOYIC SONHELIWIS

SLVVD YM UOsLedwo)

sobapjoD

Wo1id-104 Ul

SDUBUIDAOD

BOUCUIBAOH LWW)

JIM UOSLIEdWIOD

/S2UCLIDAOD Jd4

Py DIG2L

TS

Apnyg ayy Jo Y

OO)

:Z JaydeyD 4o~eS

eeifeq-UON S,0WeIUD

Ul AysHaAiq

[eINpIDO1d

‘anss! BuloB-uo

ue si

ajou Aynoe4

"3]O1 BdUeUISAOH

poy] e aaey

AyInDe4

‘sjsoJaqu! Bunedwos bulbeuew

UI! |[D¥S

Jea4H souinbay

diyssapesy

‘uonejysiulwpe pue

eis Yoddns

‘Aqjnde} ‘sjuepnys

—sdnosb sapjoyeaxeys

wo.

uonjejUusseidas jeusejU!

Seuinba.

pue siequew

pueog p

sjulodde

JUSWLUIBAOD *S}sesajul

D11qQNd Sjuaseides

SIOUIBAOD JO

pueog

suojepedxe uoijeypajooe

Aq pauiwayep

s} Ayndej

jo ajoy

"wsuneuaide.qua Aq

peziuapeseud pue

uO-spuey ai0Uw

Si diysiepesy

Joyaludoid 30S

asiyouel4 que|d

youeig

diyssaumo Jo

ainjeu UO

Juspued~p SI

suNnjN3s Bunjew-uoisiagq

jeusa}UT

soousiayid

SONUE|IUIS

SLVWD 4M

UuOosHedu0D

sabajjOD WoO.i1d-104

ul BUeUIBAOD

cS

panunuod ‘p

ajqeL

53

Administration: While the overall goal of administration or management in

higher education is apparent— “A perfect institutional management system

would have mechanisms to ensure that institutions were operating legally,

efficiently and effectively” (Birnbaum, 2000, p. 29)—even the definitions are

elusive. Keller defines management by introducing four components, one of

which is ‘management’; the others are administration, governance and

leadership (Keller, 1983, pp. 122 — 127) while Dennison and Gallagher (1986)

focus on leadership and organization. Birnbaum (2000) dismisses distinctions,

noting that “in my experience, distinctions among /eadership, management and

administration when applied to higher education are more of degree than of

kind” (Birnbaum, 2000, p. xiv). And everyone acknowledges the inter-

relatedness of governance to management and administration.

The study of higher education management can be organized as two

related categories: First, higher education management is examined as a closed

system. This line of enquiry studies how management works within the unique

cultural and organizational (i.e. governance) structures of higher education.

Colleges and universities are most often described as “professional

organizations—loosely coupled systems in which managers with limited authority

provide support for relatively autonomous specialists performing complex tasks

within relatively stable structures” (Birnbaum, 2000, p. 150). Consequently,

“academic managers operate in organizations whose ambiguous and conflicting goals, responsiveness to multiple internal and external forces,

and problematic technologies make it difficult to ascertain relationships between managerial cause and institutional effect” (p. 171).

Especially recently, studies have investigated how improvements can and

should be made; these include studies of higher education productivity and

outcomes (Kuh & Vesper, 1997; Levin & Koski, 1998; Peterson & Augustine,

2000), marketing (Alfred & Weissman, 1988; Gilbbs & Knapp, 2002) and

continuous improvement (Lundquist, 1998; Wolverton, 1994). Some writers


54

contend that higher education management has proven to be both efficient and

effective (Birnbaum, 2000; Smith, 2000).

Second, higher education management/administration is compared to

business management (Smith, 2000; Winston, 1997); this comparison has

resulted in two camps—those who contend that colleges and universities should

behave like a business and those who contend that this impossible. Birnbaum

(2000) captures the essence of these differences:

“Business corporations and universities are organizations with mission

statements, employees, management systems, and physical assets.

Although they share many characteristics, they behave quite differently. Businesses usually are directed by professional managers who pride themselves on their market sensitivity, customer orientation, innovativeness and productivity. Universities are frequently coordinated by professional scholars who have received their on-the-job training as amateur managers. Businesses focus on the bottom line, while colleges and universities are criticized for appearing to be insensitive to economic realities” (Birnbaum, 2000, p. xiii).

The fact that for-profit colleges are both higher education institutions and

businesses introduces a variation on these more traditional studies. The popular

press (Kartus, 2000; Traub 2000), and higher education economists (Williams,

1996; Winston, 1997, 1999) have studied for-profit institutions in this light. As

well, insiders have provided insight about the practices and approaches of for-

profit higher education companies (Ruch, 2001; Sperling & Tucker, 1997).

Finally, market analysts have undertaken studies of the industry and individual

companies, examining business strategies and financial forecasts (Canadian

Education Summit 2000; Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, 1999).

The literature reveals that for-profit colleges provide the same

fundamental administrative services as do public institutions. Prager (1995)

describes the evolution of for-profit institutions’ administration:

“In order for the proprietary institutions to function effectively, they developed a structure to execute the necessary core functions of organizational leadership, financial administration, recruitment of students, delivery of education and training and student services


55

emphasizing graduate placement. The most common organizational structure consists of the administration and four divisions or departments: recruitment and admissions; finance and financial aid; education; and student services, retention and placement services” (Prager, 1995, p. 21).

While this organization may appear to be similar to that employed in

traditional higher education, FPCs’ administrative structures and practices are

designed to achieve market responsiveness and to increase productivity and a

return on investment. In this sub-section I summarize what can be gleaned

about the management of for-profit colleges from this literature. I also posit that

Ontario colleges’ administration represents an amalgam model, one with many of

the characteristics of the FPCs.

Ruch’s (2001) examination of the business practices at the five largest for-

profit higher education companies in the United States provides insight into both

the business of education culture and management practices. He notes, for

instance that

“education is openly regarded as a consumable product and students are openly acknowledged to be the paying customers, (and) the students are demanding consumers who expect a quality educational experience in exchange for their time and money” (Ruch, 2001, p. 78).

In contrast to traditional education that has responded to the dramatic

growth in higher education demand with “a thoughtless and unplanned mixing

together of very different educational products” (Smith, 2000, p. 103), “The for-

profits intentionally position themselves in fields of education that will yield

successful placement and a high ROEI (return on education investment). As

long as employers seek graduates, there will be enrollment demand for

programs. Both are necessary for sustained profitability” (Ruch, 2001, p. 81).

FPCs must be able to respond to market opportunities, a requirement that

impacts administration/management practices and contrasts with traditional

higher education. Ruch states the imperative:

“respond(ing) to the market requires making good decisions, often quickly. The effectiveness of decisions made by the for-profits is based


56

not on taking the time to process everybody’s input or on reaching a consensus but on how well the decision responds to the marketplace” (Ruch, 2001, p. 85).

Sweet (1993) offers similar observations about purpose and customers in

Canada’s for-profit post-secondary institutions (There are) “significant differences

between the PVTS and colleges in the meaning given entrepreneurship and the

derivative view of the student as consumer” (Sweet, 1993, p. 46).

While the literature does not give us details about how the for-profits are

responsive, it does provide three compelling reasons to explain why traditional

colleges and universities are not as market-responsive. Birnbaum (2000)

contends that function, governance and organization are innately constraining:

“College and university managers live in a world in which others expect them to do things that make a difference, yet at the same time they find their discretion to act constrained by existing structures, ongoing routines, the professional prerogatives of others, the lack of resources, and the loose coupling that characterizes academic governance” (Birnbaum, 2000, p. 182).

Keller (1983) introduces the notion of incrementalism to describe the way

that decisions are approached and implemented:

“Management science had a hard time taking root in higher education (because of) the thick, deep adherence by campus department chairmen, deans, vice-presidents, and presidents to incrementalism (which is) partisan-political. Incrementalism holds that the world is not rational and people are not rational” (Keller, 1983, p. 106).

In such an environment, “organizational change is the art of the possible, often

ignoring costs, consequences and new developments in the environment”

(ibid.).

A third explanation is that the professorate has mixed loyalties. While

they must look our for the interests of their institutions, they “must at the same

time guard the privileges and standards of their profession from institutional and

lay board encroachment, and work for their personal professional advancement”

(Keller, 1983, p. 29). At the same time, professors “abhor organizational needs


57

and they detest bureaucracies... This makes planning, organizational behaviour,

good financial practices, and modern management difficult in higher education”

(p. 34). Levin’s (1997) study of management actions within a changing external

environment reinforces this notion of boundaries of management action.

O’Banion notes that with a focus on teaching, rather than learning, “educational

institutions accommodate the needs, interests and values of their employees

more often than the needs, interests and values of their customers” (O’Banion,

1996, p. 19).

These differences are also evident in budget practices and organizational

efficiencies. Ruch observes, “costs are painstakingly measured and controlled in

the for-profits” (Ruch, 2001, p. 86). There are no incentives to spend all the

money as is the case in not-for-profit institutions (pp. 92-93). As well, the

budget approval process is a set of business decisions rather than political

bargaining. And as a result

“the real business elegance... is that the for-profits have been able to stabilize the relationship between the cost of educating a student and the tuition charge, so that tuition actually covers the cost of the education provided. Then by taking advantage of economies of scale, the for-

profits are able to leverage a profit by enrolling a sufficient volume of students in each academic program. Sufficient enrollment volume combined with enrollment growth results in stable costs and predictable revenues” (pp. 87-88).

These economies of scale are achieved by centralizing administrative

functions such as finances, legal and public affairs as well as academic functions

such as curriculum development and review. In addition tight administrative

practices at the campus level maximize faculty workload, reduce and eliminate

very small classes and optimize the use of facilities through a year-round

calendar and efficient scheduling (Ruch, 2001, pp. 83-94).

Which is not to say that resources are not allocated to improve success.

As Ruch notes in another article:

“We're very much attuned to providing the services our student customers need to be successful, but we're careful about what we provide. One of


58

the things that we spend quite a bit of money and energy on is student counseling. We have found a direct relationship... between students who have strong counseling support early on and completion rates, one of our measures of success” (Ruch, 1999, p. 5).

John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix, provides more insight

into for-profit practices in his two books about the University of Phoenix

(Sperling, 2000; Sperling & Tucker, 1997). In his autobiography, he states that

making the Institute for Professional Development (the predecessor of the

University of Phoenix) a for-profit corporation was “one of the best decisions that

I ever made” (Sperling, 2000, p. 74). His argument is that this structure is the

most cost effective:

“UOP’s educational effectiveness is measured every day by what we believe to be the most sophisticated quality management and outcomes measurement system in use in higher education. We do not believe that it would have been possible to develop the system—or maintain and enhance it these many years—were it not for a corporate structure that encourages innovation and the discipline which our bottom-line (read for- profif) responsibilities demand” (Sperling & Tucker, 1997, p. ix).

Sperling’s description of the University of Phoenix model highlights that

one of the key differences between for-profit and traditional higher education is

the intensity and use of data. Birnbaum’s (2000) perspective is that data

introduces multiple interpretations:

“It is stereotypical, but perhaps not without some justification, to think of

business as being data driven and bottom line oriented; quantitative data are sought and considered to be of great consequence when they are produced. Results can be measured in profit and loss statements, numbers are important, and decision to retain or abandon an innovation can be made rapidly. In the more loosely coupled academic sector, quantitative measures are suspect. Interpretations develop slowly, and it takes longer for the meaning of an innovation to be shared by organizational participants” (Birnbaum, 2000, p. 136).

In contrast, the University of Phoenix’s Academic Quality Management System

maintains


59

“a vital tension between academic quality and integrity on the one hand, and accountability and good management practices on the other; the

university encourages close inspection and measurement of all aspects of its educational services and outcomes... The University of Phoenix measures everything that is or might possibly be important to the academic standards, practices and outcomes of the institution” (Sperling & Tucker, 1997, p. 100).

A series of surveys provide the methodology and include a registration

survey, peer and administrative reviews of faculty teaching, criterion referenced

review of student learning, student surveys and faculty surveys (Sperling &

Tucker, 1997, pp. 100-106). Observing a Canadian example of Sperling and

Tucker’s management measures and controls, Sweet comments on the success

of such a model:

“The Academy of Learning, for example, has franchised outlets in six provinces (and the Yukon) using a formula of instructional standardization and tight control of equipment, personnel and class size” (Sweet, 1993, p. 41).

Sperling contends that the university is managed as well as governed, the

implication being that traditional higher education institutions are governed, but

not managed. Within this controversy, Birnbaum, who argues that universities

are incapable of behaving like businesses, provides a balanced summary:

“The differences between firms and universities reflect the requirements of their different technologies, as well as the need to conform to the expectations of the social groups to which they are responsive” (Birnbaum, 2000, p. 217).

Ontario’s community colleges’ administration reflects a model that falls in

between the corporate models and those of traditional higher education. Levin

(1995) notes that Canada’s community colleges have a

“history of being directed and managed through a hierarchical system of authority. This system works its way down from legislators, college boards, and presidents to senior administrators, mid-level and junior managers, and finally, to faculty and other staff” (Levin, 1995, p. 105).


60

The Ontario system is characterized by traditional post-secondary roles

and structures—program coordinators, chairs, deans and a vice-president on the

academic side with an administrative unit that reports to a vice-president. Other

divisions include student services, business development which may include

continuing education and contract training. Consistent with traditional practices,

colleges tend to be decentralized, composed of program units that are loosely

coupled to the college’s management. In my M.Ed. project, I studied program

decision-making in one of my site colleges, concluding that program-based

decision-making “was market-driven and responsive to students and the

community which employs students and graduates” while management decision-

making was much more vague (Davey, 1993). Aspects of this responsiveness

have been criticized from the efficiency perspective. Consistent with traditional

mores, Levin (1997) concludes that colleges have protected faculty salaries,

positions and working conditions while responding to external forces of change

(Levin, 1997). Dennison and Gallagher (1986) observe that initial growth was

more concerned with fulfilling function than with fiscal responsibilities’.

“College administrators and instructors saw it more desirable to expand curricula and to reach out to new clients than to keep the brakes on corporate expansion. New methods of teaching and new equipment were introduced without due concern for return on investment” (Dennison & Gallagher, 1986, p.188).

Dennison and Gallagher (1986) also note the reliance on leadership, again

somewhat consistent with observations about leadership within the FPC sector:

“In an era of almost unrestricted expansion, college presidents and principals could use whatever management style they preferred or could get away with, because style of management was rarely seen as the source of problems a college might encounter, and a different or better style of management was rarely viewed as a promising method of

problem resolution” (Dennison & Gallagher, 1986, p. 197).

’ This is consistent with Moore’s contention about different impetus for growth. See pages 30- 32.


61

Furthermore, they argue that conventional higher education collegiality as

described by Keller and Birnbaum cannot function in Canada’s colleges, citing the

role of faculty and the growing unionism. In Dennison’s up-date (1995B), most

of the section on Ontario's colleges is devoted to labour relations, recounting the

reports and commissions since 1984 that address the role and place of faculty as

it impacts governance and the ability to manage. Instead “there are three keys

to effective college management: a clear sense of direction or purpose, openness

of communication, and clarification of roles” (Dennison & Gallagher, 1986, p.

204). This management is lead by a chief executive officer whose

“essential role is to execute the will of the board, to recommend to the board on all matters of policy and its assessment, to manage the enterprise in the full meaning of that term by setting operational policy, to see to the daily effective administration of all college affairs, to be the continuing public face of the college to both its members and the community it serves and to act on behalf of the college in its dealings with external bodies and other components of the networks of the college is a part” (Dennison & Gallagher, 1986, p. 209).

These studies and observations attest to the responsiveness of Ontario’s

colleges. Furthermore, the CAATs have a “history of successful collaborations in

administration, purchasing, libraries, programming and facilities, revenue

generation, admissions processing, transcripts and IT software licenses” (Report

of the Investing in Students Task Force, 2001, p. 65).

With respect to management practices, Dennison (1995B) notes the use

of strategic plans (Dennison, 1995B, p. 56) an observation that is supported by

Sheridan (1996). And a recent study about management practices concludes

that Ontario’s colleges (and universities) are fiscally responsible and cost

effective—"Ontario institutions can be considered cost effective in that the

average spending on administrative operations is below the national average”

(Report of the Investing in Students Task Force, 2001, p. 6).


62

Insofar as accountability reporting is an outcome of management

practices, current practice does not approach the detailed management systems

extant in some FPCs. Dennison offers this criticism:

“The community college sector practice of ‘proving’ its accountability through self-generated annual reports, most of which are both positive and uncritical, is also being looked at askance by government” (Dennison, 1995E, pp. 222-223).

A recent task force recommends changes in these practices, especially related to

developing benchmarks.

“Currently Ontario institutions do not have an accepted and standardized means of comparing their financial health with that of other Canadian institutions... Developing comparable measures of financial health ... would enable the Ontario postsecondary education sector to learn from other institutions” (Report of the Investing in Students Task Force, 2001, p. 6).

In summary, administration in the FPC sector is characterized by

organization and practices designed to increase market responsiveness and

management effectiveness. These are antithetical to the standard practices in

higher education, yet Ontario’s colleges seem to have evolved towards an

administrative model that represents a middle ground. Table 5: FPC

Administration/Comparison with CAAT Functions presents a summary of the

similarities and differences. From my perspective, a study of the administrative

practices in Ontario's non-degree sector represents a very worthwhile area for

future studies.


Apngs au}

JO }@YUOD :Z JaydeyD

Jopes aeiGeq-UON

$,01J2]UO Ul

Aisiaaiq einped0dd

‘saomeud s0u

SoJNsealw ajqeiedwiod

aney jou

ss0q

‘diysuepea) UO

JUapUadep ajAjs

JusWebeUeW;)

oul} WOROG

3y} uO

SURI |a41 AAeSy

& YIM

S@WOD}NO PUP

SAdIAJAS BU}

JO spadse

|je Jo

Juswainseaw pue

uoMpedsul aso|D

‘SQINUSDIYO

peroidul sey

UOWeJOGe}|OD WaysAS

"SODIAUSS SAIIENSIUIWpe

JO uonezi|e.jUa9

YBnoiy} peuleb

sue sajuapiwe

*S}SOD doNpel

0} peublsap

sue seonoeid

Jebpng

“saniiqisuodse

JeEdSly 0}

pueBos Jnoyym

pue Aynse4

Buidejoud alum

papuodse

avey

‘saleioneeing se

paziueiio uaeq

avey sabaljoD

"SJHULW

0} SAISUCdSOL

useq sey

Bupjew-uoisipap wesGoid

"JO}ALW UU}

0} SAISUOdSSI

Bq 0}

paziUeBO due

SDd4

“JQWIOYSND SC

Juapnys 343

sebpa;mourse 3eu}

suo Ss!

aunyNd aUL

soouasayiq

SOBUETWUIS

SLVVD 41M UOsHedwo)

saba||0D

WOidg-404 ul

JUsWOBeueZ; /uonejsiuiupy

suoloun4 LYWD

YUM uosHedwOD

/uoneAsIUIWpY ddd

:S 21qeL

€9

64

This section of the chapter has reviewed the literature about for-profit

education in the context of systematic diversity, examining three themes of the

literature and comparing the functions, governance and administration of FPCs to

Ontario’s community colleges. In the next section of Chapter 2, I describe the

extent and nature of diversity in Ontario’s non-degree sector, again with an

emphasis on the for-profit sub-sector.

2.3. Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector

In reviewing the growth of Canada’s community colleges, Dennison

(1995C) reminds us that diversity has various forms and that provinces have

adopted one or more of the following:

a Systematic diversity (differences in institutional type, size and control)

a Structural diversity (whether institutions exist as a single unit or as an integrated part of a multicampus system)

a Programmatic diversity (level of credential offered, comprehensiveness, mission and emphasis)

a Procedural diversity (delivery systems, administrative processes)

a Regulational diversity (selectivity of students)

a Constitutional diversity (backgrounds, abilities, values, goals of students and other personnel)

a Values and climate diversity (differences in institutional cultures and subcultures” (Dennison, 1995C, p. 5)

He also notes that since 1980 provincial higher education systems have “favoured the growing diversity within and between the university and the non-university sectors” (Dennison, 1995C, p. 5). However, this assessment is somewhat at odds with the Ontario context. In recounting the story of higher education in Ontario, Jones notes, “Ontario has never had a higher education system, in an holistic organizational sense, or a master plan” (Jones, 1997, p. 155). Instead the province has witnessed


65

“the emergence of two distinct higher education sectors: the university sector and the CAAT sector” (p. 145). Furthermore, “there is no

mechanism or forum that transcends these boundaries within Ontario higher education (p. 151.)

What is not contested is the extent of diversity in Canada’ s non-degree

sector. Writing about the extent of diversity in the Canadian case, Skolnik

includes Ontario’s Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology (CAATs) in the non-

degree sector which consists of “community colleges, technical and specialized

career institutes, the Quebec CEGEPs, the Ontario CAATs, Provincial vocational

training centres, and private vocational schools and career colleges” (Skolnik,

1986, p. 12). He concludes that

“the non-degree sector is characterized by a great variety of different types of institutions, including many which are specialized by function, by area of study or by clientele served. The administrative and governance arrangements also vary greatly... There is also much variation with respect to educational process... Moreover, the comments above apply only to the publicly funded institutions, as there has been little documentation of the proprietary sector.... there are hundreds of proprietary colleges in Canada, and, as there is little regulation of them, it is likely that this set of institutions is characterized by substantial diversity, adding to the diversity of the non-degree sector” (pp. 14-15).

This intuitive stance is corroborated by Sweet's subsequent studies about

Canada’s private vocational training schools (PVTS) already cited (Sweet, 1991,

1993, 1996).

What is the extent of programmatic diversity® in Ontario’s non-degree

post-secondary environment? Before the passage of the Post-secondary

Education Choice and Excellence Act (2000), the sector was dominated by 24

comprehensive public colleges of applied arts and technology serving over

150,000 students. Although founded with specific geographic areas or

constituents to serve, these colleges, which provide vocational and career

education in over 400 program areas, attract students from across the province

8 In defining programmatic diversity, Dennison references level of credential offered,

comprehensiveness, mission and emphasis.


66

and out-of-province. The non-degree sector also contained a number of publicly

funded institutions, including the Michener Institute (health sciences), four

agricultural colleges, and the Canadian Coast Guard College. Ontario’s non-

degree sector also included private colleges and institutes. The not-for-profit

private sector was comprised of professional institutions (e.g. Law Society of

Upper Canada, Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Canadian College of

Chiropractics) and religious-based institutions. Although not as prestigious,

Ontario's private career colleges dominated the regulated for-profit sector. This

sub-sector will be more fully described later in the chapter.

Ontario’s non-degree sector would seem to be diverse; given this range of

opportunities, it would sit somewhere in the middle of the conceptual model of

diversity. (See Figure 1). However, the extent of diversity does not necessarily

address the access and quality issues during the massification of higher

education. Dennison (1995C) describes the situation confronting Ontario and

other provinces:

“While diversity has long been the guiding principle behind the organization of Canada’s higher education systems, a different initiative has become evident during the 1990s. ... governments in several provinces have begun to argue that current realities, both financial and human, are such that drastic restructuring of postsecondary education is necessary if it is to remain effective and efficient” (Dennison, 1995C, p. 6)

Writing about private, for-profit correspondence schools, Sweet (1991)

noted the changing policy perspective, citing human capital theory, which holds

that education is an economic value for both the individual and the collective.

He found evidence of federal support for expansion through private funders

leading to more diverse opportunities, including support for distance education:

“In addition to acknowledging the contingent relationship between

education and productivity, government policies recognize the necessity of expanding our national educational effort beyond the existing post secondary system to include the private sector. A general mobilization of post secondary resources includes encouraging greater diversity of educational provision with incentives to the private sector to become


67

involved in determining the development and widest distribution of training programs” (Sweet, 1991, p. 44-45).

Dennison (1995C) quotes Smith who argues that two broad policy

categories emerged. The first involves more planning and control of resources.

The second involves

“a stepping back by government from detailed centralized control by encouraging higher education institutions to be more autonomous, self regulating and market oriented in their operations, albeit within an overall framework of government priorities (Kogan 1988, cited by Smith 1993:31)” (Dennison, 1995C, p. 7).

Such a shift is significant in Ontario. Writing primarily about the university

sector, Jones contends that Ontario has “generally restricted competition”

(Jones, 1993, p. 233) while using targeted funding to impact institutional

practices; Dill (1997) would call this a quasi market scheme. Knowles (1995)

chronicles the rise of entrepreneurship in Canadian community colleges, citing

four changes in the environment that include international competition, new

technology, changing demographics and demands in program mix and reduced

federal and provincial funding (Knowles, 1995, p. 185). College response is

market driven:

“Responding to these external challenges requires a response from colleges that is oriented to market demand; that is, it requires an entrepreneurial response. This response is market- and revenue-driven” (p. 195).

Recent Ontario policy has encouraged more market responsiveness.

Programs such as the Access to Opportunities Program (ATOP) have required

private funding to match the province's contribution to growth. A new college

charter gives colleges the right to approve their own programs and to move into

more entrepreneurial activities as determined by their governing boards. Key

Performance Indicators, mandated across the postsecondary sectors, provide

consistent information about the colleges to consumers while addressing specific

accountabilities. Finally the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act


68

(2000), gives colleges and private institutions the opportunity to offer degree

programs. This legislation changes the province’s programmatic diversity and

provides the policy framework for the introduction of more private institutions,

including for-profit, degree-granting institutions.

In the next section of the chapter, I describe Ontario's for-profit providers.

2.3.1. For-Profit Colleges in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector

The Private Career College’s Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.26. defines a career

college as an institution that provides education and/or training leading to a

specified vocation:

“Private Career College” means a school or place at which instruction in the skill and knowledge requisite for employment in any vocation is offered or provided by class room instruction or by correspondence, other than a college of applied arts and technology, a university recognized by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities or a school or course of instruction maintained under any other Act of Legislature” (Private Career Colleges Act).

As described in the previous section, the act and its regulations prescribe policy

around the familiar themes of program quality and consumer protection.

The sector is both diverse and unstable, factors that result in data that

cannot be reconciled. Furthermore, as in the U.S. literature, with few

exceptions, this sector has not been the subject of scholarly study nor consistent

methodologies. Accordingly the following factoids about the sector are meant to

provide a general profile of the private career college sector:

In 2002, two hundred and forty-five (245) career colleges were registered in the province (Internal Ministry documeng). Many of these have multiple locations; for example as of November 2002, the Academy of Learning has 43 registered locations. One recent internal study fixes the total number of PCC locations at 484.

Private Career Colleges are situated across the province, although half the locations (239) are in the Greater Toronto Area.


69

Sixty-six percent (66%) of Ontario’s PCCs have revenue under $1 million. 83% of the colleges have an annual revenue from tuition under $5 million. Only seventeen PCCs have revenue over $5M (Jnternal OACC Study).

Estimates of enrolments range from 96,000 students annually, 42,000 of whom are registered at any one time. Ina single year, over 35,000 students graduate from private career colleges (JBL Associates, Inc., 2000).

“The average number of distinctive programs of study offered at private career colleges in Ontario is 4.3. Often the programs offered... are in the same family such as business or health technology. One-third of the programs offered by private career colleges are in business. Next in

popularity are computer and information services, offered in one-quarter of the colleges” (JBL Associates, Inc., 2000, p. 17).

The predominant form of ownership is that of a privately held, limited

liability company, owned and operated by the principal. These may be a single

campus or a multiple-site college. The largest of these schools are Marvel School

of Skin Care & Cosmetics, triOS College of Technology, RCC College of

Technology, Westervelt College and Herzing College. Herzing is part of a U.S.-

based chain of for-profit colleges that includes two campuses in Ontario.

A number of colleges operate as franchises, the largest number of these

are the Toronto School of Business, Academy of Learning and Liaison College.

As well, there are a number of publicly-traded corporations that own and operate

private career colleges in the province, including Career Education Corporation

(International Academy of Design), CDI Education Corporation (CDI College of

Technology, The Institute of Computer Studies, Career College Canada, The

Toronto School of Business), DeVry Inc. (DeVry College of Technology), and

Education Management Corporation (ITI Information Technology Institute, Art

Institute of Toronto). Table 6: Ontario’s Largest Private Career Colleges:

2000/2001 provides an overview of the largest colleges, including locations,

enrolments, areas of study and ownership. Enrolments numbers are taken from

° The Toronto School of Business has been purchased by CDI Education Corporation. As of May 2003, only four TSB schools are franchises.


70

the 2000/2001 key performance indicators data published by the Ministry of

Training Colleges and Universities and include only those programs that are

eligible for Ontario and Canadian student financial assistance. This accounts for

some of the large discrepancy between these numbers and those provided in the

sector profile.


ApMs aj

JO 7X8IUOD ‘2 Ja}deyD

4095

90/638q-UON $,0112]UC

Ul AJISISAIC

|e4NDED01d

TZ

(OJUOIO | $91U01999|/9

OTS UPON)

apsoqu0D aqeAlid

| ABojouyse,

Jo a6a}0D

Dow

(SS. 24}

uo NaS)

SaIPNIS Buyndwos

GES (p)

BIdnINW |

UORe1OdJ0D UONeDNpPA

Iq>D 4ajndwoz

404 33nj9SuU]

WSLINO} Pue

[BAI “jeBajesed

/me| ‘Aqeq:dsoyu

“‘yyeey ‘sojuoipa/y

‘uBisap ‘aueopiiua

‘ssauisng bES

uopuo7 a}eALd

aBaljOD YyeAlajsay

Bundwo> 909

(Z) aidninw

ayeAud | ABojouyse1

Jo 262)|0D

SOLA SoIJewWSOD

pue Buissaup

sey ‘sonawsos

99 (+0T)

s|dginw ICAU

| BjLD

UDJS JO

JOOUDS javueW

WSINO} Pue

[eAPI} (SSL

24} uo

NG3) ‘jeBajesed/me]

‘uyeay Gbg

gidginw | uoljeiodiod

uoneonpy IqD

epeues sba]|0D

se07e5 ubisap

‘Bugndwos ‘ssauisng

bZ8 (+09)

sidninw SesIyQUeI

Buruses] Jo

Awapecy

SoUdIpee ABojouyseL

‘Bugndwod

‘ssouisng ObOT

eBnessissiW, |

(S3SAN UO

Aq) ‘dur

AlAeq jo

abayjop AuAeq

(AS_L 24}

uO G3)

Bunndwop

Z8ET aidginw

| uojesodio> uoneonpy

1qD ABojouyse_

JO abajjoD

1d}

(OvaSVN UO

OD3D) uones0di07

ubiseq pue

Ly eipaw

‘uBiseq 06ST

OUOIOL

uoleonpy Jaese>

JO Awapecsy

jeuoneuiaquy

Aueydsoy (ASL

84} uo

NG)

ssauisng ‘uyesy

‘uBisap ‘ssauisng

€7SE gidyinw

| uo jesoduog

uoyeonpz Idd

40 JOOYDS

OJUCJOL SUL

t00z/0002

Apnjs jo

seoly |

squswjoiug

suoi}e007] diysioumoO

SWEN

969)/0D

T00Z/000Z

:SsebaljoD 4990125

d}eALIg sabe] SoueWUC

19 BIGeL

Apnys au)

JO yXaqUOD

:Z Jaydeyp

4OP9S 3e16eq-UON

S,OUe]UD Ul

AISJaAI [2INPe201g

cZ

dnod

abayjo> ayjeseq

ubiseq b@Z

OUOIOL

SICAL a6a]j0OD

aese]

Abojouyoe | pue

Hugndwos

pue ssauisng

022 (Zz)

emenO

SILA ssouisng

JO aBa|[O>

SII|IM jebajesed

‘Bugndwos ‘ssouisng

$87 OWUOIJOL

a}eAUd BINWSU]

YdE}@Wld jBACLL

WSLINO} pue

jeAedL 872

aidninw JO

9NWSuU] JeEuOeUIAaU]

jebajeied “uqjeau

uBnos0qieled “‘Bugndwios

‘ssouisng 62

PMPUSO aq}eALd

aba|]0D wn

(saba|j09 yo

uleUd

peseq-"S‘N) epeil

D434 YyeeH

+00€ (€)

aidninw SJEALd |

[COYDS xIPaW

UJa}SemyINOS PIDSW

SEE O}UOIOL

dJCALd SyNIWSUT

SNgeL

(OVGSVN UO

Wag)

voReJ0d107 BHurndwo

6bE OWUOIOL

Juswebeue;

uoneonpy SINYWSUI

LL eMeNO

ABojouuse | BHugndwos ‘sssuisng

STP OJUOIOL

aqeAld jo

a691/0D Bulziay

t00zZ/0002

Apnjs jo

sealy |

squowyo1ug

suo1}e901 diysi9umO

owen

2Ha]]0D

penuuoo

’g ajqeL

73

The Ontario Association of Career Colleges represents the sector although

not all schools are members of the association. The association's primary

activities are to represent the member colleges through public advocacy and

government relations. Policy, especially as it relates to regulation and student

financial aid, is the primary focus of this activity, consistent with the U.S.

literature about for-profit education. Indeed the literature even references the

nature of the policy interaction, quoting Henry Herzing, founder and president of

Herzing College:

“According to Henry Herzing, government efforts to regulate education lead to inefficiency, mediocrity, and stagnation of ideas. ‘I have personal experience in a province in Canada where the educational concept is that all educational innovations flows through and down from the Ministry of Education. For several years, by edict, there were to be no new courses.... At one time we were severely reprimanded for ‘enriching our course without permission. I submit tht this is not the way to organize postsecondary education...and that [the government's] misguided attempts at obtaining uniform quality were greatly outweighed by the suppression of innovation” (Wilms, 1987, p. 18).

This theme is dominant. The perception within the sector is that current

policies and regulations imposed through Ontario Student Assistance Program

(OSAP) performance requirements for the PCC sector restrict innovation in such

areas as educational delivery and programmatic convergence. Furthermore, the

cost of regulation and the ability to grow a business represent considerable

barriers.*°

In the last section of this chapter, I reviewed the literature about for-profit

education within the context of diversity and with specific reference to Ontario’s

private career colleges and Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. Now I will

describe a typical private career college. For those readers who are more

familiar with traditional higher education institutions, which in Ontario are likely

‘© These perceptions have been gleaned through my participation as a Director of the Ontario Association of Career Colleges and as a member of the Private Career Colleges/Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Working Group.


74

to be a university or community college, the following exposition is intended to

increase your understanding of the context of this study.

2.3.1.1. A Typical Private Career College: Primetech Institute"

Primetech Institute is located in the Yonge and Bloor area of downtown

Toronto, right in the middle of the trendy Yorkville district. The college leases

the 7" floor (10,000 square feet) in a 9-storey building on Cumberland Avenue.

Emerging from the elevator, one is struck by the college’s décor and

presentation. All the doors are floor to ceiling and glassed. Wood is the

dominant media. The carpets are new. The impression is that of a law office, or

an insurance agency complete with a receptionist who also serves as the campus

administrator.

Classrooms, each devoted to one of the institute’s programs, are arranged

around three sides and into the fourth side of an outside rectangle. In the

northeast corner is a 24-seat classroom that is dedicated to the paralegal

program. The classroom is crowded and arranged with four tables on each side

of a centre row. Moving along the north wall and to the west, the next room is a

Unix room filled with computer equipment and used by the Networking program

for its Unix module. Next to it is the networking classroom, which is twice the

size of the Unix room. Each student enrolled in the networking program is

issued a two-computer workstation, allowing him/her to experiment with

networking software. The last room on the north side of the building is the

programming classroom. Again each student has a dedicated workstation.

An open lab with 30 workstations dominates the west side of the school.

Students in the Accounting/Office Administration program use this room as will

students in a new business program which was at the proposal stage when I

‘1 Primetech has changed its name to Yorkville College of Professional Studies. And consistent with the sector's responsiveness, many of the programs and structures have changed since I wrote this description.


75

visited the school. Students work independently, using computer-based training

programs (CBTs) loaded onto the workstations. A teacher is in the lab from 8:30

to 5:00; he manages each student's program, answers questions and assesses

learning. A second room on this side of the building is the President's office.

Along the north wall are a series of offices, a file room and a student

lounge, equipped with computer workstations. Situated in the middle of the

north side, the lounge is large and inviting with a view towards Lake Ontario.

Across from the file room, in the middle of the college and beside the reception

desk is the Campus Administrator's office. A second, identical office is on the

west side of the reception office is that of the Student Finance officer, who

assists students with student financial aid and funding. The IT department office

is also in this middle island as are storage rooms and a faculty office/lunch room

that houses the college’s single photo-copier.

The web development program classroom takes up the southeast corner

of the college. There are two additional classrooms along the east side of the

rectangle; their windows look onto the neighboring building’s wall. The first is a

second paralegal classroom, equipped to handle 24 students. At the rear of the

classroom are two workstations loaded with the industry’s current database. The

second classroom is unused but will be set up as the Business Administration

Classroom.

The college employs five full-time faculty, each responsible for delivering

one of the programs. Consistent with the regulations of the Private Career

Colleges Act, the faculty are both credentialed and experienced in their area of

study. Three part-time teachers supplement this direct delivery. Staff consists

of a president, a campus administrator, a student finance officer, a career

services advisor, two admissions officers who are contract employees, a part-

time accountant and a part-time technician who maintains the I.T. equipment.

The total college staff, including faculty, is 12.5 full-time equivalents. The

institute has a student information system that is maintained by the campus


76

administrator. The I.T. infrastructure also includes a student grade tracking

system and the college’s website. The student handbook, which sets out all the

academic policies, is available on-line.

This infrastructure can provide instruction for up to 200 students. On this

day, 80 students are enrolled in the college's five programs. Students pay an

average of $56/day. The lowest tuition is $50/day for the Accounting/Office

Administration program that relies on CBTs for content. The highest tuition is

$61/day for the Networking and Programming programs; these are capital

intensive and use instructors to deliver the majority of the content. The

instructional day runs from 9:00 to 2:30 with a break for lunch. Program length

varies from 6 months to a year and the paralegal program is delivered in the

evenings on a part-time basis.

In all private career colleges enrolment levels and tuition revenue are the

fundamental measures of success. Primetech advertises in local media and

develops prospects through telemarketing and direct response advertising.

Graduates and current students are also the source of prospects. A flyer

informing students of the Student Referral Program was posted in the men’s

washroom. In part it reads:

“You have a chance of winning $500. You'll receive $100 for each student referred.”

To optimize the number of start dates, programs are designed and

delivered as a series of modules, each without a pre-requisite. Thus students

can enter the program at the beginning of each module or purchase only a single

module. The scheduling/program design challenge is to maximize student

access, optimize student learning and minimize the cost of instruction.

All applicants to the institute are required to have grade 12 or an out-of-

province equivalent. They must also pass a locally-developed math and

language test. Ontario student financial aid is available for those who qualify

and the institute advises students about these and other financing options.


77

According to the president about 91% of those who begin a program complete

it. (The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities KPI data for 2000/01

indicates a 77.3% graduation rate.) The career services advisor assists

graduates to secure a job placement. The employment rate, according to the

Ministry's key performance indicators for 2000/01 graduates is 62.3%. The

institute’s default rate for 2001 was 19.9%

Primetech’s business model requires an enrolment of 120 students to earn

a profit. At that level of revenue (approximately $1.5 million), the direct cost of

instruction is 25% of revenue. In addition to these faculty costs, the cost

structure includes staff salaries, rent and depreciation, supplies and services,

professional development activities and advertising. Just before my site visit, the

president had reduced salaries with the promise to return them to their former

levels when the 120-enrolment number is achieved. As well, he and the owner

were working on new program proposals, their intention to move out of the

expensive and low-demand computing programs and into business and health-

related programs.

Primetech Institute is a prototypical private career college in the Ontario

postsecondary environment. Its location is both accessible and desirable. Its

programming and delivery are responsive to student demand, job opportunities

and business realities. Management and ownership are continuously absorbed

by the challenges of selling and delivering an in-demand product and covering

the costs of doing business. And Primetech is small. Contrast it with the

publicly-traded, for-profit companies that operate in Ontario. These will be

introduced in the next section of the chapter.

2.3.1.2. Publicly-traded for-profit companies in Ontario

Four publicly traded, for-profit postsecondary providers operate registered

private career colleges in Ontario. In this sub-section of the chapter, I provide a

brief overview of each of these corporations.


78

CDI Education Corporation’?: CDI owns and operates private career colleges

right across Canada. In Ontario it has numerous locations under four distinctive

college names: The Toronto School of Business, CDI College of Technology,

Career College Canada and the Institute for Computer Studies. General details

about location, enrolments and programming are provided in Table 6 on pages

71-72.

CDI’s revenue for 2002 was $129.7 million achieved through its

postsecondary operations and its corporate training division. Approximately two-

thirds of this revenue is from its postsecondary operations. Like all of these

corporations, it does not provide enrolment nor break out revenue by locations

or geography. In its last reported year, the company’s revenue declined by 4.5

percent, and its profit per share fell from earnings of $0.18 per share in 2001 to

a loss of $0.56 a share. Total shareholders’ equity as of December 31, 2002 was

$27.9 million (unaudited). CDI Corporation shares are traded on the Toronto

Stock Exchange. The stock symbol is EDU.

Career Education Corporation: This is a U.S. based corporation that owns and

operates 51 campuses throughout the United States, Canada, France, the United

Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates, including the largest single-site private

career college in Ontario, the International Academy of Design.

The corporation’s growth model is to acquire colleges for their potential

for strong returns on invested capital and for strategic purposes, including

curriculum and market entry (Missouri College, 2002), access to accreditation

(Texas Culinary Academy, 2001; Missouri College), strong brand value, market

leadership and marketing models (Pennsylvania Culinary Institute, 2001).

12 Tn June 2003, CDI’s board accepted an offer to sell its shares to Corinthian College, a large U.S.-based education company cited in Section 2.2.1.


79

Career Education’s net revenue for 2002 was $751.0 million, up 42

percent from 2001. Its net income for the year was $67.5 million up 76 percent

from prior year ($38.4M). Total shareholders’ equity as of December 31, 2002

was $405.7 million. Career Education Corporation Shares trade on the Nasdaq

exchange; the stock symbol is CECO.

DeVry Inc.: DeVry owns and operates DeVry University that has over 50

Campuses and university centres across the United States and in Calgary and

Toronto. It’s Ontario campus, DeVry College of Technology, has been in Ontario

since 1956. DeVry’s business model is to grow through new programming and

delivery models including the university centres and DeVry on-line. It also looks

for acquisitions to improve its profitability and to enhance its reputation for

quality.

DeVry Inc.’s revenue for 2002 was $648.1 million and its net earnings

were $67.1 million, up 16.1 percent from the previous year. Shareholder equity

in DeVry was $353.5 million as of June 30, 2002. The company’s shares trade

on the New York Stock Exchange; the stock symbol is DV.

Education Management Corporation: Education Management purchased the

Toronto and Ottawa locations of the ITI Institute when this high profile Canadian

company went bankrupt in 2001. As of May, 2003, it was continuing operation

at the Toronto campus of ITI and has re-registered as the Art Institute of

Toronto. Like Career Education, the company’s business plan is to grow through

acquisition. Like DeVry, it also manages distinctive brands and grows those

brands through new campus openings. In addition to the Art Institutes across

the United States, it operates Argosy University. Recent acquisitions include two

Vancouver British Columbia private career colleges which the company

announced it will rename as Art Institutes (Company Press Release, October 3,

2002).


80

Education Management's net revenue in 2002 was $500.6 million,

representing a 35% increase from prior year. Its net income for 2002 increased

by 46% to $42.3 million, an improved attributed in part to its acquisition of

Argosy University. Education Management Corporation’s shares trade on the

NASDAQ exchange; the stock symbol is EDMC.

This section of the context chapter has provided an overview of the extent

and nature of institutional diversity in Ontario’s non-degree sector with a more

detailed description of for-profit colleges in the province. As is the case with

higher education literature, the for-profit sector in Ontario has been the subject

of very little study even though its numbers and activities are significant. The

question is how does this sub-sector contribute to the province's diversity? One

measure of this contribution is to examine the non-degree sector marketplace,

specifically the literature about clientele served and areas of study, representing

programmatic diversity. These are presented next.

2.3.2. Clientele Served and Areas of Study

In this next section of the literature review, I examine two elements of the

non-degree sector marketplace as they pertain to the study, specifically the

clientele served and areas of study. Again the focus is on for-profit college

literature although a more complete comparison of Ontario's non-degree sector

is presented.

2.3.2.1. Clientele Served

The literature about clientele has two main components. One element

examines the nature of post-secondary decision-making while the second

examines the outcomes of this process—the identification and stratification of


81

post-secondary participation, including who attends for-profit institutions. First, I

will summarize the relevant literature about post-secondary choice.

College choice is a three-stage interactive process that begins as early as

the seventh grade. The three stages include predisposition, search and choice

(Cabrera & La Nasa, 2000). The predisposition stage involves “the development

of occupational and educational aspirations” (Cabrera & La Nasa, 2000, p. 6).

Two frameworks have been applied to examine the choice decision. The first is

a cost/benefit analysis, the result of

“a rational process in which an individual estimates the economic and social benefits of attending college, comparing them with those of competing alternatives (Manski and Wise, 1983). The sociological approach examines the extent to which high school graduates’ socioeconomic characteristics and academic preparation predispose them to enroll in a particular type of college and to aspire to a particular level of postsecondary educational attainment” (p. 12).

Both approaches introduce choice elements: What is it about an institution

that attracts certain individuals? This matching of student clientele to type of

institution is the topic of a rich literature that among other things examines

1. What choice variables are important to different groups of students (Butlin, 1999; Frank, 1996; Okun, Ruehlman & Karoly, 1991; Stanley & Reynolds, 1994)?

2. What barriers to access exist (Education Resources Institute, 1997; Webb, 1993)?

3. What policy alternatives would improve access (Duffy, 2000)?

4. What institutional practices would increase student participation and success (Barneston, 1997; Saunders & Bauer, 1998)?

In the U.S., Alexander Astin has been providing a survey of freshman for

over a quarter of a century, tracking changes in the overall composition of

college students as well as destinations by type of institution (Astin, 1999).

Follow-up studies examine the impact of institutional characteristics on student

development (Cress & Sax, 1998). In Canada, various studies conducted by


82

Statistics Canada examine participation rates and stratification. An over-riding

conclusion from these studies is that tuition levels and the availability of financial

aid impact post-secondary participation, especially for women.

There have been several studies about who attends proprietary schools

and why they do (Morris, 1993). The most comprehensive U.S. study is Apling’s

(1993) that concludes that for-profit institutions enroll “about 7 percent of all

undergraduates. These students, when compared with their counterparts in

other postsecondary sectors are more likely to be women, minority group

members, and poor” (Apling, 1993, page 408). This comparative profile is

corroborated by the U.S. Department of Education:

“Compared to students at other less-than 4-year institutions in 1995-1996, these students were more likely to be female, black, single parents, independent, and in the lowest income quartile... (they) were more likely to have delayed their enrollment for a year or more after high school” (National Centre for Education Statistics, 1999, pages iii-iv).

As well, Afro-Americans are more likely to attend a proprietary school (Collison,

1998). Canadian participation statistics are consistent, although the terminology

is inconsistent. Trade/vocational training refers to private vocational schools:

“Nearly 80% of students who were high school graduates by 1995, had participated in some type of postsecondary education...Just over 40% of high school graduates had attended a university, while nearly 30% participated in a community college, and just 7% took trade-vocational training” (Butlin, 1999, page 14).

Cheng and Levin (1995) reviewed the literature of proprietary school

demographics and concluded that, based on existing studies, generalizations are

tenuous at best. Their study examined the differences between those who

attend proprietary schools and those who attend other post-secondary

institutions in the United States including four-year universities and community

colleges. Their findings reveal that proprietary schools attract less academically

prepared, more ethnically diverse students from a lower socio-economic

background. They go on to assert:


83

“Our data support the assertion ... (about) the low aptitude and relatively poor academic background of these students.... Proprietary schools have helped raise the educational levels of a great number of young adults to a considerable height, given the relatively low aptitude and low SES of their students” (Cheng & Levin, p. 58).

In her description of the large, for-profit publicly-traded companies, Kartus

notes that even though they have achieved brand recognition, they still pay more

attention to non-traditional learners (Kartus, 2000, p. 42).

Sweet's observations about the Canadian experience are similar. He notes

the contribution of proprietary schools to

“access for students of varying backgrounds... Both women and mature students—those over 21—are well represented in the proprietary student body. Mature students represent half the student body in 82% of the PVTS (Private Vocational Training Schools) programs. Participation rates for women are also impressive” (Sweet, 1996, p. 37).

Wilms (1987) proposes another explanation about why some students

choose a for-profit institution. He asserts that “these schools enroll the

disenchanted—those for whom public schooling was a painful experience” (in

Sweet, 1991, p. 53). Sweet’s 1993 study positions private vocational training

schools (PVTS) in relation to Canadian college enrolments, noting that

“The competitive presence of the colleges is just one element in a far more complex mix of factors affecting student participation, or more specifically institutional choice... The private sector may pick up some of (the) college ‘overflow’ but, in fact, there is evidence that proprietary schools serve a rather different clientele or at least a segment of the student market with differing educational needs” (Sweet, 1993, p. 41).

Participation in the for-profit sector is, at times, presented as

controversial, especially as it relates to recruitment and access to financial aid. A

study of proprietary students in Los Angeles observed, “in most cases students

had signed up only after having been lured by aggressive admissions counselors

who are actually sales representatives” (Morris, 1993, p. 25). In targeting such

nontraditional students through aggressive marketing, the proprietary sector has

been criticized for being too accessible and accepting students who are incapable


84

of graduating (Honick, 1995, p. 36). Historically in the United States, this

became an issue when the proprietary sector became eligible for federal subsidy,

albeit by way of individuals through the G.I. Bill in 1944. This was the first

occasion that the sector’s students had access to government aid, and it created

a boon for proprietary schools which eventually impacted reputation negatively

and led to increased government regulation (p. 37).

Across the U.S and Canada, an estimated 70 to 80% of proprietary school

students receive government financial aid (Apling, 1993). In the United States,

in particular, this access to funding is both attacked and defended. Attackers

note the high loan default rates while others demonstrate the economic and

social benefits of proprietary schools'?. The Canadian experience is similar.

Between 1990 and 1997, “students at private institutions had the highest rate of

increase... in their debt loads” and students attending private institutions had the

largest increase in the “concentration of loan volumes” and the highest annual

loans (Plager & Chen, 1999, p. 15). This same comprehensive study profiled the

Canada Student Loan recipients studying at private institutions:

“(they) were older than other students and had fewer resources available to them. The majority were women, with single parents making up a large proportion of this group. These students tended to have higher

costs associated with education-related expenses such as child care and living costs” (p. 17).

An example of a Canadian version of advocacy research is represented by

a bulletin issued by the Ontario Association of Career Colleges which speaks to

the benefits to at-risk students, references the public accounts and asserts “that

the net cost to the Ontario government of a student attending a career college is

$705 a year versus an annual cost of $6,583 for Community Colleges and $7,856

a year for Universities.” (Ontario Association of Career Colleges, 1999, p. 1) The

$705 figure is based on the actual costs of defaulted loans for that year.

* This has been a focus of criticism about the for-profit sector as described in Section 2.2.


85

Ontario's Public Colleges: As one might expect, the multi-functionality of

Ontario’s colleges results in a broad range of students whose college choice

decision is based on institutional characteristics. The most important of these

are the excellence of the academic reputation, the existence of a specialized

program suited to the student's needs, proximity to home and the low total cost

of attendance (Hook, 1991, p. 24). Early studies of the choice determinants in

Ontario’s college and university students noted the relative importance for

college students of good employment prospects, high income prospects and

career advancement prospects (Anisef, Paasche & Turrittin, 1980).

The colleges have had a significant impact on post-secondary participation

in Ontario. In 1996, 48% of Canadians between the ages of 25 and 65 had

completed post-secondary education. This was 14% higher than in the United

States. Of the 25-29-age cohort, 32% were college and trade school graduates

while 26% were university graduates (Education Indicators in Canada). Ontario

and Nova Scotia have the highest level of post-secondary attainment (Education

at a glance, 2000, p. 52).

The profile of Ontario college students enrolled in their first year is

presented in Table 7: Profile of First Year Students at Ontario CAATs (Association

of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario, 2001, pp. 59 — 61).


86

Table 7: Profile of First Year Students at Ontario CAATs

Characteristics Distribution

Age Distribution

Under 19 39% 20 to 24 42%

25 to 29 9% Over 30 9%

Male/Female Percentage 48/52

From out-of-catchment area 50%

In high school in previous year 43%

Percentage on OSAP 46%

Average Loan Amount $6782

Throughout their history, especially in the large urban centres, Ontario’s

colleges have experienced sustained enrolment growth. However, recently,

especially in technology fields (computer and electronics)

“Colleges are experiencing some difficulty in attracting sufficient numbers of appropriately qualified students (students with sufficient levels of mathematics and sciences) who are interested in technology careers” (Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario, 2001, p. 34).

Ontario’s For-Profit Colleges: Ontario’s for-profit colleges

“attract a wide spectrum of students (from those right out of high school to university graduates who want more specific training), but have been most successful in attracting ‘mature’ students who have labour force


87

experience and may be attempting a career change or who require short- term, skill-specific training” (Ontario Council of Regents, 1990, p. 27).

As already noted, the number of students is difficult to quantify. One

study estimates an average of 30,000 students a year (Ontario Council of

Regents, 1990) while Sweet is precise about enrolments: “In 1992, there were

253,087 enrolments in 901 programs at 578 institutions in Ontario” (Sweet,

1996, p. 34). The difference is explained by the fact that an individual may

represent multiple enrolments.

Perhaps the best indicator of the differences in the two sub-sectors is

displayed in the student Profile of Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP)

Awards by Sector presented in Table 8 (Association of Colleges of Applied Arts

and Technology of Ontario, 2001, p. 65).

Table 8: Profile of CAAT and For-Profit College Students on OSAP

1999/2000

Married/Sole Support Independent Dependent Number = Percent Number Percent Number Percent

CAATS 14,682 23% 18,131 28.5% 30,865 48.5%

FPCs 7,538 48% 5,376 34% 2,842 18%

Given the fact that FPC OSAP-eligible programs attract about one-quarter

the number of students than the CAATs, the number and proportion of married,


88

sole support students in the FPCs indicates that the FPCs attract many more

financially at-risk students. One explanation is the nature of the programs:

“The greater proportion of married and sole support students in private vocational schools suggests that the shorter program lengths and the flexible delivery schedules are key considerations for this group, despite the higher tuition fees and related costs” (Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario, 2001, p. 66).

A recent survey conducted by the National Association of Career Colleges

(which represents one-third of Canada’s Career Colleges) summarizes the learner

characteristics. These are displayed in Table 9: Profile of Canadian Private

Career College Students.

Table 9: Profile of Canadian Private Career College Students

Characteristics Distribution

Age Distribution

Under 35 67% Over 35 33%

Male/Female Percentage 33/67

Landed Immigrants and Visa Students 25%

Socio-Economic Have dependants 50% Sole support parents 20%

Previous Education Have attended college or university 47%

College graduates 15% University graduates 5%

(National Association of Career Colleges, 1998B)


89

As is the case in the U.S., this table shows that students with higher

academic and financial risk are more likely to attend proprietary schools than

other types of institutions. Math under-preparedness is the most likely predictor

of those who will pursue trade-vocational education (Butlin, 1999, p., 27) while

individuals whose parents went to university are less likely to go a proprietary

institution (p. 17). Perhaps most striking is “the polarization at the high and

low level of education (which) is reflected in the ... advantage of foreign-born

students for both university and trade-vocational education” (p.17).

However, these profiles do not necessarily converge. According to Butlin

(1999), only 4% of Ontario high school graduates are likely to pursue trade-

vocational studies and “a higher proportion of men (9%) took part in trade-

vocational education compared to women (5%) (Butlin, 1999, pp.21-23). Yet,

Sweet's 1996 study provides a summary of sex differences in enrolment by field

of study that “show a reasonable gender balance in all but the technology and

trades and personal care categories. The numbers of those program categories

strongly suggest gender ghettos” (Sweet, 1996, p. 37).

Do colleges and for-profit colleges serve the same clientele? U.S.

researchers have concluded that they do not (Leven and Clowes, 1987 in Cheng

& Levin, 1995, p. 58) while the Canadian data and the lack of consistent

categories makes it difficult to distinguish. Table 10 summarizes what the

literature reveals about the clientele served by Ontario’s FPCs and CAATs.


Apmis au

Jo 7x@\UOD :7 saydeyD

Jopes ae1Beg-UON

$,01Je]U0 Ul

AIsiaatq jeunpedodg

Saqzes YNEJEp

JOUBIH uonediomed

siow dVSO

0} SSeaDy

"B91I0Y9 JO

SHa|jO9

puaye 0}

SAOW 0}

Ajay!] BOW

souspisay "ysi-qe

Ajjemueuy eow

‘sjusied-ajBuls ai0p]

Sas SJUSpN}IS

,AiNJeU, SJOW

‘paiedaid Ajjeo|wapese

ssa uoljeonpy

SO|PWD, S10;

Japuas 4ap|O

3q 0}

puay aby |

so1ydeiBoweg

"Burures dyloads

asow ‘JAHOYS

Buy} AG

pepeme ay

SSoUIDeoJ Jgoied

‘uonesedaid jpUONeDOA

—SUOSES1 BLUES

BY} JO

BWOS SJUPUIWUa}eq

aD10UD

AML Woqy

sjuediiped

Aiepuoses-jsod Jo

%O¢ Jnoqy

uonjedioued

soba}[0D 31j01g-104

SLVVO

SadUsIIIG

sonuepiuis

P2A18S

9/92UTIID

uosHedwiod ddd

pue LYWD

/PeAIeS BJ9}UAIID

:OT 21921

06

91

2.3.2.2. Areas of Study

The term ‘areas of study’ refers to the curriculum as it is organized and

delivered in the non-degree sector. Typically, these are ‘programs’ or single

courses. Consistent with their function, public colleges provide a much broader

spectrum of curriculum while for-profit colleges deliver a more focused

curriculum in areas of study leading directly to employment. In his presentation

of the ‘story’ of the U.S. proprietary sector, Honick (1995) notes that proprietary

schools “developed to fill a vacuum in education and training” (Honick, 1995, p.

38). Public education, on the other hand, responded to policy issues around

access, human resource development and economic development.

Schuyler (1999) contends that curriculum is what makes community

colleges unique, offering “such diverse areas of study as general education,

vocational education, and remedial or developmental education” (Schuyler, 1999,

p. 3). These areas of curriculum respond to student goals, which are to transfer

to 4-year institutions, to prepare for employment and to improve basic skills. His

study examined the changing nature of the curriculum in U.S. colleges. Among

the findings are the following:

“54% of the community college curriculum was made up of liberal arts” (p. 8), while in the early days of community colleges about 75% of the Curriculum was academic (p. 11).

“The greatest increase in percentage (1991 to 1998) is found in computer science” (p. 9).

The most commonly found non-liberal arts courses are business and office skills, marketing and distribution, health sciences, computer applications and education” (p. 13).

Bragg (2001) positions this changing curriculum as a response to an

evolving mission, presenting an argument about a ‘new vocationalism’ that

“emphasizes career clusters or pathways that extend from the entry level to the


92

professional level” (Bragg, 2001, p. 7). This new vocationalism is responsive to

the current work environment that

“requires a heightened ability to manage information and technology, analyze and solve problems, and continuously engage in learning to use new and updated information... Therefore, integrated academic and vocational curriculum and instruction is critical to the preparation of successful employees and lifelong learners’”(p. 8).

Yoo (2001) provides a review of various reports associated with

curriculum reform in U.S. community colleges. The focus of the review is how

colleges’ vocational education is being transformed. These changes have led to

the conclusion that “curriculum in the community college and career college

sectors seems to be on a convergence course” (Hyslop & Parsons, 1995, p. 42).

The Canadian and Ontario college experience is somewhat different.

Although the transfer function is an element of British Columbia’s and Alberta’s

colleges, vocational education has been the mainstay in Canadian community

colleges. Rather than changing this fundamental nature, today colleges have

responded to a changing environment, increasing the range of programs and the

delivery of the curriculum. Knowles (1995) cites the following examples of this

responsiveness:

“Contract training programs and services... apprenticeship training,

community-wide collaboration, training in industry, labour market adjustment and faculty return-to-industry programs” (Knowles, 1995, p. 197).

Sweet's studies of Canada’s proprietary sectors identify general areas of

study. Correspondence schools provide an “extensive array of courses” (Sweet,

1991, p. 52). Most of the enrolments are in two area: commerce, management

and business administration; and engineering and applied sciences, technologies

and trades (ibid.). In a conclusion that questions convergence, he posits that

the proprietary correspondence schools “appear(s) to offer courses and

programs that cannot be found in the public system, or at least they present

them in a manner that has greater appeal” (p. 58).


93

His study of Canada’s proprietary sector (Sweet, 1993) found that it offers

courses in five major areas:

Personal Care: includes hairdressing, cosmetology and fashion design fields

Business: includes management, computer applications (e.g. word processing) and traditional commercial (e.g. sales) and secretarial studies

Community Service: describes health, day care training and security services

Hospitality and Tourism: includes hotel management, bartending and general culinary arts in addition to travel counseling training

Technology and Trades: all the technological and technical skills such as computer systems analysis and electronics design and maintenance; trades include truck driving, machining skils, processing and any non- apprenticed trades (Sweet, 1993, p. 44).

A follow-up study quantifies the number of enrolments in each area.

Business studies account for 49% of all proprietary college enrolments, which is

explained with an historical reference:

“Business has always been the field of greatest involvement for proprietary schools. Moreland (1977) demonstrates the importance of business schools in the early history of proprietary education and training in Canada. Proprietary schools were, in fact, business schools. The importance of the business field to the private sector continues. ... 28% of schools offer business programs and these programs enroll more than half the PVTS student population.

“Technology and trades training also is an important program category. Although enrolling fewer students than business schools, the technology and trades schools comprise 22% of PVTS institutions. The expansion of the service sector in the 1980s (ECC 1992) stimulated demand for people trained in both the emerging technologies and new business management techniques. Most employment, however, has been in the “traditional” service sector. This work is mostly in the Personal service job categories, and is reflected in Personal care, Hospitality and tourism, and Community service training, which together account for 20% of PVTS registrations” (Sweet, 1996, p. 36).


94

Grenier’s (1995) study corroborated these same areas of study, identifying

schools by areas of specialty. The findings are presented in Table 11: Private

Vocational Schools’ Areas of Specialty—Canada Wide (Grenier, 1995, p. 55).

Table 11: Private Vocational Schools’ Areas of Specialty—Canada Wide

Area of Specialty Distribution

Business 26% Technology and Trades 20%

Personal Care 11% Hospitality and Tourism 2% Community Services 17%

Other 11%

Schools that provide training in more than one field 13%

Ontario's Community Colleges: From their inception, Ontario’s colleges were to

be occupation-oriented. Collins’ (1987) study of the early program planning

notes:

“According to the legislation, upon assuming office a board of governors should make a study of the post-secondary and adult education needs of the area for which the college has been established and... submit for approval... a report containing specific recommendations concerning the proposed educational programs” (Collins, 1987, p. 100).

Today the Ontario Colleges Applications Service provides comprehensive

Area of Study charts on its website (www.ocas.on.ca). These charts, which are

in the form of a matrix, list the colleges along with over 430 areas of study.

Codes are used to identify specific kinds of programs (i.e. apprenticeship, post-

diploma programs, co-op programs.) These programs are categorized into four


95

divisions: Arts, Business, Health and Technology. Enrolments by division are

provided in Table 12 (Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of

Ontario, 2001, page 60).

Table 12: CAAT Postsecondary Registrants by Division—1999

Division of Study Number of Registrants Percentage

Arts 47,665 34%

Business 47,578 34%

Health 14,065 10%

Technology 30,158 22%

Totals 139,466 100%

Ontario‘’s For-Profit Colleges: There are three sources of data about

programming in Ontario's for-profit colleges. Each provides some insight into

areas of study although the national data already presented is the most

comprehensive in the literature. It concludes, “the provinces with the largest

number of schools providing vocational training were Ontario (33%), British

Columbia (23%) and Quebec (21%)” (Grenier, 1995, p. 51).

The Ontario government provides two sources of data. First the Office of

the Superintendent of Private Career Colleges provides an up-dated list of the

registered private vocational schools on its website

(www.edu.gov.on.ca/enq/general/list/pvs.html). This list does not indicate the


96

school’s area of study although the college names often identify the curriculum

and/or vocational training outcomes (e.g. Academy of Private Investigation and

Security, Canadian Aesthetic Academy, Institute for Computer Studies). In

August 2000, there were 276 different schools by name; 49 of these have more

than one campus. These 49 represent either branches or franchises as

categorized by Sweet (1993).

The Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) maintains a website

listing key performance indicators of for-profit colleges which are eligible to

administer OSAP (www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/private). This website lists

the OSAP eligible programs, their enrolment, completion and employment

placement rates. Default rates for all for-profit colleges are also listed.

However, there is no specific listing of areas of study.

Finally the Ontario Association of Career Colleges (OACC) website

(www.oacc.on.ca) provides a directory of Career Training in Ontario which lists

53 vocational categories. Linked to each of these categories is a list of the

registered Private Career Colleges which are members of the OACC and which

offer programs in the vocational category. This listing is the closest presentation

in intention and outcome to the public colleges’ Areas of Study Charts.

In a study commissioned by the Ontario Association of Career Colleges,

the program mix within Ontario's for-profit colleges was further described (JBL

Associates, Inc., 2000)

“The average number of distinctive programs of study offered at private career colleges in Ontario is 4.3. Often the programs offered in a private career college are in the same family such as business or health technology”

Table 13: Registered Programs by Program Type in Ontario Private Career

Colleges quantifies the number of registered programs by program type (JBL

Associates, Inc., 2000, pp. 17-18).


97

Table 13: Registered Programs by Program Type in Ontario Private Career Colleges

Program Type Distribution

Business 33% Computer Information Sciences 25% Vocational/Technical 14% Marketing/Hospitality/Tourism 8% Health 7% Personal Services 6% Communication Technology 2% Law 2%

Protective Services 1% Child/Elderly Care 1%

The fact that each of these sub-sectors presents and describes its

program mix without reference to either consistent definitions or the other sub-

sector makes it difficult to determine the extent of programmatic diversity.

Consequently, some researchers perceive a convergence of programming while

others conclude that the for-profit and public colleges’ program mix are

distinguished by function and administration. The following table summarizes

the differences as they are presented in the literature.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 2: Context of the Study

Apnyg ay}

JO }xeqUOD

:Z JaydeyD

JoIS aeiGeg-UON

S,OMeIUO Ul

AIISJaAIG JeINpeD0!d

(ABojouyde} ‘Joyndwoo

‘sseuisnq) quawAojdwa

0} pezejes

Apeuip eae weiboud

ae sweiBoid

Jejndod ysow

| sy

3u) ul

SWwesGoid auoW

AueW Jeindod

Jsow 9u}

si ssauisng

Aqueindog

(6uiurey

ypeJuo. ‘swesboud

Juapnys (Bunny

‘Buipjem) sepes}

jeuojeweyzu! 6's)

esodind peyejnBei-uou

ul sweiboldg

0} se

weiBoid paen GOW

(Bulsseuparey) (seque

weiBoid seaie

sBulayo

aed

jeuosied ul

Swesboud suo;

O€b) sweiBoid

sow Aue

BWeS 94}

JO JsOW

U! SWeIBOIg

wei6oig JO

u}pesig

$a69]]0D WWO1dg-104

SLVVO

saousi3jyIg

SONUETIWIS

Apnjs

jo seoly

86

uosLedwo) ddJj

pue Lyvo/Apnys

jo seaiy iy

a1qeL

99

2.4, Chapter Summary: Does Control Matter?

In this chapter, I have introduced the concept of diversity in higher

education along with the related policy issues. Diversity is the measure of

differences represented by the institutions within a postsecondary education

system and is, on balance, a good thing as a more diverse system provides more

choices and is more efficient. Policy defines the marketplace in which the

dynamics of diversity are played out. Typically private institutions are more

regulated; however, all institutions are affected by policies that impact the

actions of students, supporters, government bodies and the institutions

themselves. Within this policy framework, institutions introduce innovation to

improve their competitive advantage. This innovation may be in programming,

delivery or services, (procedural) and, theoretically, will increase the diversity

within the system.

Control is one variable of systematic diversity and refers to an institution’s

legal authority. Institutions can be classified into one of four general categories:

public; private, not-for-profit; private, for-profit; and publicly-traded, for-profit.

The publicly-traded, for-profit higher education company is a growing

phenomenon in higher education and has emerged from the proprietary school

sector, generally regarded as one of low prestige and dubious quality. Some

writers view this category, with its focus on market responsiveness, as the

impetus or provocateurs of increased diversity. In section 2 of the chapter, I

reviewed the literature about the for-profit sector, with a specific focus on the

attributes of interest associated with their control—the functions, governance

and administration of for-profit colleges. This section used a comparative

approach to distinguish the attributes of the for-profit sector vis-a-vis those of

public institutions, using Ontario colleges of applied arts and technology as the

comparator.


100

This study is about procedural diversity, the way that educational

processes are implemented in Ontario’s non-degree postsecondary sector. To

set the context for the study, I have described Ontario’s for-profit college sector

and the marketplace in which it operates. Both its clientele and programming

have been described in comparison to those of the province’s community

colleges; together these two sub-sectors define the non-degree sector. My

hypothesis is that the nature of the educational processes and the particular

methods of implementing those processes are different in a for-profit college.

This procedural diversity is a natural outcome of the systematic diversity of

Ontario’s non-degree sector. Because of the inherent differences in their

functions, governance and administrative practices, educational processes in for-

profit colleges are different than those in public colleges. Control does matter.

In the next chapter, I review the literature about educational processes in

the for-profit sector and reference the ‘best practices’ literature about effective

learning environments to further develop the theoretical framework for the

study.


101

CHAPTER 3: THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: AN EDUCATIONAL

PROCESSES MODEL

3.1. Educational Processes in For Profit Colleges

For purposes of this study, ‘educational processes’ is the term used to

describe a sub-set of institutional activities, policies and procedures that impact

how the students’ experience their education. Included in the use of the term

are four general categories:

1. Curriculum, defined as “the content or subject matter taught (and

presumably learned), together with any particular instructional

methodology, within any particular timing or sequencing (or structure)

associated with the content” (Johnstone & Maloney, 1998, p. 24);

2. In-class activities, including instructional strategies and student

evaluation;

3. Out-of-class activities;

4. Assessment which Wolverton (1994) as “the means by which educators

gain feedback about what works and what needs to be improved... The

ultimate goal is to enhance classroom effectiveness in order to improve

student learning” (Wolverton, 1994, p. 1).

These educational processes describe more fully Birnbaum’s three types of

procedural diversity: delivery systems, student policies and administrative

processes” (Birnbaum, 1983, p. 43). And while Birnbaum minimizes the impact

of procedural diversity, Dill and Teixeira (2000) identify procedures and

processes as one locus of innovation in a privatizing postsecondary environment.

In this first section of the chapter, I summarize what has been written

about educational processes in FPCs. Given what the literature has said about

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector Chapter 3: The Conceptual Framework

102

the differences in control between FPCs and public colleges, one might assume

similar differences in educational processes. Yet, this conclusion is by no means

a given. Hittman (1995) notes, “the primary functions of delivery of education

are similar, regardless of the type of institution” (Hittman, 1995, p. 22). As

already cited, but worth repeating, Sweet (1993) notes that the typical

proprietary school is a small, even very small and asserts that “(S)ize plays a role

in determining the level of educational technology and even pedagogical

sophistication available to a school” (Sweet, 1993, p. 42). He concludes:

“The internal organization of community colleges and PVTS is highly similar in the sense that classroom instruction in both is characterized by

use of the same pedagogical techniques and strategies” (p. 43).

On the other hand, Ruch (2001), in his study of the five largest for-profit

providers offers a somewhat different conclusion:

“... it seems clear that the for-profits... have essentially taken the traditional model of higher education—students seated in the classroom and a professor up front—and subjected it to modern principles of operations management, cost accounting, financial management, and marketing. The result has been an efficient, cost-effective, alternative route to a college degree, albeit with a somewhat limited focus on pragmatic, applications-oriented instruction” (Ruch, 2001, p. 148).

These large for-profit providers have developed standardized curricula

aimed at the employment market. Employers are contacted and provide advice

and review at each step of the development process “to make sure that we are

not overengineering or underengineering what the needs of the marketplace are”

(Kartus, 2000, p. 45). A senior vice-president at Strayer University presents the

competitive advantages of this practice:

“By listening to them (advisory boards of local businesspeople) and acting on their suggestions, we can usually beat our competition—the publicly

funded universities—because they're not set up to react to change so quickly. They can’t change their curriculum every six months, but you have to do that when you offer high technology courses” (ibid.).

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 3: The Conceptual Framework

103

This responsiveness to the employer marketplace aligns with student

needs and human capital theory. An education sector analyst, commenting on

the demand for higher education, contends that students seek higher education

because of an expected increase in lifetime earnings. The report references

aspects of control differences to explain why for-profit education is more able to

respond to a changing marketplace:

“...we believe that these companies (for-profit education) are better positioned to modify their curriculum to meet the changing needs of today’s students and employers” (Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation, 1999).

Standardized educational processes also align with sector management

practices, specifically measurement and control. A for-profit operator explains

how his college is set up as a chain of campuses delivering a centrally controlled

curriculum. These individual campuses can be likened to a franchise, a simile

that has resulted in the McEducation charge; that is, it provides the same

product, delivered in the same fashion at all its locations (Martin & Samuels,

1998). Some perceive this as an advantage:

“In as fragmented an industry as higher education, where the difficulty of quality assessment has provided a whole cottage industry of rankings, screens, et cetera, operations of this sort were bound to emerge as guarantors of quality” (Kartus, 2000, p. 42).

Kartus (2000), examining the growth models of the major, publicly traded

FPCs, contends that the centralized curriculum model is a key element in their

growth:

“The big advantage of centralized curriculum is that it enables growth. Existing curricula can be taught in newly acquired or newly started locations, and new curricula can be developed or acquired by purchasing existing schools. Both strategies are widely used by the for-profits”

(Kartus, 2000, p. 58).

Two traditional practices of higher education are altered by this

educational process. First, the faculty teaching the courses do not create the

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 3: The Conceptual Framework

104

curriculum. Rene Champaign, president of ITT, one of the larger for-profit

education companies, explains:

“... in our system, faculty do not have the freedom to alter curriculum content once it has been agreed to... They do have the freedom to deliver the content in any acceptable way that they can create to motivate the student to learn. But they can’t add anything to the content without getting prior approval. This is because we are so employment oriented, we want to make sure that employers are involved in the process rather than just faculty members” (Kartus, 2000, p 58).

Second, textbooks, syllabi and lesson plans may be standardized and

delivered to faculty who are hired to teach the courses. As one might expect,

these practices have evoked criticism. Some education experts say that when

instructors teach courses not designed by themselves, “they show less

consistency and less in-depth understanding of the material” (Rewick, 2001).

Pusser and Doane (2001), looking into a future that is characterized by more

competition and more for-profit providers, note:

“There is also a danger that an important part of the academic process, the preparation of course content, will move out of the traditional academic departments, possibly into for-profit concerns” (Pusser & Doane, 2001, p. 15).

To rationalize this practice, Sperling and Tucker (1997) position it as an

improvement to current practice in traditional higher education where the

professor owns the curriculum:

“... what is required of the students and what learning outcomes will be met and evaluated is almost always at the discretion of the individual faculty member. From the viewpoint of quality management, such a system lacks necessary components. There are no specified learning outcomes, the instructional process is limited to the style and skills of

each instructor and there is excessive subjectivity in judging the amount and quality of what students have learned” (Sperling & Tucker, 1997, p.

92.)

The literature also includes references to the way that the curriculum is

designed and delivered in the FPC sector. Implicit in these descriptions is a link

to both the functions and administration in the for-profit sector:


105

“The typical program in a proprietary school organizes courses into sequential units, each of which covers a discrete topic. Each segment might last a specific period of time. For example a cosmetology course of 1200 hours would probably be organized into a dozen or more instructional units, with each covering a specific skill necessary for the

student to become a practicing cosmetologist... These units are viewed as independent distinct segments that the student should learn before proceeding to the next phase.

Further, private career school programs have few, if any options in the curriculum. All students in the same program usually take the same courses in identical sequence (Lee & Merisotis, 1990, p. 18).

This sequential course structure is consistent with program delivery at

Primetech Institute, described in chapter 2; it has also been adopted by the

University of Phoenix: “It’s a very economical model as there are no electives

and students take fixed courses of 5 weeks or whatever and tuition is nominal”

(Levin, in James, 2002). Sweet (1996) puts a somewhat different spin on the

same topic; commenting on the efficiency of Canada’s PVTS, he states:

“Program duration is an important issue to the proprietary sector. Where most college courses are built around the semester or term, PVTS programs are only as long as required for students to acquire the essential skills. This minimizes the cost of training, both in tuition and in earning time lost” (Sweet, 1996, p. 38)

Hyslop and Parsons (1995) describe practices at the MoTech Education

Centers as an example of curriculum innovation in the for-profit section. These

centers provide training for selective technologies in automobile industry in

Michigan. Responding to student needs, the operators designed a

developmental studies program around applied skills.

“Examples included in reading and mathematics courses were drawn from on-the-job experiences students were likely to encounter upon

employment. The real world helped students to understand the material in a context that was relevant to them. As a result, retention increased

within the institutions” (Hyslop & Parsons, pp. 44- 45).

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 3: The Conceptual Framework

106

The only research study that I was able to find about delivery in the FPCs

examined the teaching styles of instructors operated by the National Education

Centre (Girondi & Galbraith, 1993). The authors found that FPC instructors were

very knowledgeable in their discipline and had a strong preference for the

teacher-directed mode of instruction. They conclude with recommendations

about professional development, especially in adult learning and development

principles, noting that “subject expertise is not enough to guarantee that

effective instructional processes will take place in the educational encounter”

(Girondi & Galbraith, 1993, p. 33). Ruch (2001) provides a possible explanation:

“Intellectual passion, disciplinary specialty, and deep engagement with material are not particularly well understood by the business side. Teaching is viewed as a fundamentally straightforward activity involving artful presentation of material, repetition of key concepts, and reinforcement of learning through testing and grading” (Ruch, 2001, p. 118).

While these references about curriculum and delivery are minimal, writers

have had more to say about the environment in the FPCs. Wilms (1987), in his

large-scale study of the U.S. proprietary schools, links the environment to

student needs, a theme that is recurrent in the literature and links to the

literature about clientele served:

“,..appeal is for students who didn’t do well in high school and lack confidence in their ability to succeed in a more conventional educational setting. ‘We do a certain amount of hand-holding here. We've got to. Many students come to us as educational failures. To succeed with them we've got to help them succeed. Keeping the job in sight all the time is one of the best motivators I know’ Johnston (president of a school) explained” (Wilms, 1987, p. 12).

Morris (1993) interviewed students in a Los Angeles FPC and described

the learning environment as “paternalistic”. Yet, the interviewees accepted these

conditions as a necessary aspect of their occupational training (Morris, 1993, p.

45). Sweet (1991) notes that advising and tutoring are extant in Canadian

proprietary correspondence schools and that both must be sufficient to develop


107

independent learning skills and critical thinking skills “required for adaptive

behaviour in a rapidly changing workplace” (Sweet, 1991, p. 54). While this

study is primarily about distance education, he generalizes his comments to

include community colleges and private vocational schools. His focus is access

and student needs:

“In the advising area two issues have been identified: providing adequate support for students who lack the necessary independent learning skills (Feasley, 1983): and counseling women whose position in the educational system often reinforces their limited opportunities in the labour force (Bray, 1988; Coulter, 1989)” (p. 54).

Moore (1995) is more descriptive about the intervention strategies that

the FPCs employ:

“Perhaps most important, proprietary schools lavish individual attention on students. Students who are absent for several days will be called at home by instructors. Admissions representatives will help students overcome barriers that may keep them from attending. Faculty are held accountable for retaining students in their classes and carefully monitoring their progress” (Moore, 1995, p.78)

Ruch further explains attendance policies: “Aside from the financial aid

disbursement issue, the strict attendance policy provides students with a

motivation to be disciplined about their use of time” (Ruch, 2001, p. 134).

However, practices that support retention and completion can put pressure on

faculty:

“The corporate emphasis on student retention and completion rates...

does indeed put pressure on the faculty... While there is no explicit mandate to go easy on students or to be an easy grader, there is nonetheless some pressure to do so. This is where some would say that academic freedom and academic rigor are being compromised” (p. 131).

Career advising is also cited in the research, a direct link to literature

about function:

“,..placement personnel also provide an array of services designed to support the achievement of this goal (placement). Active students are exposed to a variety of career awareness activities. Such activities include inviting guest lecturers from industry to speak to the current students,


108

administering occupational aptitude tests to help students develop career objectives, and sponsoring job fairs that are designed to bring together potential employers and students nearing completion of their course of study, as well as current students needing part-time employment” (Hittman, 1995, p. 23).

Again, Ruch provides a business rationale for these student advising services,

including academic advising, career counseling and personal counseling. “From

a purely business standpoint, these activities are seen as contributing to the

bottom line through improved retention, completion and placement rates” (Ruch,

2001, p. 133).

The literature, especially recent works about publicly-traded for-profit

colleges and universities, emphasizes review and continuous improvement.

Kartus (2000) comments on the stringent nature of faculty evaluation, a topic

that Ruch explains from his insider’s perspective:

“The use of the word supervised is not meant to imply that deans stand by with a stopwatch and clipboard. However, for-profit deans visit the classrooms regularly and provide faculty with written observations, which are then discussed” (Ruch, 2001, p. 128).

Wilms (1987) describes how “most schools evaluate their teachers frequently

and base salary increases on their effectiveness in the classroom” (Wilms, 1987,

p. 15).

Prager (1995) contends that the FPC’s business imperative to achieve

accreditation has prompted their emphasis on review and continuous

improvement and that accreditation has led to higher standards: “Of necessity,

private career colleges have responded substantively to more stringent

accreditation standards brought about by public pressure for accountability due

to student loan default” (Prager, 1995, p. 63). She goes on to cite the

Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges of Technology (ACCSCT)’

Standards of Accreditation (1993) to describe the nature of the accreditation:

“... stresses the importance of outcomes measures, including not only quantitative indices such as graduation rates, placement records, employer satisfaction, student satisfaction, and student success over time


109

but also qualitative ones such as ‘specific skills, knowledge and behaviours’ achieved by students as a direct result of participation in a training program... the ACCSCT makes explicit the evidentiary basis for determining outcomes within their Standards” (p. 66).

Chaloux (1995) examines state oversight and how it is different for FPCs

and traditional institutions:

“While specific criteria that states use to evaluate an institution may vary significantly, a general framework emerges from an analysis of state regulation. The categories most often found in state regulations are purposes and objectives, administration and governance, finance, curriculum, faculty, physical plant, library, student services, admissions and refund policy, publications, and college records (Chaloux, 1985A)” (Chaloux, 1995, p. 87).

As already cited, but worth repeating, Kutz (1989) re-introduces a familiar

argument about the for-profits, distinguishing public accountabilities from those

of for-profit providers. The context of the paper is the opening of new for-profit

providers in Saskatchewan:

“Most persons I spoke with emphasized the fundamental differences between educational organizations that are accountable to the public through systematic and comprehensive monitoring/reporting mechanisms, and those which have only the profit motive to satisfy. Putting ‘bums on seats’ and not providing quality education is the prime objective for the latter” (Kutz, 1989, p. 53).

Ruch (2001) counters this contention with his observation about the for-

profit dean, a role he fulfilled at DeVry University:

“,.. the for-profit dean is required to provide ongoing measures of student academic performance and satisfaction, both of which are seen as vital to the health of the business and, ultimately, to academic quality” (Ruch, 2001, p. 114).

Sperling and Tucker’s (1997) description of the University of Phoenix

educational model emphasizes assessment. As they note, “The University of

Phoenix measures everything that is or might possibly be important to the

academic standards, practices and outcomes of the institution” (Sperling &

Tucker, 1997, p. 100). In their polemic on for-profit education, they outline the


110

University of Phoenix’s educational processes, including how they profile

incoming students:

Students are asked “what major and professional goals they hope to achieve...what instructional methods are the most effective in helping them assimilate and retain knowledge...” (p. 100).

“a three hour entrance assessment provides each student with a baseline appraisal of his or her current level of achievement.... A personalized five-to-ten page report... provides a profile of his or her academic strengths and weaknesses” (p. 104).

How they organize student (and faculty) input about curriculum and delivery:

“All courses are field tested, evaluated and revised prior to their adoption

throughout the university. Once a course is installed, data from the Student End-of-Course Surveys, Faculty End-of-Course Surveys and the Student Comment Analysis System are provided to instructors, curriculum design specialists, and program heads to determine if the course is meeting its design criteria and is doing so comparably at all the university’s campuses” (p. 93).

The university has also developed a comprehensive assessment program

that measures individual student growth as well as institutional achievement:

“outcomes assessment is a family of interdependent measures designed to evaluate the extent to which the institution is accomplishing its fundamental mission and purposes, first in terms of achieving the desired learning outcomes for students, and second in terms of having a

measurable and positive impact on the personal and professional lives of students” (pp. 103-104).

In discussing the impact of the for-profit structure, especially in

comparison to traditional education, the authors are explicit in relating these

educational processes to both innovation and their success as a for-profit

institution:

“A for-profit structure cleared the way for innovations that were useful and accountable to the customer. For example, the educational process was conceived as a production function with the goal of producing a given level of educational services at the least cost” (p. 98-99).


111

In summary, the literature about educational processes in the for-profit

sector, while minimal, seems to link procedural diversity to differences in control.

Curriculum and delivery are organized to be responsive and cost effective and to

establish standards; these characteristics are important elements of growth. The

environment in the FPCs is supportive of the needs of the clientele, and

assessment and continuous improvement practices are tied to function,

governance and administrative and management practices.

Furthermore, the literature cites innovation and implies a connection

between educational processes and the marketization of higher education. In his

exploration of this new competitive environment and the economics of entry,

Winston (1999) concludes that some small colleges with meager donative

resources and small student populations will not survive. Perhaps more

importantly, especially to my study, he forecasts an impact on diversification:

“the wealthier, high-subsidy schools will be forced to clarify what it is they sell, educationally, and whom they will allow to produce it. The second point will raise sticky issues of intellectual property and ownership and governance and autonomy” (Winston, 1999, p. 18).

Just as relevant is Cheng and Levin’s (1995) study about who goes to for-

profit colleges and their recommendation about the study of educational

processes:

“ On a practical level, we recommend that market researchers carefully examine the strategies used by proprietaries and community colleges, including their effectiveness and efficiency as related to mission” (Cheng & Levin, 1995, p. 58).

The question is: How does one design a study to describe educational

processes in the for-profit sector? Robson (1993) recommends the development

of a conceptual framework that “covers the main features (aspects, dimensions,

factors, variables) of a case study and their presumed relationships” (Robson,

1993, p. 150). A sound conceptual framework, while it may change through the

course of the study, nevertheless,


112

“helps you to be selective; to decide which are the important features; which relationships are likely to be of importance or meaning; and hence, what data you are going to collect and analyze” (pp. 150-151).

To develop this framework, I reviewed the literature about educational processes

in postsecondary education (as opposed to only those references to procedural

diversity in the literature of for-profit education). The goal was to develop a best

practices framework that would prompt the research questions and structure the

analysis of the data. The notion of ‘best practices’ was adopted early as

appropriate to a descriptive case study.

3.2. Best Practices Models

Green and Stark (1988) propose four levels at which “research-based

interventions might produce improvements” in educational processes. The

authors describe these levels as

activities—“the activities of teaching and learning, either as distinct or mutually dependent activities amenable to research and improvement”

actors— “specific characteristics of teachers and learners that might be key to needed improvements”

formal organization—‘the strengths and weaknesses of the formal organization for providing teaching and learning, including their effects on activities and actors”

The fourth proposed intervention addresses purpose and assessment:

“It may be important to obtain greater consensus among administrators,

faculty, students, and employers about what is important to learn. Lack of consensus about educational purpose has been exacerbated by long- standing neglect of ways to measure learning” (Green & Stark, 1988, p.

8).

The best practices literature examines current practices and promulgates

interventions to improve outcomes. Underpinning this literature is a premise that


113

the new post-secondary learner is more diverse, and more at-risk (Jacoby, 2000)

and that new practices are required consistent with Trow’s (1973) predictions

about the massification of higher education. Boggs (1996) captures an essential

criticism, noting, “a disturbing and dangerous mismatch exists between what

American society needs of higher education and what it is receiving. Nowhere is

the mismatch more dangerous than in the quality of undergraduate education

provided on many campuses” (Boggs, 1996, p. 25). His observation is but one

in a list of critiques starting with the Wingspread Group in 1984 that lamented

that “although much is known about the conditions under which student

learning and growth can be maximized, ... colleges, community colleges and

universities rarely seek and apply this knowledge in shaping their educational

policies and practices” (Jacoby, 2000, p. 3). In 1993, the Wingspread Group

was even more critical:

“Too much of education at every level seems to be organized for the convenience of educators and the institution's interests, procedures and prestige, and too little focused on the needs of students” (Boggs, 1996, p. 25.)

From this body of work, I chose three researchers/writers who have

developed best practices models. The rationale for choosing these three is that

each writes about improving the environment for learning, including best

practices for educational processes. Each is comprehensive, albeit in different

ways. The research is timely, having been published in the 1990s. In total, they

examine a mix of contexts, including Canadian higher education. (Donald’s

research sites are situated in the U.S., but she references her previous Canadian-

based research.) Each develops a research-grounded model of effective

educational processes.

These three primary references also complement each other both in terms

of their purposes as well as their research methodologies. Gardiner (1994)

reviews the empirical research about educational practices as they impact

student development in U.S. colleges and universities; his focus is on mass


114

education. Donald (1997) references the empirical research as the framework

for her qualitative research of practices within high-reputation universities. Her

study relates findings based on her structured interviews of educators in four

U.S. research universities. O’Banion (1999) provides findings about how the

learning college is being implemented in community colleges across North

America, including Sir Sandford Fleming College, one of Ontario's public colleges.

The ‘learning college’ is a construct or a new paradigm that relies on three

bodies of research which O’Banion cites—about effective post-secondary

practices, about learning communities and about the learning organization.

In this section of the chapter, I analyze each best practices model and

then synthesize the three of them into an educational processes model that

frames the study.

3.2.1. Gardiner’s Model of Educational Processes

Gardiner’s research emerges from the critical era of the 1980s which

addressed the shortcomings of American higher education (Boyer, 1990). He is

particularly concerned with “the new students”, those “far more representative of

Americans as a whole than their predecessors (and) also less well educated and

thus less well prepared for college than their relatively more privileged peers”

(Gardiner, 1994, p. 2). Within this background, Gardiner “brings together the

findings of hundreds of studies on various aspects of higher education.” He

focuses on four key areas: curriculum, instruction, campus psychological climate

and academic advising (p. 4) and concludes that “the research reviewed...

strongly suggests that, by determinedly focusing on improving the quality of their

educational processes, many institutions can achieve dramatic gains in student

development” (p. 95).

Gardiner begins his study by describing the research about cognitive

development, noting that this “new knowledge about student development has

become essential if colleges are to understand their diverse student clients and


115

design educational experiences that can meet their needs” (p. 9), He concludes

his description of the development of higher order cognitive skills, noting that

given the complexity of cognitive development,

“our instruction needs to be carefully designed so that wherever he or she is developmentally situated, a student can engage in personally meaningful activities in a broad diversity of disciplinary, moral, emotional, and social contexts that can ease movement toward the next higher level of complexity” (p. 19).

He summarizes his research on cognitive development by proposing five

specific conditions to foster the development of higher education competencies:

1. Challenging activities aimed just above students’ current levels of development. A supportive environment.

Sustained, diverse, and appropriate active involvement in learning. High expectations about the quality of outcomes. Clearly defined outcomes, frequent assessment and prompt feedback (pp. 23-24).

“RwWN

Given these criteria, Gardiner begins his review of his four core areas. His

study of curriculum begins with an investigation of the impact of a distributed

Curriculum model, whereby students choose their courses from a broad array.

He notes that

“the curriculum should be more than a sum of constituent parts. In both general education and a student’s major field of concentration, it should serve as a map to integrate the parts and help construct a coherent, thought-out view of self and the world” (p. 25).

Yet, the findings reveal that the distributed model, which is prevalent in

U.S. colleges and universities, has resulted in a “notable absence of structure

and coherence” (p. 29). Gardiner’s solution is to improve the quality of academic

advising so that students receive important advice about what courses to select

from the menu of available courses. He cites a study that concludes that

students do not select courses associated with gains in learned abilities and that

different curriculum patterns could contribute to general learned abilities (p. 32).

His own conclusion about higher education’s curricula is more pointed:


116

“In most cases, curriculum is unfocused by clear statements of intended outcomes that permit naive students broad choices among courses resulting in markedly different outcomes than those imagined... Institutions need far better information about their students’ developmental needs as they enter the institution and their achievement as they move through their curricula.... Regular assessment is essential to students’ development. In addition, advising must be far more sophisticated to orient and guide our widely diverse students as they construct curricular paths most appropriate to their individual development” (pp. 34-35).

Gardiner’s review of instructional practices focuses on four key aspects of

instruction: instructional methods; the intellectual climate and degree of active

involvement students experience; the quality of assessment of learning

outcomes; faculty grading practices (p. 37). He begins by posing a question

based on professional practice accepted by experts:

“,..to what degree are the courses we teach characterized by clearly defined outcomes, effective means of assessing results, and timely feedback for students on their progress; high expectations; a challenging environment for the development of higher order skills; and a sustained high level of diverse and active involvement in learning for students” (ibid.)?

Gardiner is critical of the use of the lecture as the ‘pervasive’ instructional

strategy. He notes that “students who benefit most from lectures are those who

are ‘brighter,’ better educated, and from families of higher socioeconomic status,

in other words, presumably those students with relatively highly developed

abstract reasoning skills” (p. 35). He cites a number of studies that support the

ineffectiveness of the lecture, especially in place of other activities that have

been found to be conducive to learning. These include question and answer

sessions, interaction among students, high level cognitive responses from

students in class and research-based methods of instruction, including mastery

learning, integrated systems of instruction and cooperative learning.

Next, he reviews students’ commitment to their learning. He notes that

“serious learning requires students’ sustained effort outside the classroom” (p.


117

51), yet studies reveal that the number of hours spent studying is declining. This

seemingly low expectation is continued in the area of student assessment: “...

most college and university classroom assessments ask students merely to recall

isolated facts or bits of information” (p. 61). And he does not let up with respect

to the use of grades as a measure of student learning, noting that “their

meaning is often unclear and their interpretation difficult” (p. 67). Counter this

with the ideal:

“A high-quality educational process uses assessment formatively to ensure that all ‘products’ are of high quality and communicates results continuously to students in meaningful ways” (p. 68).

Gardiner’s section on campus climate is the weakest, in that he does not

develop a substantive list of descriptors to assess how and to what extent a

higher education climate is conducive to student learning. He notes the

importance of a “campus climate that encourages success” (p. 100). And he

notes that commuter students are disadvantaged over those who reside on

campus (p. 76) and that a “lack of faculty members’ engagement (in student life

and nonacademic matters) with students limits the positive developmental

effects we can and should have (p. 77).

Academic advising to Gardiner is a broad-based activity founded on the

reality of the ‘new’ student:

“Few have a sophisticated understanding of higher education or skills in personal or career planning, and many have never been taught how to learn or been informed of the need to take an active role in their own learning. Large numbers are underprepared for the academic work we ask of them” (p. 87).

In a model that anticipates a key element of the learning college, Gardiner

proposes faculty-based academic advising that impacts students’ “ability to

understand their own development, clarify their personal values and goals, plan

an appropriate developmental curriculum and other educational experiences...”

(p. 87).


118

The research findings, however, portray a different state of advising.

“Academic advising... functions primarily as a means of dispensing information to

students.” Furthermore, “we passively wait for our students to come to us”

while authorities recommend more intrusive, active advising processes (p. 90).

Faculty are the most likely academic advisors, yet “faculty members are still

ordinarily untrained for this important and complex work...” (p. 91); their

recognition and reward is most often only a minor consideration in the promotion

and tenure process (p. 92). The results are that students “perceive our

apparent indifference toward our relationship with them” (ibid.).

Gardiner proposes “seven specific changes we can make, each one of

which can improve students’ learning and together can lead to significant gains

in an institution’s overall capacity to produce learning” (p. 6). Table 15:

Gardiner’s Model of Educational Processes summarizes Gardiner’s proposed

model.


119

Table 15: Gardiner’s Model of Educational Processes

Elements of the Model Descriptors Clear Missions and Goals Mission statements are translated into more specific

goals and objectives to be fully useful on an operational level.

Educational missions, values and goals are clear for everyone.

Knowledge of results The assessment of student learning outcomes guide development of individual students.

There is regular assessment of student learning.

Assessment is used to monitor and continuously improve

the quality of programs.

Coherent Curricula Specific outcomes are defined.

Curriculum is aimed at the right level of student cognition.

Curricula is actively managed through the valid and reliable assessment of results and processes.

Research-based methods of | Mass instruction is individualized. instruction

Students are actively involved in learning at every point (inside/outside classroom; academic/nonacademic/co- curricular)

Research developed methods of instruction replace the lecture.

Evaluation practices motivate students.

Campus Climate There is a supportive, validating learning environment in every classroom.

Students and faculty interact out-of-class.

Learning to learn strategies | Students’ learning skills are assessed; students are taught specific methods of learning and metacognition. Developmental academic Trained advisors provide thorough assessment of a advising student’s characteristics and feedback, guidance and

mentoring. Academic advising is intrusive and active.


120

3.2.2. Donald’s Model for Improving the Environment for Learning

Janet Donald’s research (1997) incorporates the literature about

educational processes with the findings from her interviews with educators from

four ‘best practices’ research universities in the United States—University of

Arizona, Pennsylvania State University, Northwestern University and Syracuse

University. Her focus is similar to Gardiner’s; as she states, “students, the

teaching and learning process, and assessment of learning, of programs and of

instruction, are central to the discussion (Donald, 1997, p. 10). Her fundamental

research question is:

“What characteristics of institutions of higher education enable students to learn” (p. 27)?

In building her model, Donald supports many of Gardiner’s findings

(although, interestingly, his work is not cited in her references), starting with the

need for a clear statement of mission. Donald approaches mission development

as a means for the university to deal with the variety of competing demands and

to prioritize student learning.

“The various demands require a different ordering of priorities within postsecondary institutions or among them, leading to differentiated patterns of learning. Within an institution, this increases the need for a clear mission statement and an equally clear statement of how that mission will be undertaken (p. 21).

However, as she states in the book’s preface: “Such statements are welcome, to

the extent that they provide context and guidelines for academic leaders to work

within. But they are rarely translated and realized at the most basic level... the

classroom” (p. xii).

Donald examines the structure and functions of university disciplines

(sciences, social sciences and humanities) as a way of establishing the degree of

coherence of the curriculum. She notes that “the discipline, to a large extent,

determines the learning objectives of courses and programs, the kinds of

pedagogical and learning strategies utilized, and the methods of evaluation


121

employed” (p. 31). Drawing on her extensive prior research about the role of

disciplines in learning (Donald, 1995; 1993), she concludes that the “surrounding

disciplinary culture and specific learning outcomes create distinct learning

climates (p. 40). She summarizes the importance of this distinction by noting

that

“The degree of coherence or structure within a discipline and the principal methods of inquiry affect the quality of learning. In well-structured disciplines, the knowledge structures and modes of inquiry are more likely to be reinforced in the various courses in a program” (p. 54)

The message is consistent: Curriculum coherence is a characteristic of effective


Donald resumes her study by examining student selection, noting that the

characteristics that students bring to the learning situation “affect what and how

much they learn, and so they themselves form an important part of the

environment for learning (p. 55). Donald develops two models of student

selection. The attributional model is highly selective and is prevalent in high-

reputation universities where student success is assured and predicated on the

fact that these students have always been successful. The environmental model,

on the other hand, pays more attention to student development; “a judicious

amount of academic advising ensures that students develop to their full

potential” (p. 58). Thus nestled within an institution’s selection process are

decisions about student retention and about policies and practices that impact

the educational processes. Donald seems to focus on an environmental model

through the remainder of her study. She notes the importance of ‘fit’ between

an institution and its students and the role of admissions policies and orientation

programs in preparing students for their learning.

“To identify the characteristics that enable students to learn, educational institutions must determine the fit of the student to the institution, then set procedures in place to ensure that students are oriented to learning when they arrive, and that the curriculum and instruction and the general learning milieu fit student needs” (p. 78).


122

She returns to this point later in the book and, as a ‘best practice’

recommendation advises institutions “to identify what constitutes general

academic preparedness and what student characteristics enable them to learn

and develop” (p.240).

Donald notes that one of the most important criteria of excellence for

postsecondary students is a commitment to learning (p. 79). She continues her

study by investigating practices that an institution might implement to motivate

students. Her analysis connects student goals to motivation and learning.

Student goals emerge as important variables in what is actually learned (as

opposed to what the instructors intend to be learned), in how rewarded students

feel about their learning and to what extent they take responsibility for their

learning (pp. 84-85). Student goals are also directly linked to individual student's

motivation and orientation to learning, which is captured in the term ‘situated

motivation.’

“Situated motivation has been used to describe the phenomenon of

students’ motivation to learn being affected by their history of success and the relative incentives provided by different learning situations (Paris and Turner, 1994)” (p.91).

She continues to cite this research, noting that academic tasks that

motivate learning have four characteristics: choice, challenge, control and

collaboration (ibid.). She further lists the following approaches and programs

that heighten student motivation: student advising, curriculum organization, a

learning community, a closer coordination between academic and student life,

more faculty-student interaction and experiential learning programs (pp. 93-

105).

Next, Donald focuses on instructional improvement. She observes that

what professors want students to learn is often incompatible with the

instructional and evaluation methods they are currently using (p. 111). The

research notes that instructional improvement must focus on “understanding

how professors can foster ... learning and create a supportive learning


123

environment in their classes” (p.113). The first step is to specify the “learning

outcomes the teacher wants to achieve” (ibid.) while focusing on the leaner.

Understanding student preferences is also important:

“At whatever level of intellectual development, students’ preferences for teaching strategies are for active, connected, and challenging learning, described as making the classroom active, getting students involved, connecting learning to real life, and creating opportunities for mutual respect (Baxter Magolda, 1992)” (p. 116).

To improve instruction at an institutional level, effective teaching must be

recognized and in ways that are “consistent with the institution’s mission and

values, and communicate those values to the community” (p. 138).

Furthermore, an orientation for new faculty is a teaching improvement practice

that meets with considerable approval (p. 153).

Like Gardiner, Donald devotes considerable text to assessment, both

assessment of learning outcomes and institutional assessment. She notes the

difficulty of establishing a meaningful learning outcomes assessment program in

a university, citing the highly diverse and uncontrolled student experiences and

the difficulty of defining and measuring outcomes at the institutional level. Her

Proposed solution is to develop assessment programs that would operationalize

the educational mission at the program level (p. 178). Strategies include

developing program or department competencies, capstone courses,

independent research projects and comprehensive exams, each of which

establishes a standard. At the level of individual students, a proposed strategy is

to develop a learning contract or set of guidelines that describe the knowledge

and skills that the student should be developing along with estimates of time

commitment (p. 181).

Institutional assessment is useful only if it is used to improve practice. To

do so, it must be consistent with the mission of the university and respond to its

priorities (p. 240). Donald’s model is summarized in Table 16: Donald’s Model

for Improving the Environment for Learning.


124

Table 16: Donald’s Model for Improving the Environment for Learning

Elements of the Model Descriptors

Mission and Goals The university’s mission is implemented at the program level through an assessment program.

Standards are established (competencies, capstone courses, projects, comprehensive exams.)

Curriculum Students’ goals match the demands of the curriculum.

The curriculum is coherent. Cross-disciplinary courses and projects add to this coherence.

Learning outcomes are clearly articulated.

Student Selection Admissions policies and orientation establish ‘fit’ of the student to the institution.

Institutions identify student characteristics and preparedness.

Fostering student motivation | A learning community is created. for learning

An advising system provides students with meaningful information.

Students are oriented to the nature of their learning, including the workload; they are helped to set goals and to become self-regulated.

Small-group experiences are created.

Students are given choice, challenge, control and collaboration in their learning tasks to improve attitudes to learning.


Table 16/continued

125


Instructional Practices Specific courses and programs introduce students to the institution.

Faculty are connected with first year students.

Instructional practices focus on the learner, specify learning outcomes and provide a wide range of active learning strategies.

Evaluation methods promote learning.

Students provide feedback so that instruction can be improved.

Assessment to define tasks

and to measure learning Assessment procedures are used to review the curriculum.

The expected outcomes of programs of study are articulated and made available to students.

Ongoing assessment of teaching and learning is part of the department’s practices.

Entry-level abilities and attitudes are assessed. Overall student progress is assessed and followed-up with retention and achievement studies. Assessment to improve the environment for learning Assessment takes into account the institution’s

mission, program objectives and measures of performance.

Performance indicators are meaningful across units yet specific enough to guide improvement within a program.


126

3.2.3. O’Banion’s Learning College Model

Terry O’Banion’s monograph (1999) presents a model, best practices and

implementation strategies for colleges that wish to become ‘learning colleges.’

Fundamental to this initiative is a commitment on the part of the institution to

make learning its highest priority (O’Banion, 1999, p. 2). He confronts the

anticipated response that all colleges are committed to student learning by

noting that many institutions reward other priorities including the efficient use of

resources, administrative ease, faculty retention, institutional reputation leading

to more funding support and research (ibid.). A second commitment is to be

prepared to overhaul the traditional architecture of higher education which is

time-bound, place-bound, efficiency-bound and role-bound.

“If we are to make any real progress toward implementing the Learning Revolution, we need to replace the current educational system with a system designed for the kind of society in which we live, designed for the kinds of students who attend college, and designed to take advantage of new research on learning and new applications of information technology” (p. 3).

O’Banion’s purpose in writing the monograph is to provide a guide for

those colleges that are considering the transformation towards a more learning-

centred institution. He notes that the concept “provide(s) a frame of reference

institutional leaders can use to chart their own journey in becoming more

learning centred” (p. 5). In that he describes specific activities that pioneer

colleges have undertaken, the research provides descriptors of elements of

educational processes within his model. He begins by reviewing the six key

principles of the learning college:

1. The Learning College creates substantive change in individual learners. Like

Donald and especially Gardiner, O’Banion’s model is developmental. It aligns

with Astin’s Input-Environment-Outcomes model with its emphasis on the talent

development of students and the effectiveness of the educational process in


127

developing student talent (Astin, 1991). Adopting this first principle requires

sustained activities to ensure that the implications are understood and that the

key stakeholders do not return to business as usual.

“...Staff members should engage in a series of rich conversations about definitions of learning that go beyond institutional effectiveness data. There should be discussions regarding the differences among training, education, and learning. Complex constructs regarding surface learning, basic learning, hardy learning, and more powerful learning may emerge from the discussion of personal values and experience in education” (O’Banion, 1999, p. 5)

Later in the monograph, specific measures are suggested to assess an institution’s expression of this commitment to learning. A teaching and learning audit examines the institutional values and practices as expressed through “policies and statements, practices, and related behaviours”

clustered around the following general areas: Institutional Policies and Statements; Student Success Policies; Curriculum Review and Development; Instructional Innovation; Information Technology; Faculty Selection and Development; Instructional Effectiveness (p. 14).

2. The Learning College engages learners in the learning process as full partners

who must assume primary responsibility for their own choices. O’Banion

envisions a series of services which are initiated for the learner, including

“assessing the learner's abilities, achievements, values, needs, goals,

expectations, resources and environmental or situational limitations” (p. 6).

This profile of the learner is a key element and includes an assessment of how

the learner learns best. A learning contract is developed; the learner takes

responsibility for selecting the learning options and is provided with an

orientation and opportunities to experiment which “take as much time as is

necessary to meet the needs of the learner” (ibid.).

In a statement consistent with Gardiner’s criticism of the distributed

curriculum model, O’Banion notes, “faculty should also continue to struggle to

define what constitutes a common core of learning for all their students.


128

However, in a more learning-centred college the options for how individuals learn

the common core are greatly increased” (p. 7).

3. The Learning College creates and offers as many options for learning as

possible. O’Banion envisions students working with their academic advisors to

develop an education plan that specifies how students will learn. However, he

acknowledges a reliance on technology for implementation:

“To ‘manage’ the activities and progress of thousands of learners engaged in hundreds of learning options at many different times, at many different levels, in many different locations, the Learning College must rely on expert systems based on advancements in technology... Learning management systems are the breakthroughs that will free education and educators from the time-bound, place-bound and role-bound systems that currently ‘manage’ the educational enterprise” (p. 7).

4. The Learning College assists learners to form and participate in collaborative

learning activities. The creation of communities of participants, student cohorts

and supportive social structures are cited as indicators of implementation of this

principle. As well, O’Banion addresses curriculum coherence through the notion

of learning communities where faculty work together. He cites Gablenick et.al.

(1990):

“Learning communities...purposely restructure the curriculum to link together courses or course work so that students find greater coherence in what they are learning, as well as increased intellectual interaction with faculty and fellow students” (p. 8).

Thus, the Learning College is designed, not only around the unique needs of

individual learners, but also around their needs for association with other

learners (p. 9).

5. The Learning College defines the roles of learning facilitators in response to

the needs of the learner. Both Gardiner and Donald develop transformative

roles and approaches for faculty. In O’Banion’s model, the proposed change is


129

revolutionary: “Everyone employed in the Learning College is a learning

facilitator, including categories formerly designated administration and support

staff” (p. 9). He introduces the term ‘learning consultants’ and suggests four

roles: mentors, learning coaches, architects of connection, managers of

collaboration and integration. Students, also, will play the role of learning

facilitators, consistent with their responsibilities as part of a learning community.

The goal is to “use the resources of the institution to better meet the

needs of students” (ibid.). In suggesting specialized roles for faculty that better

use their talents and skills (course designers, tutors, lecturers, etc.) O’Banion

acknowledges the challenge: “Changing the historical architecture of education

to allow the skills and expertise of the faculty to be better matched to the needs

of learners would be an overwhelming task” (ibid.). He cites specific indicators

of progress: “A number of colleges have created visible signs of their support for

the learning initiative by offering special grants to encourage faculty to focus

their expertise...”(p. 26). But notes also the political and personal dimension

associated with the re-allocation of resources and distinguishes healthy

institutions from unhealthy ones:

“Healthy institutions do not shy away from reallocating resources to make internal changes in their organizations that address new realities and new opportunities to become more learning-centered institutions” (p. 32).

He cites Fleming College’s academic team model as a “dramatic example of how

reallocations of resources can lead to a more creative and workable

organizational structure” (ibid.).

6, The Learning College and its learning facilitators succeed only when improved

and expanded learning can be documented for learners, The goal of this

principle is “to document what students know and what they can do, and to use

this information as the primary measure of success for the learning facilitators

and for the Learning College.” Furthermore, “assessing a learner’s readiness for

a particular learning option is a key part of the initial engagement process and,


130

thereafter, a continuing process embedded in the culture of the institution (p.

10).

Assessment practices underpin the evolution of the learning college.

Many of the pioneer learning colleges have developed models to measure their

progress. For example, Sinclair Community College produced a “Institutional

Effectiveness Model that incorporated vision, mission, core indicators of

effectiveness, and key performance indicators that measured progress toward

continuous improvement targets” (p. 20). Other colleges have their own models

to evaluate teachers and courses, programs and priorities, teams and

organization.

All of the colleges in his study have taken opportunities to develop vision

statements and action plans that will bring the vision to life. O’Banion cites

Wilson (1996) in his use of the terms ‘mission’ and ‘vision’. A mission statement

articulates “the basic purpose of the organization and sets general objectives... A

vision (statement)...describes the future size, shape... it sets specific goals, and

most important, drives and guides action to achieve those goals” (p. 21). In this

way, does O’Banion’s model addresses the challenge of implementing mission at

the level of educational process. O’Banion’s model is presented in Table 17:

O’Banion’s Leaning College Model.


131

Table 17: O’Banion‘s Leaning College Model


Learning is first Mission, values, vision, policies and practices express the principle that learning is first.

All stakeholders understand the principle.

A vision statement is used to drive the institution

towards the mission. (As is the institutional effectiveness model: see below).

Learners are full partners Student participation and involvement are expected.

Learning contracts establish learner responsibilities. Based on a learner profile, each learner has a learning plan.

Orientation and experimentation are provided.

Options for learning Instructional methods are developed in response to needs of the learners.

Academic advising is used to determine what and how students learn.

Technology is used to manage systems.

Collaborative learning Learning communities are developed. opportunities

Student cohorts and supportive social structures are established. Students play the role of learning facilitators.

Faculty develop curriculum coherence.

Roles are defined by the All stakeholders understand their contribution to needs of the learners student learning.

Faculty take on new roles consistent with their skills and aptitudes.

Resources are re-allocated to address learning

priorities.

Learning and progress are Learning outcomes are assessed.

measured A institutional effectiveness model evaluates progress against goals where the first goal is student learning.


132

3.3. An Educational Processes Model

Each of these researches has developed a model of effective educational

processes. The differences in approach, context and conclusions are evident and

consistent. Gardiner makes a case to change practices to improve the

development and learning of the ‘new’ student anticipated in the transition from

elite to mass education. Donald, on the other hand, acknowledges the

complexity of the research university and proposes benchmarks and best

practices grounded in the research and being explored at the four universities

she uses in her research. Donald’s message is that university learning

environments can be improved without changing the traditional purposes and

structures of the university and that this improvement will impact student

learning. O’Banion’s approach is more revolutionary. The Learning College is a

construct with roots in the literature about learning communities and the learning

organization. As a pragmatic model, it marshals the stakeholders of the

disparate functions of the modern community college to one mission: student

learning. The monograph demonstrates that the learning college is more than a

concept, that colleges are making progress as they implement these new


Table 18: Common Elements of the Gardiner, Donald and O’Banion Models

presents a comparison of the three models. The organizers, labeled common

elements, are an amalgam of the Gardiner and Donald models. While O’Banion’s

six principles do not align with traditional elements (curriculum, instruction,

orientation) his descriptors do compare with those of the other models.


omawedl

jenydau0} aul

:¢ 4aydeu>

4opes seubeq-UON

S,OHeIUC Ul

AIsuaAIq JeInpaz0ig

"SJOUIED] 24}

0} ssuodsa

ul pedojenap

o4e Spoujew

JeuoNONYsU]

"UJe9| [IM

Ady} MOY

SULA Ep

Squspnys djey

uojeUewiedxe

“‘pepiAoid ase

saibeqzejs Bulwes]

aay

“uoles0qe}|0> pue

jo..U00 ‘aBuayjeyd

‘g01I0Yy9 UBAIB

Bue SJUapNIS "payee

‘Sjuapnis aJeAHOW

saonde1d uoneNjeag

‘INPs] 9}

soejdas UONONIYSUI

JO SpoujJeW

pedojeAep ydieasay

"‘Bulusea} Ul

PaAjOAU! AJaAIQDe

Sue SJUSapPNIS

Juepnys pue

Bulsiape 2!wapeoy

aie sooueeadxe dnou6

jjews | ‘pazijenpiAipul

si uoNON.gsU!

Sse; uoI}ONYSUT

sasso00id ‘peujuod

Buluses| pue

sjjnsou JO

Juawssesse

@ Ul

payejnope

sue pue

spseu ‘payejnome

yBnosu} pebeuew Ajay

Juspnys Jy

Sewoojno

HBulwes] Ayes}

aie SSWO DINO

Huluses7 *SoSINOD

US8M}Eq SUONDSUUOD

Jea|D "90UaIBYOO

‘sjeoB ,squapnys

yojew pue |

ae aya,

“JUesaYoo SI WNNdWIND

wunjnouind dojanap

Ande

PePSeUUOD “JUSJBYOO

S$! WIN|NdWUND

“‘PSUEp Be SSWODINO dYINedS

wuinjnowind

UOISSILU S}]

SPJPMO UO!NIISU!

9U} SAP JUBWISSSSSe

PUe LOISIA

“UOISSIW @Y]

Pue}sJSpUN SuapjoUsye}s

|v "JSuy

Ss! Buywsea)

:uoissiw UJIM

JUaISISUOD Sue

SEDNDeId pue

salaijod ‘uoIsiA

‘sanjen

“UOISSILW UUM JUdISISUOD

S!] JUBLUSSESSe

|PUOIININSUT

“‘pessesse pue

paysijqejyse sie

spsepuels "JeAa]

WesBod

OU] 12

Pa}UB wedi!

S$! UOISSIW

SUL

"“aAoiJduu! Ajsnonuyuo?

pue JO]IUOW

0} pasn

si JUaLUSSesSYy

"QUOAISAS JO}

JE3/D ave

sjeob pue

sanjen ‘suolssiw

‘JBAQ| WesGoud

auy ye

SaApelgGo pue

sjeob syloads

se passaidxg

S|2OD pue

UOISSI

666T ‘uolueg,O

L667 ‘pjeuog

P66T ‘JeUIPIeS)

S]usWa|g UOWLWOD

SJ>pOW UOIUeg,O

puke pjeuog

‘JoUIpPsed ay}

Jo SJUdWID]y

UOWWOD

:gT 3/qGe1

CET

MomawWel

jenjda.ueD aul

:¢ Jaydeyp

JOPVS 3eHeq-UON

S,OUeIUO Ul

AysuaAIG |eINped04d

*sjeo6 ysuieBe

ssaiBod ayenjens

0} pasn

si JPPOW

SSBUBAIDSYa |eEUOINWSUT

‘passesse

"wei6oud e&

UlUUIM JUSWeACJC

UI

opin

ssojyesipul PDUeWUOLIAag

‘SaIPNys JUBWSAaIYIe

pue UonuUaye

YIM dn-pamoyjjoy

pue peassasse

si ssoiBoud

Juapnys |je18AC

‘saonoeid jo

yed s|

Buiusea; pue

Bulyses] Jo

Juswssasse Hurlobuo

"Wwn|NoWIND "swesBoud

yo Aqijenb

9U} SAOIduU!

AjsnonusjuoD pue

ade sewoojno

Bulwies7] 3U}

MIIAe1 OF

Pasn Ss!

JUaWSsassy JO}UOW

0} pasn

s! JUsUSsOSSY

juassessy

“*BulsIApe DIlwapere

jequswdojansp ‘aAISNqUI

"‘paysiqejyse aue

saunjonujs jeis0s

‘QANDe SPIAOId

SUOSIAPe pauled |

@AluOddns pue

syoYod JUuaepnis

‘SSP)D JO

‘podedxe sie

JUBWSAOAUI 3NO

PesaqU! AYNDey

pue suapNIs

pue uojedpmed Juapnis

‘sjuapnjs JeaA-S1y

UM paysuUOd

s4e AWINIe4

*WOOJSSE}D “‘peysijqeyse

AJ9A9 Ul

JUBWUOIIAUS BulLeS|

ade SagIUNWWOD

Bulujea] | ‘paysijqeyse

s) AWUNWWOD

Buluses} ¥

HunepiyeA pue

aamuoddns JUSWUOIIAUA

“‘PepiAqid que

uoe\UsWLedxe

pue UOeUeUO

“poye|nbeu-jjas sw0deq

0} pue

sjeo6 yes

0} padjay

sue AdUL

“peopiom BHulpnjaul

‘Bulwses 41y)

Jo @INJEU

BU} O}

PeJUBUO Sue

SJUSpNIS

‘uonUBooRyew pue

Buluses| Jo

spoujew qy6nej

sue sjuapnys

‘passasse Que

S]Ds Bujuies

s}uapnis UOE USO

JUEpNIs

666T ‘uoIUeg,O

Z66T “pjeuog

bO6T ‘JOUIpses

Sjuawa}y UOWWOD

vet

panuuo :gT

aqeL

135

As Table 18 displays, each researcher, even in his/her different contexts,

identifies similar and specific practices (as Gardiner calls his), characteristics

(Donald) and outcomes (O’Banion) of ‘best practices’ educational environments,

whether these are theoretical, actual or envisioned.

The purpose of this analysis was to establish a framework that would

guide my investigation of educational processes in a public college and in a for-

profit institution. To use this analysis for the intended purpose, two further steps

were required. First, the three researchers’ findings were synthesized to provide

a broad set of characteristics or outcomes expressed as neutral statements of

fact. Second, the statements were grouped into general categories consistent

with each researcher's model, the structures of higher education and my use of

the term ‘educational processes’. The resulting model is presented as Figure 3:

An Educational Processes Model.

Figure 3: Educational Processes Model

General Categories Characteristics

Curriculum Learning outcomes and standards are clearly articulated. Curriculum is aimed at the right level for the student body. Curriculum is coherent and connected.

Instruction Students are involved.

Different methods of instruction are used; these are aimed at the learning preferences and needs of the student body. ‘The large is made small’/instruction is individualized. Student learning is assessed on an on-going basis and students receive feedback.

Out-of-Class Environment | Learning communities are established. Students are oriented about expectations. Students receive proactive, intrusive academic advising. Students and faculty interact. Assessment and The institution builds profiles of incoming students against Continuous Improvement | which student learning is assessed.

Institutional assessment contributes to the continuous improvement of educational processes.


136

As a framework for the case study, the model was used in four ways.

First it established the areas of investigation, limiting the research to the general

categories of curriculum, instruction, the out-of-class environment and methods

of assessment and continuous improvement. Second, the model established the

general characteristics of each institution's educational processes. Each

statement of fact was assumed to describe the policies, practices and/or

structural characteristics of the host sites, thereby avoiding any sense of

evaluation of the institution.

Third, and ancillary to the above, the model established a two-level

structure of enquiry. To describe the educational processes at the two

institutions, I needed to answer two general questions about each characteristic:

1. What is the nature of the characteristic?

2. What is the particular method(s) of implementing the characteristic?

My fourth use of the framework was to direct and focus my data

gathering. Because the framework was so explicit, it established the construct

for effective open-ended interview schedules for faculty and administrators, and

it identified the kind of documentation I required to triangulate the data. Asa

result I was able to construct the specific research questions. These are

presented in the next section.

3.4. Specific Research Questions

Questions about Curriculum

— How are program learning outcomes articulated to students?

2. What processes are used to ensure that the curriculum is aimed at the right level?

3. What practices are in place to ensure that the curriculum is coherent and connected?


137

Questions about the In-Class Environment

4

5. 6

7 8. 9

. What instructional strategies are used to involve students in class activities? What different methods of instruction are used?

. What is the connection between instructional methods and the needs of the students?

. What practices are in place to individualize instruction? How is student learning assessed?

. What practices are in place to provide students with on-going feedback?

Questions about the Out-of-Class Environment

10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

In what ways are students encouraged to associate with their peers? How are students orientated to the institution? How are students informed about what is expected of them as students? What is the nature of academic advising? In what ways do students and faculty interact out-of-class?

Questions about Assessment and Continuous Improvement

15. 16.

17.

What is the profile of incoming students?

What practices are in place to assess student development and learning outcomes?

How are educational processes reviewed in the context of continuous improvement?

In the next chapter, I describe the emerging design of the study and the

further development of the conceptual framework within the methodology of

case study research.


138

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY

4.1. Overall Design of the Study

The overall design of the study is that of comparative case studies where

educational processes at the institutional level comprise the unit of study. The

design has three parts—site or ‘case’ selection, field methods and analysis. In

site selection, my goal was to identify and gain access to two best practices and

representative colleges in Ontario's non-degree sector—a public college and a

for-profit college. Furthermore, to explore my premise that the nature of the

educational processes and the particular methods of implementing those

processes are different in a for-profit college, my site selection criteria called for

sites with the same programs or areas of study, thus eliminating one

marketplace variable. These elements of the design were influenced by Skolnik’s

observation, already cited:

“comparative studies within the same jurisdiction can be a fruitful source of knowledge... The fact that units within the same jurisdiction share many of the contextual elements may allow the researcher to focus more effectively on the elements of variation” (Skolnik, 2000, p. 7).

Second, I used field methods to gather data and to describe the

educational processes at each institution as they are implemented in the same

program areas. Third, as part of the analysis, I identified differences and

developed explanations that connect these differences to the literature about the

diversity of control. Within each part, I employed a range of methodologies

including review of documents from colleges and private schools, provincial

associations and the Government of Ontario; interviews, and review by key

informants.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 4: Methodology

139

Before describing each section of the methodology, I will rationalize my

use of a comparative case study methodology. Robson (1993) defines a case

study to be

“a strategy for doing research which involves a empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence” (Robson, 1993, p. 146).

Case studies are particularly suited “to situations in which it is impossible

to separate the phenomenon’s variables from their context” (Merriam, 1998, p.

29). This is an apt characterization of educational processes, which as the

literature has shown, are woven into an institution’s function, governance and

administrative practices. Both the literature of diversity and of for-profit

education support a case study approach. Katsinas (1996), writing about the

extent of diversity in the U.S. two-year institutions sector calls for more case

studies:

“The need for good case studies employing rigorous qualitative research methods is as great for rural community colleges as it is for urban and suburban institutions.... The literature on community colleges could be strengthened if case studies and ethnographic analyses, such as those conducted by Clark 1960) or Weis (1985), were replicated in a variety of settings” (Katsinas, 1996, p. 21).

Menges (2000) writing about the state of educational research contends

that context-specific research has serious shortcomings because it is

“predominantly quantitative in method, conducted largely by persons trained in

positivist traditions... (who) seek generalizations while controlling for variation.”

He commends recent work that recognizes the importance of context-specific

studies

“including personal, organizational, and political contexts, as well as the perspectives of the participants in teaching and learning. This requires moving beyond surveys (or any other single method) and drawing on less traditional and more varied sources of data” (Menges, 2000, p. 8).

As already cited, Skolnik, while reviewing the methodologies employed in

the research about diversity, warns against the holistic nature of qualitative


140

studies. Yin (1989) defines a holistic case study as one where the concern

remains at a single, global level. Robson differentiates two kinds of holistic case

studies. An extreme case study is one in which the unique or extreme is studied.

A critical case study is one where the researcher's “theoretical understanding is

such that there is a clear, unambiguous and nontrivial set of circumstances

where predicted outcomes will be found” (Robson, 1993, p. 161). Such a

description is applicable in this study.

Multiple or cross-case studies address some of the shortcomings of the

holistic case study. Typically the first case study will identify patterns, which will

determine subsequent cases. For example, Merriam (1998) describes a study in

which six high schools were studied. The cross-case analysis suggests

generalizations about what constitutes a good high school. In my study, the first

case establishes the processes in a public college and provides the patterns

against which the for-profit college processes are analyzed. The subsequent

cross-site analysis provides understanding and grounds the findings about the

for-profit college by “specifying how and where and, if possible why it carries on

as it does” (Merriam, 1998, p. 40). Robson summarizes the research activity

associated with cross-site case studies, noting that it is not concerned with

Statistical generalizations but with analytic generalization:

“Put simply, cases are selected where e/ther the theory would suggest that the same result is obtained, or that predictably different results will be obtained” (Robson, 1993, p. 162).

The literature about educational processes in for-profit colleges is neither

conclusive nor predictable. Again, a case study methodology is an appropriate

strategy in this kind of unclear and emergent situation. Robson notes that in

case studies the design is a continuing process, and while you need a conceptual

framework, a set of research questions, a sampling strategy and a decision about

methods and instruments for data collection, “it is not necessary to have all, or

indeed any of these in a fully developed form at the start of the study” (Robson,

1993, p. 150).


141

Merriam is more prescriptive about a conceptual framework. She notes

that while “qualitative research is designed to inductively build rather than to test

concepts, hypotheses and theories,” she cannot imagine a study without a

conceptual or theoretical framework. The trick is to make it explicit (Merriam,

1998, p. 45). Her advice, along with that of Robson and Yin, is to present the

conceptual framework pictorially. She describes three frames, each one inside

the other. The theoretical frame is the outermost. In my study, the literature

about diversity and for-profit colleges along with my description of the Ontario

context depicts one aspect of the study’s theoretical framework. The best

practices literature about educational processes along with the extant references

to educational processes in the FPC sector provides a second aspect of the

theoretical framework or the outside frame. The second frame represents the

problem statement, focusing the theoretical framework on the question of

enquiry: Do for-profit colleges contribute to the diversity Ontario's privatizing

postsecondary education sector? Finally the innermost frame presents the

purposes of the study: To describe the educational processes; to describe the

differences and to determine how and why they are different. The study’s

conceptual framework is presented in Figure 4: The Study’s Conceptual

Framework.


ABo|opoupeayp ‘+

4aydeyp 4oesS

a0Heq-UON

$,01L2}UO Ul

AISIaAIG pue

UONeZNeALd

(—

é€40~es vo1Hep-uou

\

S,O1123UQ ul

AjISIaAIP [e.1Np|d01d

0} 8yNqUAUOD

Spqj Og

“UAWAIEIS Weqolg

:awWeL go

(Tom

éAUM éMOH

édda © 22 JUaJAYIP

S,da Gy S JO

seauy ‘Apnys

jo sasoding

:awely o¢

panias ajaqual[g

saouaayiq ‘SdaYeW

JO.QUOD Toneasuiupy

vl 7

:MalAdY —_

SOLE HWIS °

aunyeia37 +

SOUELHEACD UOSIIEdWO’

a}IS-SSO1D uondisosaq

lwo uonoun,

=

4

qUuaWeACId

WH SNONuUIqUOD

SSe)0-J0-INO saba}jOD

WOld-10-4 SSPID-U]

saBajoD aIGNd

« JO.syUD

JO AYISuBAIG

wunjnoiun> AySuaAiq

jeanpsd0ig saliofayeD

sessac0ig jeuOMeINpY

——

YO

AUSIDAIG [eEUOFNASUT

94N}JL19}I7 SO1De1g

ISOg ——

WAOMBWE{

[POSJOBUL SUL

‘ewe

ys

yomawel4

fen}ds.uo7 s,Apnis

oyu sp

oinbi4

CbT

143

A second rationale for the decision to use a qualitative methodology is

linked to my own background and skills. First, I have a background as a writer.

Merriam quotes Lancy (1993) who observes

“Every aspect of one’s work as a qualitative researcher demands more writing than would be the case for a quantitative scholar. Writing is to qualitative research what mathematics is to quantitative research” (Merriam, 1998, p. 24).

When I started my tenure at DeVry after my twenty-six year career in the public

colleges, I intuited differences between the two sub-sectors, at least as

represented by DeVry and Sheridan. A quantitative strategy would not have

allowed me to describe these differences with depth and nuance nor to use my

considerable experience to triangulate the data.

Of course, this stance on methodology is controversial. Rather than

relying on the characteristics of a survey or other data collection instruments

common in quantitative studies, cases studies rely on the trustworthiness and

skills of the human instrument. Crucial characteristics of the researcher include a

strong disciplinary approach, a difficult prospect in higher education that relies

on different disciplines. Furthermore, the researcher's familiarity with the

context is a questionable characteristic. One opinion is that the researcher

should not be familiar with the context of the study while the opposing side as

stated by Miles and Huberman (1984) is that “you need some familiarity with the

phenomenon and the setting under study” (in Merriam, 1998, p. 160).

Regardless of methodology, the researcher’s connection to the topic has

prompted some criticism about higher education studies, especially those

emerging from leadership programs. Young (1996), in recounting the growth of

community college leadership programs in the U.S., offers a rationale for my

methodology decision but with a clear warning about outcome:

“,..doctoral and faculty research appears to have degenerated almost exclusively into picture taking through normative methodologies. Synthesis, evaluation and analysis, to say nothing of relational and cause- and-effect enquiries, have been sparse or nonexistent. While there is a proper place for these normative kinds of study couched in some kind of

Privatization and Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 4: Methodology

144

theoretical framework, there is danger that the field is resorting to mere navel gazing and examining tracks in the sand” (Young, 1996, p. 12).

As the study progressed, this warning became more relevant. In the next

section of the chapter, I explain why.

4.2. Site Selection

This is a descriptive study without evaluation. My goal was to identify two

well-regarded colleges with the same or similar programs and then to obtain

permission to use these two colleges as case studies. Mindful that the college

presidents would have to be comfortable with all aspects of my request, I set

two pre-conditions for colleges to be included in the sampling frame. First, I

determined that institutions would have to qualify as best practices institutions.

Second, I eliminated FPCs that were direct competitors of DeVry.

The task was therefore to develop best practices criteria for each sub-

sector. Ontario’s public colleges are well regarded, and although all face their

own challenges, each qualifies as a best-practices institution. Ontario's private

career colleges, on the other hand, suffer from their place in the less well-known

and less prestigious sub-sector. In the next section I describe the process I used

to establish the sampling frame for FPCs.

4.2.1. The For-Profit College Sampling Frame

The Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities’ website lists

the registered Private Career Colleges in Ontario. In August 2000, 226 different

schools were listed; 49 of these had more than one campus/location. Seventy-

two (72) of these registered schools were listed on the Ontario Student

Assistance Program (OSAP) website which publishes the default rates of all

OSAP-eligible post-secondary institutions in Ontario. This OSAP filter is an

important PCC best practices qualifier in that OSAP assistance “applies only to


145

courses of twelve weeks’ duration or longer and that require Grade 12 or

equivalent standing for enrolment”

(www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/private.html, page 4). College postsecondary

programs require these admissions standards as a minimum.

A second data source is the Ontario Association of Career College

(OACC)’s website (www.oacc.on.ca). The site provides a Directory of Career

Training in Ontario. In the same timeframe (August 2000), this site displayed 53

vocational categories. Linked to each of these categories was a list of the

registered PCCs that are members of the OACC and that offer programs in the

vocational category. My investigation of this website revealed that 85 OACC

members were linked to the Directory of Career Training; many of these member

schools have multiple campuses.

OACC membership was a second criterion in establishing the FPC sampling

frame. The OACC “requires their members to adhere to a Code of Ethics to

maintain their membership status” (www.oaccabout.htm). The preamble to the

code commits each member to “provide students with a high standard of training

in a professional, caring and trustworthy learning environment” (ibid.). Two

statements in the code are explicit about educational processes:

“To inform the student of the program objectives, content, resources, evaluation and methodology used in the training

“To maintain open communication between the administration and the student” (ibid.)

Forty-six (46) of the 85 different schools listed by the OACC were included in the

72 schools listed on the OSAP website.

In addition to OSAP eligibility and OACC membership, I established size as

a criterion for the sampling frame. Nineteen (19) of the 46 PCCs that were OSAP

eligible and OACC member colleges were also multi-site campuses, one measure

of size. These additional sites represented subsidiaries, franchises or branches,

according to Sweet's (1993) categorization. Another eight single-campus schools

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector Chapter 4: Methodology

146

had a 1998/99 enrolment of over 100 students. These 27 schools represent the

PCC institutions in the sampling frame.

In that the goal was to match PCCs with CAATs in two program areas, I

constructed an Area of Study Chart for the PCC sector, which replicates the Area

of Study Charts provided by Ontario Colleges Application Service for the college

sector. The CAAT charts identify what colleges provide programs in each of the

430 areas of study listed on the chart’s Y-axis. All the colleges, along with the

Michener Institute and two agricultural colleges, are included in the chart.

Codes are used to identify specific kinds of programs (i.e. apprenticeship, post-

diploma, co-op.) (A replication of the CAAT charts is provided as Appendix A.)

Next the convergent areas of study—those areas of study in which both

the 22 English-speaking colleges and the 27 private career colleges deliver

programs—were identified. College apprenticeship and post-diploma programs

were omitted. The result of this analysis is Table 19: PCC Sampling Frame with

Areas of Study. It lists the 27 private career colleges in the sampling frame

against corresponding CAAT areas of study. Of note is the fact that the

terminology is not consistent in the two sub-sectors; in some cases, I used my

own knowledge to establish a consistency.


147

Table 19: PCC Sampling Frame with Areas of Study

Areas of Study'*

ssau

isng

SJBO

pIUD

Buyndwoy

ubis

aq

$21U

0.D9

]4

tleeH

Aueydsoy

JEDS

TEIE

d | /Aun2esg/Me]

eIpa

W WI

SHNO

L pue

janeiy

Academy of Learning

CDI College of Business and Technology The Institute for Computer Studies Commercial Business College

Creative Career Systems DeVry Institute of Technology

Herzing College PrimeTech Institute

Softrain Institute

triOS College of Information Technology

International Academy of Design

RCC College of Technology

Career College Canada

Health Care Vocational Centres

Southwestern Medix School

Sutherland-Chan School

Regal Constellation College of Hospitality

Liaison College

Canadian School of Investigations and Security

Trebus Institute

International Institute of Travel

Travel Training Centre

Institute of Technical Trades

Durham Business and Computer College

Kingston Learning Centre

Success Business College

Toronto School of Business

Westervelt College

14 Business: Accounting/Bookkeeping, banking, business, secretarial/office administration. Computing: computer networking, analyst, programmer, and repair. Design: Graphic design, fashion design, desktop publishing. Electronics: Electronics, telecommunications. Health: massage therapy, personal support worker, pharmacy assistant, and dental assistance programs. Hospitality: Hospitality, cooking.


148

As a result of this investigation of the convergent areas of study, the

PCC/FPC sampling frame was further reduced. In that the goal was to identify

private career colleges and public colleges that offer two of the same areas of

study, it stands to reason that only those PCCs that provide programming in two

areas of study fit the criteria. Twelve (12) of the schools fit the criteria—OSAP-

eligibility, membership in OACC, size as measured by either multiple locations or

enrolment, and programming in two of the CAAT’s areas of study. After

eliminating private career colleges that competed directly with DeVry in

computing and electronics, the sampling frame for the PCCs consisted of 10

FPCs**. All 22 of the English community colleges were included in the sampling

frame.

4.2.2. Selecting Best Practices Sites

Having established the sampling frame, the next step was to choose

which institutions to study and which programs within the institutions were to

provide the focus for the case studies. These two criteria had to be addressed

concurrently. From a logistics perspective, the choice decision seemed

overwhelming. Given the comprehensive nature of Ontario's colleges, it was

conceivable that each of the 10 private career colleges could align with 15 to 20

of the colleges, resulting in 150 to 200 pairings!

Faced with this reality, it seemed appropriate to truncate the logical

sequences and jump to some tentative pairings based on pragmatics and

logistics such as the corporate structure of the private career college, the

locations of the institutions, reputation of programming and my sense of

acceptance by the respective presidents. Based on this intuitive element of the

methodology, I developed best practices charts for three different pairings,

referencing public information about enrolment and key performance indicators.

* This included Career College Canada whose business programs were in the medical office administration area. This programming did not represent DeVry competition.


149

An example of these charts is provided in Figure 5. The details about the

colleges and the programs have been masked for reasons I explain in the next

sub-section of the chapter.

Figure 5: Best Practices Chart

CAAT A and PCC A

Performance Indicators» | Employment | Graduation Default Employer Rates Satisfaction

CAAT Standards 17.2% 90.9% CAAT A College 91% 14.8% 91%

Program 1 83% Not supplied 13.3% Program 2 100% Not supplied 11.5%

PCC Standards 28.9% PCC A School 73% 48% 18.1%

Program 1 64% 28.8%" Program 2 89.5% 24.6%

*- Graduation rate assumes a constant enrolment. Based on number of graduates over number of enrolments. College rates are measured on a cohort basis.

4.2.3. Site Selection: A Story

During this phase of my study, I was promoted to the presidency of the

DeVry campuses in Ontario. This had two effects on my research. First, it

slowed me down. Transitioning from an academic career into the business of

education at the general manager's level proved to be most time-challenging.

Second, my relationship with the potential sites changed, or at least that was my

perception, corroborated on two occasions. Here’s the story:

I had discussed my research with the president of the PCC in Figure 4 on

an informal basis and had received an indication of support. With this backdrop,

I approached the community college president, using the prescribed protocol,


150

and received his verbal approval. Next I began to make calls to the PCC

president to formalize my request. His first response was that he would have to

check with head office. His second response was not to return my calls because,

I learned after too much delay, he had been replaced. His replacement was

more direct and straightforward, assuring me that head office would certainly not

approve the president of DeVry conducting research in the college. Of note was

a statement that he made about screening those I could talk to and being

present during interviews. We agreed that such an arrangement would not work

for either of us. I then contacted the CAAT president, thanking him for his

support and withdrawing my request.

My second pairing at least took a shorter time to reach the same

outcome. This time, I approached each president concurrently. The CAAT

president referred me to the head of the college’s research committee. The PCC

president, a fellow member of committees, seemed embarrassed to say no and

delayed doing so. However, in the end, he told me that he was reluctant to

allow me to have access to his curriculum and his operations. Furthermore, he

expressed concern that I would recruit his faculty.

My third pairing was perhaps the most discouraging. This time I started

with the PCC president who was supportive and affirmative. I then approached

the CAAT president who referred me to the VP, Academic who regretfully

declined my request, citing the fact that the programs I identified were already

the subjects of other research and she was reluctant to commit the faculty to

another research project. I appealed this decision, calling on the president to

intervene on my behalf, a strategy that worked. I corresponded with both a

program coordinator and the chair of the college’s research committee and was

preparing to make a presentation about my study. In the midst of this

correspondence, I phone the PCC president to formally confirm his permission

only to be told that he had completed the sale of his schools and the new owners

would not support my research project. This time the rationale was explicit. The

new owners did not want the president of DeVry to have access to either


151

curriculum or proprietary practices. Once again, I had to apologize to those in

the public college for wasting their time.

These enquiries and false starts chewed up about 5 months.

Furthermore, I concluded that any further requests to PCCs in Ontario would

meet the same fate. What to do? Supported by my committee, I decided to

turn a liability (my position) into a benefit: I would seek permission to use DeVry

College/University and Sheridan College, thereby adding my own deep

knowledge and understanding about these two institutions to the research

methodology. Furthermore, as this modification of the original design took

shape, additional advantages became apparent. Not only was each institution a

‘best practices’ college, but also each was preparing to differentiate itself within

its sub-sector. Sheridan, under its new president, had issued a strategic paper

positioning itself as a polytechnic and seeking permission to offer a range of

applied degree programs. It was currently preparing applications to the

Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board (PEQAB) for two programs.

DeVry College was awaiting the final guidelines for private institutions

from PEQAB while preparing its application to offer degrees as a private-degree

granting institution. Furthermore, as already described, DeVry was one of the

major publicly traded higher education companies. As Chapter 2 established,

these are becoming the prominent players in the for-profit sector.

By studying each institution’s educational processes as they are

implemented in their computing and electronics programs, I would also gain

insight into the dynamics of competition and diversity. Were these two

institutions becoming more alike, supporting the convergence theory? Or were

they, in fact, differentiating themselves within their own sub-sector as defined by

the characteristics of control? The selection of DeVry and Sheridan as case

studies would shed light on these questions.

Such a change, however, introduced even more concerns about my

familiarity with the context. Rather than being just familiar, I would be an

insider. Skolnik (1987) raises concerns about “inside-out” research, especially


152

related to bias, vested interests and the need for objectivity. Webb (1966)

identified the biased viewpoint effect in observational research where

observations are filtered through the researcher’s own knowledge or perceptions

of a situation. Woolcot (1985) counters these potential disadvantages; he

contends that the increased understanding derived from the researcher's inside

knowledge more than offsets these concerns. Equally concerning, these changes

would add complexities to the field work and analysis parts of the methodology;

these will be explained in subsequent sections. On balance, however, it seemed

that there were more advantages to this design modification, especially given the

dead ends I had encountered, and I began the process of seeking approval from

Mr. Ron Taylor, President and COO of DeVry Inc. and Dr. Robert Turner,

President and CEO of Sheridan College. Fortunately both agreed.

What did I learn about the for-profit sector through this experience? First,

its principals are neither familiar nor comfortable with the notion of research.

This observation is consistent with the literature that references the paucity of

research about the sector. Second, they are protective of their curriculum and

processes, those elements that I am studying. Two of my denials referenced

proprietary practices. Ron Taylor in the interoffice memorandum confirming his

approval stipulated the following provisions:

“No release of non-public DeVry information will be made to any other party, other than what is contained in the final thesis document...

You will inform us promptly if any other party solicits access to information regarding DeVry processes, procedures, and/or practices developed in your research...”

These behaviours on the part of the for-profits align with Dill’s contention

about procedural innovation and the market advantages derived from such (Dill

& Teixeira, 2000.) Protecting these advantages is not the purview of only the

FPCs, either. Dr. Turner, in his letter affirming his approval to use Sheridan as a

case study was just as protective, asking me to confirm in writing that “all

information collected will be used only for research purposes”. In a very real


153

way, these provisos confirm the increasing impact of the competitive

marketplace in higher education, and I appreciate the trust and support that Mr.

Taylor and Dr. Turner provided.

4.3. Field Methods

4.3.1. Document Analysis

My first task was to assemble the colleges’ documentation against the

research questions. (This schedule is provided as Appendix B.) My insider status

began to accrue advantages right away. I knew where to go and whom to ask

to obtain the necessary documentation at Sheridan. As a DeVry president and

former Dean of Academic Affairs, I either had or could easily acquire all the

relevant DeVry documentation. Document analysis provides a significant and

accessible source of qualitative field data (Merriam, 1998). The Sheridan

documentation provided not only content related to the research questions but

also a general updating about the college since I had left in 1999.

At this stage, I began to build a database organized by categories as

established by the Educational Processes model and organized by research

questions. All data components were tagged to the document source. As I

progressed through the research, I continued to collect more documentation

either to explain or to support data provided by the study participants. These

were added to the database. (The final list of documents referenced is provided

in Appendix C.)

4.3.2. Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were used to gather information from

participants in each of the institutions. Separate interview schedules were

developed for administrators and for faculty. These were tested in interviews


154

conducted at DeVry Toronto and appropriate changes were made. (These

interview schedules are presented in Appendix D.)

The design modification introduced a set of difficulties with respect to

interview participants. First, it would have been inappropriate and outside the

ethical review guidelines for me to interview faculty and staff at DeVry College in

Ontario where I was president. No matter how the invitation was presented, it

would be difficult for a DeVry/Toronto employee not to volunteer. Consequently,

a decision was made to interview faculty and staff at the Calgary, Alberta and

Columbus, Ohio campuses. I relied on key informants at each campus to

recommend faculty and staff from the designated programs who I then invited to

participate. Each participant was advised about the purpose of the research and

the nature of the interview. They were assured confidentiality and anonymity.

At the beginning of the interview, they received a letter outlining the purposes of

the research and the conditions of their participation. (A sample letter is

provided as Appendix E.)

Sheridan participants were chosen based on my knowledge of people in

positions and corroborated by a key informant at the college. These individuals

were contacted by telephone and briefed about the nature of my research. All of

them were known to me; all were enthusiastic about participating in the

research, which I found encouraging. Each of them was given the same

assurances about the conditions of their participation, and each signed the same

consent form.

The interviews were conducted over a period of ten months, starting in

February 2002 when I visited the DeVry Calgary campus. The Columbus

interviews took place over two days in October 2002. The Sheridan interviews

were completed between April 2002 and December 2002. Each interview lasted

at least an hour and all were taped with the permission of the participant. All

tapes were subsequently reviewed and summaries and or specific quotes were

added to the database.


155

In addition to formal interviews, the research prompted a number of

informal interviews where I followed-up about documents and practices. At

DeVry, these were very informal and difficult to demarcate from my normal

duties. At Sheridan, I followed-up with individuals in specific roles related to my

investigation, careful to be clear about the purposes of my questions and their

use. Table 20: The Study’s Participant List identifies the number of participants

by location and role.

Table 20: The Study’s Participant List

DeVry University

Calgary Academic Administrator Faculty Academic Administrators Faculty

Columbus

WN

NN &

Academic Administrators

Faculty Administrators

Sheridan College

No

BR

Total 17 Participants

4.3.3. Case Study Database

The Educational Processes Model and the research questions derived from

the model! formed the structure of each case’s database. Each interview

question was aligned with a research question. Responses, all of which were

taped, were reviewed and either summarized using key words and/or summary

statements or sections were transcribed. Each participant was given a code and

all data attributed to the participant was coded. The database was constructed


156

using tables in Microsoft Word. As a result all interview data were assigned to a

research question, often more than one. These data were kept separate from

the documentation data although a printout for each question included both

interview and documentation data.

The tapes, the database and the printout of the database were all kept in

a secure location.

4.3.4 Ethics

The study adhered to the ethical principles applicable to research in the

social sciences. The study's research protocol was examined and approved by

the Education Ethics Review Committee. (A copy of the letter from the

committee is attached as Appendix F.)

4.4. Description and Analysis

4.4.1. Describing Educational Processes

Merriam (1998) notes that data collection and analysis is a simultaneous

activity in qualitative research. Furthermore

“rigor in a qualitative research derives from the researcher’s presence, the nature of the interaction between researcher and participants, the triangulation of the data, the interpretation of participants, and rich, thick description” (Merriam, 1998, p. 152).

While this activity may describe the nature of the research at Sheridan,

the DeVry case was more complex, for I was describing DeVry’s educational

processes in Ontario, using data obtained from out-of-province participants.

While the rationale for my choice of Calgary and Columbus participants was

understandable, I nevertheless had to use the out-of-province data to describe

the DeVry ‘case’ in Ontario. Fortunately, many of DeVry’s characteristics apply to

all campuses; institutional standards, policies and practices are standardized,


157

consistent with the literature about educational processes in the publicly traded

FPCs. Throughout the research, I was situating participants’ responses into the

Ontario context, simultaneously gaining insight about practices while qualifying

data as Ontario-relevant. Validity and reliability were assured by specific

practices, which I will now describe.

4.4.1.2. Internal Validity

Merriam (1998) suggests six strategies to enhance internal validity, four of

which I have used—triangulation, member checks, long-term observation and

Clarification of my biases (Merriam, 1998, pp 204-205). Triangulation involves

studying the same phenomenon using several sources of data in order to

develop converging lines of enquiry (Yin, 1989). Robson (1993) notes that

triangulation “is especially valuable in the analysis of qualitative data where the

trustworthiness of the data is always a worry.” In case studies, he notes that

triangulation “improves the quality of data and in consequence the accuracy of

findings” (Robson, 1993, p. 383). As already described, I used three major data

gathering approaches to assure triangulation: document analysis, formal

interviews and follow-up enquiries from key informants at each institution.

Throughout the research, I discussed my findings and observations with

colleagues knowledgeable about each site.

In addition, critical and knowledgeable readers reviewed the complete

findings from each institution. The Dean of Instruction, a 15-year DeVry/Toronto

faculty member and administrator read the DeVry findings not only to check

internal validity but also to validate that the educational processes described

were those of the Toronto campus. Her assessment was that “all faculty should

read this; it's beautiful.” The Sheridan findings were reviewed by a long-time

faculty member, former chair and the current college coordinator of professional

development. His assessment:


158

“Overall I feel you have written a very fair and accurate assessment of Sheridan. In fact I hope some of our processes really do work as

consistently as you describe them.”

Finally, and not to be dismissed is the fact that as an insider at each

institution, I have been a participant observer of these processes and practices.

This experience and the resultant knowledge provided an ongoing test of the

face validity of the data.

4.4.1.2. Reliability

Reliability, the ability to replicate findings, is a problematic concept in case

studies, especially ones with an emerging design. Merriam’s (1998) opinion is

that in case study research “achieving reliability in the traditional sense is not

only fanciful but impossible” (Merriam, 1998, p. 206). Instead, she proposes

that investigators use techniques to ensure that the results are dependable. In

this sense, reliability is closely tied to internal validity; triangulation is one of the

techniques to ensure reliability. Another is the use of an audit trail—providing

the trail of the researcher. Thus the reliability of the study is enhanced by my

depiction of the conceptual framework and description of how the data was

collected, tagged and organized.

As already described, each site’s database contained all data related to

each of the research questions. To organize the data for purposes of description

and analysis, I developed an organizational structure for the data based on a

heuristic and referencing the questions that emerged from the Educational

Processes Model:

What is the intention of the research question as it relates to the educational process model?

How does the data answer the pentad: What, how, why, when and under what conditions?


159

Next, I tested this structure by putting the data from each institution into it,

refining the organization within the four categories of the Educational Processes

Model. The result was a structure that was consistent from one case to the next.

I used this structure to enhance readability and to set-up the cross-site

comparison.

In the middle of this analysis, I realized that I had a basic question to

resolve: Do I describe all of one institution's educational processes or do I break

it apart, using the educational processes categories as section identifiers?

Merriam (1998) reminds us of one of the basics of writing a qualitative report is

to identify the audience and to determine “what the audience would want to

know about the study. The answer to the question can help structure the

content of the report” (Merriam, 1998, p. 221). Anticipating that the readers

would be unfamiliar with FPCs, I decided to break up the descriptions and

present the data in each category for each college. The result is a more

immediate, more accessible cross-site comparison of the educational processes

at the two sites.

4.4.1.3. External Validity

External validity refers to the generalizabilty of the results, the extent to

which the results and conclusions can be generalized to other people and

settings (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989, p. 159). External validity is a limitation

of all case studies, especially one such as this study with limited cases.

However, like most qualitative studies, where the researcher does not aim at

generalization of results, the purpose is the extension of knowledge:

“Knowledge is not produced by replications but the preponderance of evidence found in separate case studies over a period of time. Threats to external validity for a qualitative study are those effects which limit its usefulness: comparability and translatability” (McMillan & Schumacher, 1989, p. 194).


160

Comparability and translatability are addressed through the detail of the

explanations about site selection, field practices, reliability and the depth and

quality of the descriptions themselves. Merriam (1998) recommends the “use of

predetermined questions and specific procedures for coding and analysis” to

enhance generalizabilty (Merriam, 1998, p. 208). Both of these research

practices were used in this study. Robson (1993) recommends good writing to

address generalizabilty:

“,.. the kind of rich or ‘thick’ description provided in a well written case study report can make contact with more implicit and informal

understandings held be readers who are able to see parallels with the situation in which they work or otherwise have knowledge about” (Robson, 1993, p. 73).

4.4.2. Analyzing the Findings

Data related to each category of educational processes was organized

topically and presented as a description, first of Sheridan and then of DeVry.

The conclusion of each category provides an explicit comparison of the

educational processes across the two sites. This second level of analysis, the

first being the description, identified similar approaches, concepts and practices

at the two institutions within the organizational structures used in the

description. Then, analyzing at a deeper level, I explained the differences within

those similarities.

Merriam (1998) identifies a third level of analysis, one that “involves

making inferences, developing models, or generating theory” (Merriam, 1998, p.

187). In the final chapter of the study, I continue the analysis, first by

describing the different student experience at each college and then developing

four themes that run through the four educational process categories and across

the two sites; these themes explain how and why the educational processes are

different.


161

Next, and consistent with the conceptual framework, I link the differences

in educational processes to the different function, governance and administrative

practices of for-profit colleges, resulting in explanations about how for-profit-

ness leads to differences in procedural diversity. This part of the analysis also

unearths some surprises—new insights about for-profit colleges.

Finally, the study proposes some simple propositions that address the

problem statement. These are constructed following Yin’s advice to develop

simple propositions (Yin, in Robson, 1993, p. 151.) Through an iterative writing

process, I match the differences to these propositions and then develop them

further with a more general comparison of procedural diversity in Ontario's non-

degree sector.


162

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS—EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES AT SHERIDAN

COLLEGE AND DEVRY COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY

5.1. Site Profiles

In this first section of the chapter, I profile each of the sites with an

emphasis on those attributes that define control: function, governance and

administration/management. One of the interesting outcomes of the final site

selection is that variations in market variables are somewhat controlled. The

design of the study uses the same programs as the focus of enquiry. As already

described in the literature, CAAT and PCC clientele are similar. And finally, both

institutions are located in the same geographic area. DeVry College’s Mississauga

Campus is situated between Sheridan’s two main campuses in Oakville and

Brampton. (A map of college/campus locations is provided as Appendix G.)

5.1.1. Profile of DeVry College/DeVry University

DeVry University has campuses and university centres in over 50 sites

across North America, including Calgary, Alberta. It also has an online division

that provides the same degree programs at the graduate and undergraduate

level. Programming is in electronics, computer information systems,

telecommunications and business at the undergraduate level and in management

studies at the graduate (masters) level. According to the 2002 Annual Report,

enrolment reached 57,000 students in 2001/2002 and the university continues its

geographic and programmatic expansion.

In Ontario the company operates as DeVry College of Technology.

Consistent with the literature about policies in higher education, it is restricted in

its use of the word ‘university’ and it has not achieved approval to offer degree

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector Chapter 5: Findings

163

programs, two policies extant in Ontario during the research. (See Pusser &

Doane, 2001). Toronto was DeVry’s first expansion beyond its Chicago roots

where it was founded in 1931 by Dr. Herman DeVry as the DeForest Training

School to prepare technicians for the emerging movie, radio and television

industries. Since the opening of the Toronto campus in 1956, DeVry has had six

locations across the city; at one time, it operated three campuses in Toronto.

The college’s mission is to prepare a diverse student body, through

rigorous academic programs, for careers in business and technology. These

programs are in three program areas only and include four six-term diploma

programs—electronics engineering technology, computer engineering

technology, computer information systems program and business, e-commerce.

Students are able to transfer credits earned to another DeVry campus to

complete their baccalaureate degree. The college also offers two three-term

programs, one in electronics and one in networking and a related set of

evening/weekend certificate programs that are offered on a part-time basis (two

sessions/week) for two and three terms. Consistent with many of the functions

in the literature, the college’s programs are delivered year-round; schedules are

compacted to half-days, allowing students to continue working as they pursue

their studies. Career preparation is featured across the curriculum and includes

on-campus activities for graduates and students.

The six full-time programs are regulated by the Superintendent of Private

Career Colleges and are designed and approved to provide training leading to an

approved occupation. In addition, the college’s programs are eligible for

financial aid, which imposes additional regulations including performance

requirements, audits and publication of key performance indicators about default

rates, graduation rates and placement.

Internal governance is tied into the management/administrative structure

of DeVry and is an important feature to understand, especially given the design

of the study. DeVry is a system with explicit policies and operating procedures

that are established and reviewed at head office in Oakbrook Terrace, a suburb

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 5: Findings

164

of Chicago, and administered by local campus management. As a result, the

educational processes in one campus are the same as those in another; the

flavour and the context may be somewhat different because of the personalities

and the administrative structures extant on a campus, but overall these practices

transfer across the campus system. Throughout this chapter, I have attempted

to relate the data to the Ontario educational experience. While the interviews

may have taken place in Columbus or Calgary, the educational processes they

describe are in place in Ontario.

The campus president's role is to ensure that these policies and

procedures are administered effectively and within the budget to achieve the

Campus’ annual goals of quality, growth and profitability. The president reports

to a Regional Vice-president who in turn reports to the Senior Vice-president of

University Operations’®. A DeVry Canada Board of Directors supplements

Canadian campus governance. This board’s connection to the DeVry Inc. Board

is only through membership; both the co-CEOs of DeVry Inc. sit on the DeVry

Canada Board. The Calgary and Toronto presidents serve as staff to the Board.

The college’s administration is organized around the primary functions of

new student recruitment; academic delivery; student services, including

registrarial and advisement, student financial aid and career services; and

administrative support. (The organization chart is provided as Appendix H.) As

of April 2003, DeVry employed about 100 faculty, staff and administrative staff in

Toronto. Student enrolment was about 900 students. Enrolment at the

Columbus campus is about 4000 students and Calgary boasts a student

population of 1600.

At the time of the research, tuition and fees at DeVry/Toronto were $4100

a term in the two programs under study. DeVry sets its fees on a market-by-

market basis, and Toronto has the least expensive DeVry tuition. In the U.S.

16 Th fact, a DeVry campus president is a fifth level manager in the corporate hierarchy. 1. Co- CEOs; 2. Senior Executive Vice-president; 3. Senior Vice-president; 4. Regional Vice-president; 5. campus president.


165

DeVry’s tuition although perceived as expensive by some of the study’s

participants is in the lowest quartile of private colleges’ tuition rates in most

states in which it operates.

5.1.2. Profile of Sheridan College

Sheridan College was established in 1967, part of the big boom that saw

the sudden creation of 22 colleges of applied arts and technology in Ontario. Its

broad programming in over 90 post-secondary programs and various skills

development programs and continuing education programs and courses supports

the college’s broad set of functions (Dennison, 1995). Yet, Sheridan has also

focused its mission; in the 1990s it cancelled its nursing programming, reducing

its health sciences programming to only a few areas of study. In addition, it

began to differentiate itself through its animation, creative arts and visualization

programming and was the first Ontario college to receive applied research

grants. Today, the college expresses this focus in its vision statement:

Sheridan will be the best in Canada for the creative edge in distinctive programs known for academic excellence taught by dedicated faculty to motivated students in an invigorating environment.

As at all Ontario CAATs the president is the Chief Executive Officer who is

accountable to a Board of Governors for the operation of the college. The Board

is comprised of community representatives and internal stakeholders, including

students, faculty, support staff and administrative staff. Internal governance

structures include a College Council that is elected and representative of the

entire college community; it provides a forum for students and staff from every

constituency within the college to communicate with the president. In addition

and relevant to the study is Academic Council comprised of 21 selected faculty

administrators and students from across the college community. Its mandate is

to “oversee, plan and review college-wide academic changes, policy and

procedures and directions. Academic Council provides decisions,

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 5: Findings

166

recommendations and advice to the Vice President, Academic on issues affecting

teaching and learning at Sheridan.”

During my research phase, the college’s administration was organized

around three primary functions, academic delivery and services; student and

administrative services; and business development. Subsequently, a fourth

division was created, whereby Academic Services, Student Affairs and

Information Technology were brought together to form a division with a “focus

on improving services to students” (Internal Memo). Before this organizational

change student recruitment and enrolment management had reported up

through the Vice-president, Academic as opposed to being a major function as it

is at DeVry. Also Sheridan has a Vice-president of business development whose

function is to increase the college’s revenue through fundraising and

entrepreneurial activities. (Sheridan’s organization chart is provided in Appendix

I.)

The college’s budget is $125 million, 26.5% of which is generated by

student tuition. Many of Sheridan’s programs have de-regulated tuition,

including the computer programs under review. In the 2002/2003, the tuition

for this program was $1250 a term while the regulated tuition for the electronics

program was $876.50 a term. All Sheridan students pay additional

administration fees of $474 for the first term and $344 for subsequent terms.

Students participating in the co-op option pay $490 for each workterm. And

both programs are laptop programs, a program that will be described below.

The additional cost of the laptop is $800 a term.

Sheridan serves over 13,000 full-time equivalent students, 62% of whom

live in the Halton and Peel regions. The full-time faculty complement is about

330 with an overall staff number well in excess of 1000.


167

5.1.3. Best Practices Sites

In making the decision to use DeVry and Sheridan as the sites for my

research, I noted that each institution was laying the groundwork to differentiate

itself within the non-degree sector. These actions are consistent with the

literature and demonstrate a responsiveness to market forces. DeVry College of

Technology is preparing applications to the Postsecondary Education Quality

Assessment Board to provide degree programs in electronics engineering

technology and computer information systems, a move designed to align its

higher tuition with a higher, more valued credential. In addition, it has

introduced a new marketing campaign in high schools and in the Toronto media;

according to Neilsen Ratings data, DeVry spends more in media than any other

postsecondary provider in the province.

Sheridan has been even more successful in differentiating itself. First, the

college introduced a mobile computer program, requiring all students in

designated programs to lease a laptop computer outfitted with program-specific

software. The college positioned this innovation as a major curriculum initiative,

representing “a commitment to the present and future of education inside and

outside the classroom.” Second, it received approval from the Ministry to

provide three applied degree programs. And third, Sheridan was one of three

colleges approved for the new designation as an Institute of Technology and

Advanced Learning. Sheridan is now approved to have up to 15% of its

programming in applied degrees and to specialize its programming. The new

college charter legislation, the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act,

2002, gives the Sheridan Board of Governors more authority to approve

programming consistent with this new designation.

My methodology established a test for best practices institutions as well.

Sheridan meets the CAAT criteria by virtue of its leadership role in the public

college system. DeVry meets the PCC criteria: OSAP eligibility, membership in

the Ontario Association of Career Colleges, size and programming in two areas of


168

study. Table 21 provides the relevant and extant key performance indicators for

each college and for the two programs under study.

Table 21: Key Performance Indicators/Case Study Programs and Colleges

Performance Indicators ——€mployment | Graduation’“* | Default Rates | Employer Satisfaction

CAAT Standards 16.0% 91.7% Sheridan College 90% 69.3% 12.2% 91.9%

Computing 60-100% 79.9% 4.3% Electronics 90-100% 88.7% 7.1%

PCC Standards NA NA 24.2% NA DeVry School 51.7% 8.4%

Computing 55-73% 48% 10.9% Electronics 57-71% 36.9% 9.8%

Note. In PCC data, graduation rates assume a constant enrolment; they are based on number of graduates

over number of enrolments. College rates are measured on a cohort basis. One of the realities of the Ontario postsecondary marketplace is the inconsistency of measures across different sectors.

5.2. Educational Processes—Curriculum

5.2.1. Curriculum at Sheridan

5.2.1.1. Curriculum coherence and connection

At inception, curriculum at Sheridan is organized as vocational programs

of study, rather than as single courses. As a result the curriculum is connected

and coherent in the sense that the Educational Processes model presents the


169

concept. Furthermore, and not surprisingly, the emphasis is on jobs and input

from advisory boards:

“At Sheridan we know that a great education can help lead to great jobs. That’s why we place so much emphasis on offering an excellent, up-to- date curriculum prepared with the assistance of advisory boards drawn from leading industry players” (Ca/endar, p. 16)

The exception is individual general education courses that are offered as

electives within the curriculum.

The new program decision emerges from a set of internal and external

stakeholder inputs and is defined by both Ministry of Training, Colleges and

Universities (MTCU) policy and college practices. All new program proposals

seeking government funding must be approved by the Board of Governors and

then submitted to the Ministry following Ministry guidelines. These guidelines

require a full description of the “program competencies, courses and course

competencies” along with evidence of need for the program. This evidence is

generally fulfilled by demonstrating the demand for the program’s graduates

through surveys to local employers. Program demand is addressed as both a

competitive and strategic decision. In addition, the Ministry requires a list of

advisory committee membership and minutes of an advisory committee meeting

where the program is supported. As well, any other professional, accreditation

or other bodies which were consulted during the program development are to be

identified.

New program ideas emerge from both college-level strategic decisions and

individual school decision-making. Each progresses through a set of College

practices and processes leading to a recommendation from the Board of

Governors to the Ministry. The relevant policies and structures include: Program

advisory committee policies and practices; Educational Planning and Program

Review Subcommittee; Academic Council; Office of the Vice-President, Academic

and the Board of Governors.


170

Program advisory committees are fundamental to program decision-

making at Sheridan. These committees are regulated by the MCTU (Regu/lation

770. Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act). All programs eligible for support

under the provincial operating grant must have an advisory committee. Their

composition is prescribed in a Ministry procedures manual:

“Each program advisory committee should comprise an appropriate cross- section of employers, school boards and other members of the community outside the college who have a direct interest and a diversity of experience and expertise in the particular operational area. Members should include representatives of the following groups as appropriate: labour, employers, professional and trade organizations, other educational institutions, social agencies and government agencies. Advisory

committees should also include recent college graduates.” (Ministry Policy and Procedures Manual, 1993, IV. Programs, p. 1-3)

There are clear expectations about these different perspectives and how

they are brought to bare on program decisions: “... program advisory committees

assist us in ensuring that our programs are relevant, our curriculum is up-to-

date, and that our graduates possess the skills and competencies required by

employers” (Draft Standards and Practices for PACs). Ad hoc program advisory

committees are struck to build new programs when these programs are not

affiliated with an existing advisory committee.

In policy, appropriate recommendations arising from PAC meetings are

forwarded to Academic Council. When these are recommendations for new

programs, the proposal is passed on to its Educational Planning and Review

Subcommittee which

“... makes recommendations to Academic Council about new courses and new programs. EPPR recommends to Academic Council new program submissions to the Board of Governors and the Ministry of Education and Training” (now MTCU). (7erms of Reference: Educational Planning and

Program Review Subcommittee (EPPR).

Once this subcommittee loop is accomplished, the Vice-President,

Academic takes the proposal to the Board of Governors. The Board's concern is

to ensure that new programs fit the mission and strategic direction and that


171

appropriate decision-making about employer demand, student demand and

resourcing is apparent in the recommendation.

Program content is established at the new program approval stage and

presented as course outlines and a program map showing the sequence of

courses through the terms of study. On-going review of this content is again the

responsibility of the program’s advisory committee, which is required to meet at

least twice each academic year. The committee’s roles and responsibilities with

respect to curriculum content are explicit:

“Program advisory committees are expected to provide on-going program related advice and assistance, and to participate in...periodic reviews of the program to meet the changing requirements of business, industry and society. (They) may also be asked to assist in forecasting occupational trends, advise on certification requirements, provide information about the effectiveness and competence of graduates” (Draft Standards and Practices for PACS).

The program coordinator, a faculty member with specific program

administration responsibilities, “ensures that PAC activity is appropriate and

meaningful for the program.” He or she is also responsible for following-up on

appropriate recommendations and action items from advisory committee

meetings. As one coordinator expressed the relationship: “They advise us to

what the industry needs are, and therefore we take them very seriously and try

to implement their suggestions” (S4).

Program content is a primary responsibility of the program coordinator. A

document used to align coordinator responsibilities with workload lists three

specific curriculum responsibilities:

“Evaluate the program against MTCU standards Lead curriculum design and development Provide/maintain standard program information and program map.”

Provincial (MTCU) program standards have been developed, approved and

released for nearly 200 programs in the College System. This standards

development initiative evolved from the review of the College System (Vision

2000, 1990) and the establishment of the Colleges Standards and Accreditation


172

Council (C.S.A.C.) in 1993. Standards are presented as learning outcomes that

“represent culminating demonstrations of learning and achievement.” Each

program standard includes the following elements:

“Vocational standards (the vocationally specific leaning outcomes which apply to the programs in question)

Generic skills standards (the general skills essential for both personal and career success; i.e. communications skills, mathematical skills, computer

literacy skills, interpersonal skills, and analytical skills)

General education standards (the requirements for general education courses that provide all students with choice and breadth of experience beyond the vocational area; i.e., studies in aesthetic appreciation, civic life, cultural understanding, personal development, social understanding, sciences and technology.)” (http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/college/progstan/contain.html)

The program standards document specifies the vocational learning

outcomes in detail. For example, the Electronics Engineering Technology

Programs standards provide 17 vocational learning outcomes which the graduate

has “reliably demonstrated”. Elements of performance for each outcome “define

and clarify the level and quality of performance necessary to meet the

requirements of the learning outcome.” The generic skills and general

education outcomes are also included in the document although these are

consistent for all college program standards.

At Sheridan the program standards are viewed as the “parent document”

and minimal standards against which program advisory committee and faculty

input are judged. The coordinator has the responsibility to shepherd that input,

to review and update the curriculum on an on-going basis and to document that

change.

Sheridan uses a set of tools to support curriculum management, including

a program outline, a program map and a detailed program map. The program

outline is constructed during a program review that is scheduled at least once

every 5 years. The document provides an overview of the program and “is


173

intended to assist full-time and part-time instructors, students, administrators

and members of the Program Advisory Committee in understanding the program

and its ongoing development” (from the Community Worker-Outreach and

Development Program Program Outline). The generic contents of a program

outline includes the following sections:

a General administrative information (approval date, organization and leadership);

Q Program advisory committee membership, including who sat on the original ad hoc advisory committee that developed the program;

Q A program introduction that rationalizes the need for the program and the career opportunities;

Information about the field practicum (if this is a component of the program);

Admission requirements; Student awards; Related programs; Teaching staff including their credentials.

Oo Ocoo

In addition, the curriculum is presented as program learning outcomes and are

categorized as vocational, generic skills and general education.

The program outline document includes both a program map and a

detailed program map, tools that are revised and used on an on-going basis. A

detailed program map provides a summary of each course in the program. Each

term is presented on a page; each course is displayed in a column. In addition

to the course learning outcomes, which are categorized as vocational, generic

skills and general education, the column includes basic information about student

evaluation, instructional approaches, eligibility for Prior Learning Assessment

(PLA) and the credits and instructional hours for each course.

A program map (as opposed to a detailed program map) is much less

dense, displaying the courses, their sequencing and pre- and co-requisites, credit

value and hours of instruction. (Examples of both a program map and a detailed

program map are provided in Appendix J.)

Constructing a detailed program map is also called ‘subject mapping’ at

Sheridan and is viewed as a primary activity in tracking the standards within a


174

program. A senior academic administrator explained subject mapping as first,

breaking down the course outcomes “into the components of the outcomes....

Next, you take apart all of the things that a student must be able to do and then

structure them sequentially from the easiest to the hardest” (S1). That

administrator opines that “pretty much everyone is doing the subject matter

mapping; the expectation is that everyone does it all—with the breakout.”

Nevertheless some concern is expressed about whether everyone sees the

difference and importance between the subject breakdown and the next step.

An estimated 50% of programs do the more detailed mapping, and this includes

all programs that have gone through a periodic program review.

Another administrator referenced the detailed program outline as a

communications and management tool. “It shows how the curriculum all hangs

together, what competencies are required to deliver the curriculum, what

resources are required and where there may be overlap and opportunities to

reduce costs” (S6). This respondent views the detailed program map and the

curriculum management that it represents as a proxy for quality, noting that “it

(the college) has to put some money into these things for it takes a lot of time

from the faculty and associate dean.”

Without a detailed program map, a program map is used to identify the

location of program outcomes. However, this tool does not provide the

mechanism to follow the development of program outcomes through the

curriculum nor to develop and assess course sequencing. These tasks are most

often accomplished in program team meetings and informal faculty discussions

and again are a responsibility of the program coordinator. As one coordinator

expressed this role: “My role is to make sure we’re in touch on an on-going basis

to make sure we're doing similar things and we are not out-of-step” (S3). The

coordinator also has responsibility of “first level review, approval and monitoring”

of all course outlines. This requirement is stated in the Sheridan College

Standards for Course Outlines document “to ensure awareness and consistency

in design and use.”


175

Curriculum content at the course level is the responsibility of the faculty

member as specified in the Faculty Collective Agreement and policies about

faculty development. Collaboration is encouraged: “Outlines are best created

and revised cooperatively by the coordinator and course and program faculty,

and should only be altered with the coordinator’s knowledge.” Peer review

beyond the coordinator is in some cases mandated: “New courses and certain

types of course changes must be approved through the Educational Planning and

Program Review (EPPR) subcommittee of Academic Council.”

Faculty in Ontario's Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology are

unionized. Their collective agreement sets out workload limits based on a

formula that includes attributed hours for course preparation. Course

assignments are allocated time within a weekly workload according to a course

categorization, simplified as ‘new’, ‘established’ or ‘repeat’. More preparation

time is allocated to a ‘new’ course, the rationale being that the faculty member

needs more time to develop the curriculum and instructional strategies to

achieve that curriculum. In addition, non-contact teaching time is allocated for

professional development activities.

The Teacher Education Policy for New Full-time and Part-time Faculty

“ensures that all ... faculty have received appropriate and accessible teacher

education and training to enable them to achieve quality in classroom

performance and curriculum development”. Implementation is accomplished

through three courses sequenced through the first two years of the faculty

member's tenure. The first course, Fundaments of Teaching and Learning,

which includes an orientation to the college, is completed before the end of their

first teaching semester and includes a section on key elements of lesson

planning. Full-time faculty are required to complete FDUC7001 Introduction to

Adult Learning: Creating a Positive Learning Environment before the end of the

first year of teaching. This course introduces curriculum design with an

emphasis on instructional strategies. In their second year, new faculty complete

EDUC7002: Curriculum Planning and Design, which “provides an intensive


176

examination of the criteria involved in the development of course and lesson

planning.” These courses are part of a nine-course certificate program in Adult

Education. Full-time faculty who complete the program are receive a one-step

pay increase, effectively making the Adult Education certificate the equivalent of

an M.Ed. degree, at least for these purposes. Part-time teachers can also

increase their hourly rate of pay “by about 10% through PD participation”

(Personal correspondence).

Expectations about faculty’s currency and their responsibilities with

respect to course content are codified in policy. Approved by the Board of

Governors on February 27, 2002, the Policy on Currency of Faculty Knowledge

clarifies the responsibilities associated with course content:

“Sheridan is dedicated to ensuring the currency of faculty knowledge by providing the means for ongoing support of continuous learning. Sheridan supports the development of faculty through effective orientation and ongoing development processes and expects faculty will maintain currency in their subject area through a variety of professional development strategies”

An example of how faculty take on this responsibility is expressed by one

respondent who talked about his involvement in technology and the industry

through attending conferences, workshops and trade shows where he finds out

about new technologies and equipment, software and approaches. If feasible,

he tries to implement these in his courses and program.

In summary, the college’s programs are, by their vocational nature, their

design and through the college system’s governance practices, coherent and

connected. College administrative and collaborative processes support this

characteristic. However, my research revealed a fundamental tension between

program and course perspectives that is played out in three ways. First,

students are not always aware of how courses fit in the program. The School of

Computing and Information Management has addressed this student feedback

by ensuring that faculty explain the big picture in the first few classes:


177

“You must always address these issues... explain this course, why we are taking it...there has to be some reason and benefits to you when you graduate having taken this course” (S2).

(This practice is also reinforced by the Sheridan College Standards for Course

Outlines, which mandates course outlines to explain how the course connects

and contributes to program learning outcomes.)

Integral to this faculty role is each faculty member's understanding of the

program curriculum, a situation that is challenged by the fact that an increasing

number of faculty are part-time. Furthermore, as programs evolve through

course changes, the tendency is for the program perspective to erode especially

since there is no policy on curriculum design beyond course outlines. One

respondent noted the challenge of maintaining a program perspective when “the

college has moved to an overall emphasis on courses by individual faculty.”

“So if you look at 94 programs. How many of them actually have a program perspective and changes to program outcomes are followed through in courses, course curriculum, instruction and evaluation? I’d say not many and I'd say it’s not many across North America in private and public institutions” (S5).

A third concern is the prospect of course-based registration and the

concern of losing connection from course to course and “the integration of

curriculum areas.” Currently students are scheduled as a cohort, which supports

this connection. As we'll review later, the nature of academic advisement also

impacts this sense of connectedness.

5.2.1.2. The Level of the Curriculum

My investigation of the level of the curriculum and how the college

ensures that curriculum is aimed at the ‘right’ level uncovered a divergent set of

approaches to the notion of level. One focused on standards and graduates’

abilities, referencing the explicit program standards and program advisory

committees whose purpose is to “assist us in ensuring that... our graduates


178

possess the skills and competences required by employers.” One academic

administrator was clear:

“The level of instruction is determined by the outcomes of the program. So theoretically, if your curriculum is designed to meet the outcomes of the program, it’s at the right level. Of course, the problem arises when students don't fit into the beginning assumptions. The solution is not to change the outcomes (which are tied to the needs of industry) but to provide accommodation for students—remediation, a pre-program” (S1).

Admissions requirements are an important component of this approach to

level. In the School of Computing and Information Management, admissions

requirements are meant to align with the expectations of the curriculum. “That

is, we assess the level of the curriculum and then make assumptions about what

academic requirements are necessary to be successful” (S2). The Electronics

programs, where 80 to 85% of students come from high school, take a different

approach:

“We assume their knowledge is very minimal. We start from square one.

We start slowly and as we go along through the semester, we pick up speed so that by the end of the semester we will have covered the material that you are supposed to cover” (S6).

Yet another perspective suggests that admissions standards do not ensure

academic preparation for the program, but rather these standards are minimum;

students enroll on a first-come-first-served basis, consequently

“We necessarily get a good polarization of students.... We have mature students; we have people with direct entry and significant ethnic population with credentials from elsewhere. So the first year is more like a filtering year, more than a learning year for some students” (S6).

At least from this same respondent’s perspective, level must be tied to

clear expectations about student performance that drives curriculum design.

“The curriculum does not go in a ladder shape. The expectations at the end of first year and the pressure to learn and to be an asset to a co-op employer drive part of the curriculum. Because at the end of one year if they don’t have enough skills to offer to an employer, it’s not going to work.


179

“So the bottom line is: Curriculum cannot be sacrificed if the expectations of the employers have to be met—because we’re a public institution. We

have to bring the students up to that level, faculty up to that level, develop the soft skills in both of them and make sure that they are constantly made aware of the course, constantly made aware why the curriculum contains this material, why they have to learn at that pace, what is the best way to learn” (S6).

A second approach to level aligns the notion with student achievement

and input. Described as a ‘reactive’ process, course-based data, specifically a

grade distribution analysis report, is used to “investigate the level within a

course”. These reports are reviewed by associate deans and coordinators as a

“window into potential ‘level’ problems” (S1). Examples of problems include the

need for a pre-requisite, a course that is placed too early in the program or a

course that does not seem to be connected to other courses.

Student input is an important part of this reactive process; student

perceptions about workload in particular are tied to the notion level. The college

has a policy on student feedback and a range of instruments and processes that

includes a student satisfaction survey conducted annually for the College’s Key

Performance Indicators; systems for academic and non-academic complaints and

a student feedback instrument (course survey). The course survey presents

statements, asking the student to respond on a satisfaction scale. One

statement (25) measures student satisfaction of workload while two others (19

and 29) are indirectly related to their perception of level.

25. The workload in the course is fair and reasonable.

19. The instructor provides an effective learning environment. 29. Iam satisfied with the opportunities to learn in this course.

In addition to these formal course surveys, which are administered

electronically, faculty are encouraged to administer an informal course

assessment at mid-term. This kind of feedback is introduced in the 7eacher

Fundamentals course where new teachers are taught how to interpret student

feedback and communicate it back to their students.


180

Students are also on some Program Advisory Committees and are

members of the APPR where they have an opportunity to comment on the level

of courses. Yet, one veteran faculty member, eschewing formality, describes

student input this way:

“I see (it) as a fundamental feedback loop. It’s very informal. It’s not like we have a structured process for determining whether we are aiming the curriculum at the right level. I also don’t see an automated teaching mechanism that’s going to be able to do that. What I do see is an experienced, attentive teacher who watches for all those micro signals that go on in the classroom, including lights in eyes, willingness of the student to stay on the task, observance of their perseverance...” (S3).

While curriculum standards and student performance/input represent two

approaches to the level of the curriculum, a third perspective is to raise the level

of the curriculum by addressing student motivation and challenge. Several

tactics were shared about how this is accomplished. One administrator describes

an approach that ties motivation to the industry standards:

“Bringing in employers and graduates to talk about the industry and the opportunities is a tactic which is used to increase student motivation. The premise here is that increasing student motivation is a way to raise the engagement of the students to the level of the curriculum. There is no real indication that this tactic works although it continues to be used” (S2).

Yet another participant provides insight about how he resolves the tension

between curriculum standards and student non-preparedness. This faculty

member contends that

“there seems to be some critical part or component of (an in-class) exercise that turns the light on for them and they get it to work. When you've achieved that I think you can reach any level. That's my approach.

It's to get them into it far enough that I can start to lay heavier concepts on them. But not until I’ve reached a point where they are successful.

Their confidence is higher and I have the ability to raise it up a little more for them. It’s sort of like a staircase. And I always know that I’ve reached some more than others, maybe. Yet standards have been met even for the lowest students who are there” (S7).


181

Another was more explicit about the connection between level and

methods of delivery:

"We really haven't increased our level of difficulties but we try to implement new methods of teaching so that they can understand better what goes on. One example would be, we try to give them things that are very close to real life, so they have life experiences with those problems or situations so when they are handling them, they have a feel for them rather than something fictitious” (S3).

Clearly, there is no single approach to level at Sheridan. One respondent

was quite candid: “Individual faculty members have their personal philosophies

about levels, just as students do. I want my students to feel great about

themselves for achieving what they did here at the college” (S3). Nevertheless,

the college has institutional policies, guidelines and structures to ensure that

faculty are advised and informed about the level of their curriculum. These

include those structures and practices already identified: MTCU program

standards, input from program advisory committees, the Educational Planning

and Program Review subcommittee of Academic Council and coordinator review

of course outlines. As well, the Sheridan College Standards for Course Outlines

provides additional direction about the level of the curriculum, especially related

to the infusion of generic skills into courses across the curriculum.

The five generic skills are broken out in the M7CU Program Standards as

thirteen generic skills outcomes. Like the vocational outcomes, each outcome

describes what abilities the graduate of a two- and three-year program should be

able to reliably demonstrate. In the MTCU document each generic skill outcome

is explained and the elements of performance are listed. To reinforce the

expectation that students will develop these skills, each course outline requires a

reference to the provincial context, including what generic skills are emphasized

in the course. Faculty and coordinators are referred to the MTCU program

standards documents.

School deans have overall responsibility for course outlines within their

programs and are responsible for achieving the program outcomes and adhering


182

to the course outline standards. There is only one official course outline per

course as defined by a course code. In those cases where there are multiple

sections of a course, a course leader is appointed whose responsibility is to

ensure consistency of delivery. As a result of these processes:

“We have very clear course outlines with good outcomes, evaluation schedules. That is cast in stone, until we revise it as a group. Teachers are obliged to meet those course outlines. How they do it offers them some flexibility” (S3).

This same participant also shared his experiences with the group process,

which he described as “you try things and you share them with your colleagues.

It’s very informal. It’s not like we have a structured process.” He provided what

he described as a ‘very typical’ example: He developed a sequence of

assignments that he shared with his colleagues. He deployed the sequence and

“was able to come back and say they were a little too challenging, and he

needed to bring them down a notch.”

This kind of responsiveness was echoed by another who connected

flexibility with standards:

“I think many of the teachers adjust the curriculum according to the level of students through pre-testing and through the nature of the evaluation. If students (are) doing really poorly and teachers feel that part of it is because of the complexity of it, they might adjust their expectations. That doesn’t lower standards, it just changes the nature of it” (S5).

The college’s teacher education and developmental practices are designed

to assist faculty to address the issue of the level of the curriculum. On a bi-

annual basis, each faculty member is expected to participate in a performance

coaching process with a colleague. The emphasis is on classroom performance

and observation; the process includes a discussion on student feedback with a

“mutual goal... to enhance the quality of student learning.”

The college’s Program Review Unit coordinates this peer collaboration

program. It also provides more focused and intense assessment of problems

associated with the level of the curriculum. Here’s an example of the nature of


183

this support as it relates to a program workload issue: Prompted by either a

scheduled review or the request of a dean or associate dean related to a concern

about workload or curriculum, the unit will attempt to identify the issue. They

use various means of collecting input, including the KPIs on student satisfaction,

course surveys, focus groups of students and (perhaps) graduates. In the

example provided, we gain insight into an underlying condition that impacts the

level of the curriculum:

“What came back was a lot of questions about workload. The recommendation was that the curriculum was too extensive. With the cutbacks that were happening, there was a reduction in the number of hours in courses. The faculty did not believe that they should cut it back, so all they did was condense everything and loaded up the program.”

This led to frustration on the part of very conscientious faculty who were saying, ‘we can’t do this in the time we have’. When the faculty learned that the students were just as frustrated, it led to a recommendation to the school admin, seeking a review of the course hour cut-back. They are still looking into that because of the cost attached to such a recommendation.

Through this data gathering, they also discovered that the match between the curriculum and the evaluation was limited. And so the faculty team are having sessions on evaluation...” (S5).

The research indicates that aiming the curriculum at the right level is a

complex issue at Sheridan. ‘Right’ is not defined. Furthermore as one

interviewee shared, the notion of level is increasingly associated with strategic

intentions. Citing the college’s aspirations to become a polytechnic, he goes on

to offer some consequences:

“So therefore we are trying to raise the level of our classes and the teaching methods and everything, to such a level that becomes eligible to become a polytechnic and to award applied-degrees” (S3).

To summarize: Referencing policies, structures and practices, individual

faculty are expected to align the level of the curriculum with program standards,

employer and student feedback and their own responsibilities to develop and


184

deliver a course outline in a changing and challenging resource environment.

Next I'll describe how the curriculum is communicated to students.

5.2.1.3. Communicating the Curriculum to Students

Program curriculum is a component of all promotional materials designed

to impact enrolment. Various approaches to curriculum are evident in these

materials. Promotional brochures, which are school and/or program-specific,

tend to emphasize student activities and the products they will use (e.g. visual

basic, java, C++). Some explain program differences (e.g. the difference

between computer science technology and systems analyst.) And of course they

are designed to position the college:

“We offer state-of-the-art, high quality programs in specialized areas of information management/technology and telecommunications, and ensure that the programs offered are unique or substantially exceed provincial standards” (SCIM Brochure)

Interestingly, the college Ca/endar does not provide course descriptions

but rather describes program curriculum expressed as

proficiencies: e.g. electronic fabrication and circuit boards, analog and digital circuits and systems) (College Calendar, p. 9/7)

generic skills outcomes: “Graduates of the program will be able to think creatively, work well in a multi-disciplinary team, interact with other engineering colleagues, and communicate with various professionals to meet the electronic industry’s competitive needs” (p. 98), and

content areas: “highly marketable skills in information technology by providing a solid foundation in business, computer applications,

databases, data communications, programming, web technologies, and systems analysis and design. Sheridan’s program emphasizes communication and team building skills” (p. 82)

And although all programs include general education courses in their

program standards and their curriculum, specific information about general


185

education is not included in the program pages but provided in the back of the

book:

“General education is a required component of postsecondary programs and provides breadth of learning experiences. Sheridan is committed to expanding students’ vocational learning and generic skills through its general education courses, by increasing awareness of community interests, values and cultural diversity, promoting flexibility, critical thinking and commitment to lifelong learning” (p. 142).

If these are communications shortcomings, they are certainly addressed

once the student is enrolled. Enshrined in college policies and referenced in the

Student Handbook is a guiding principle that it is a

“right to obtain in print, or have access to, appropriate instructional information, such as course outlines, monthly academic plans with a forecast of assignments and exams, objectives, entrance and terminal learning competencies, syllabuses, grading/evaluation systems, graduation requirements, and general College policy.”

The tools used to manage the curriculum are also the basis for sound

communications with students. While not every program has a detailed program

map, every program does have a program map which is described as a

“reference point for the students and also to the program stakeholders. It takes you to all the... semesters; identifies the tree or flow, the prerequisites for the streams, the course codes and the credit values. The coordinators give the program map to the students during their first year. It is used as a tool in academic advising; students know what happens if they miss a course, or stop-out” (S6).

And, as we have seen, course outlines are checked for quality and

accuracy by the program coordinator and are subject to standards that include

listing the course learning outcomes although these may be expressed in one of

three styles:

1. Learning outcomes are categorized by knowledge, skills and/or attitudes

2. Learning outcomes are stated as integrated and cumulative performances with the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are required to demonstrate those performances stated also.


186

3. Learning outcomes are stated as integrated and cumulative performances only.

Furthermore, “outlines are discussed with all students in the course” and

all Sheridan course outlines are available on the college’s website—to anyone.

5.2.2, Curriculum at DeVry

5.2.2.1. Curriculum coherence and connection

DeVry’s curriculum is also organized as programs of study. These are

described as

“career-oriented programs designed with input from educators and representatives of leading companies, so a DeVry education is relevant to the demands of business and industry.”

Program goals address the nature of the technical roles that graduates

play along with the competencies necessary to adapt to change. Program

objectives tend to be succinct. For example, the Computer Information Systems

program, a 9-term baccalaureate degree program has five objectives: “... to

prepare graduates to be able to do the following:

1. Analyze, design and implement solutions to business problems. 2. Create and test computer information systems solutions for business

problems. 3. Demonstrate Project Management skills 4. Communicate effectively 5. Apply information literacy and problem-solving skills that support life-

long personal and professional development” (CIS Assessment Program)

All curriculums, including general education courses are prescribed in the

program of study although on some campuses, there are general education

electives. Both applied research skills and information literacy skills are infused

across the curriculum. The campus librarian is charged with providing an

“integrated library instruction program... to emphasize the development of


187

information literacy and integrating applied research concepts into all levels of

the curriculum” (DeVry Library Model.

Program curriculum is common across the university’s multiple locations

and online. These common elements include the same programs, the same

courses and the same learning objectives. President Ron Taylor describes this

standardization process as one of coordination:

“The coordination comes principally from our corporate headquarters... and areas like curriculum development are structured centrally and then developed and implemented at the local campus. We have a curriculum development team in Chicago that evaluates programs and inputs from employers and our faculty to determine when changes in curricula are required. If changes are required, the corporate offices structures what the change should be and then passes it on to one or more faculty members to develop the specific curriculum, exercises and other components of the instruction to be delivered” (Fosse, 2001, p. 18).

Local administration at the campus level is free to make some changes,

based on the needs of local employers. This “combination of a uniform

curriculum and local autonomy gives the company the ability to grow consistently

while serving individual markets” (Borrego, 2001, p. A25).

While new programs must be licensed within the local jurisdiction,’”

program development is the responsibility of the Dean of Curriculum who reports

to the Vice President of Academic Affairs and who leads a team of program

directors located at corporate headquarters. Program directors in turn are

responsible for developing and maintaining a specific program curriculum. The

program director position description also provides insight into the integration of

curriculum with other functional areas of the university:

“Working proactively with campus program heads and faculty, he/she monitors quality implementation of the curriculum(s) and uses results

” Tn Ontario, DeVry College programs are approved by the Private Career Colleges unit within the Private Institutions Branch of the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. New program proposals must identify the vocational occupation along with the administrative details and include the learning outcomes and instructional strategies. A local program advisory committee must support the program, both its overall outcomes and the need for graduates. In addition, a third-party curriculum expert must attest to the soundness of the curriculum design.


188

from outcomes assessment for continuous program improvement. The program director also works with management, operations, academics, student recruiting, and graduate placement to provide support both at the system level and at the campus, online or center level” (Jnterna/ documen®g.

DeVry’s curriculum development process is a top-down model, managed

from corporate headquarters and aligned with the university's mission and

strategic objective. An overview of the process is presented in Table 22.

Table 22: DeVry University’s Curriculum Development Process

Requirements of the Employment Market (industry/technology assessment—identify important business and technological trends + identify the skills and knowledge required for job entry and growth.)

|

Program Goals (based on the necessary skills and knowledge from

above, account to our mission and strategic

objectives. ) |

Program Outcomes (essential knowledge, skills, attitudes required of graduates of a program.)

l

Program Structure (sequences of courses, adding new courses and

eliminating or changing existing courses as needed) |

Course Terminal Objectives (CTO’s) (flow from the program learning outcomes:

the knowledge, skills, attitudes required for successful completion of each course)

I

Curriculum Guides (a course description, CTO’s and delivery

strategies for each course)

! Individual Teaching Plans/ Syllabi

(faculty developed plans to achieve the CTOs)


189

The program director manages this process relying on input from local

and national advisory committees and on-going input from deans and faculty

across the system. Local program advisory committees meet a minimum of once

a year. At those meetings, “we review curriculum and are told about what is not

current and relevant.” The DeVry academic input is structured through

“standing committees (that) are formed from the campus-based academic deans who interact through listservs and other communications technologies and convene in annual deans’ meetings chaired by the central-office curriculum directors. These meetings review curriculum, technology trends, labs, libraries, faculty needs, and other issues to help maintain the continual improvement of the programs” (VCA Self-Study, p. 43).

Two activities are fundamental to the model: program structure or the

sequencing of courses and the development and maintenance of course

curriculum guides. Each course has a curriculum guide that describes what

students should learn in the course, presented as measurable learning outcomes.

Curriculum guides are viewed as a “practical means for ensuring a consistent

level of quality across a dispersed system” (ibid. p. 58). They “establish a

standard curriculum so that faculty teaching the same courses will cover a

specified range of content to required level of challenge” (Jnternal presentation).

Curriculum guides are written by an assigned faculty member or faculty team on

a contracted basis. The audience is faculty who teach the course and program

deans. In development, these guides are reviewed in draft form by all the

program deans and selected faculty from across the system.

Each curriculum guide contains a course description, which is published in

the university catalogue (or College Calendar). The course strategy is an

extended statement that includes a description of the level and scope of the

course. According to 7he Curriculum Guide: An Author’s and User’s Manual, it

should tell where the course begins and ends and the extent of coverage of the

course within a discipline/field. The scope should also place the course into the

context of a sequence of courses, if one exists. The strategy statement also


190

describes the cognitive level (referencing Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational

Objectives’®) at which students must perform and whether a course should be

presented in a highly theoretical and broadly conceptual way or in a concrete,

user-friendly, applied way. Finally, it provides a rationale for the course,

explaining why the study of this material is important in the curriculum.

The curriculum guide provides text references although it does not

prescribe a text, leaving that to local campus decision-making. Next, the major

learning outcomes for the course are presented as course terminal objectives

(CTO). These are stated in terms of performance (versus content) and written

at the applications level of Bloom’s Taxonomy or above. Each CTO is augmented

by three to five suggested enabling objectives which

“address specific knowledge and techniques that are needed to achieve the terminal objectives... enabling objectives may be geared to acquisition of the basic knowledge and comprehension required to move to the higher levels of performance.”

A content or topic outline with suggested time allocations for each major topic is

also included in the guide as are suggested instructional strategies.

The primary use of curriculum guides is to establish standards and

consistency in course planning. Faculty policies, which are also uniform across

the system, establish the expectations about the usage of the curriculum guides:

Faculty are to “use approved curriculum guides and course objectives to plan

classes.” The 7eaching Excellence Course, which is mandatory for all new

faculty and which integrates an orientation to the university and campus, teaches

how to write a syllabus from a curriculum guide and includes a review of Bloom’s

taxonomy.

A secondary, yet important, use of the curriculum guides is to connect

curriculum to capital acquisitions and instructional supplies. All expenditures

associated with delivering the curriculum must be justified with reference to the

curriculum guides. Conversely, new tools, should they be considered as part of

18 Bloom's Taxonomy establishes six cognitive levels from the least to most sophisticated: 1. Knowledge; 2. Comprehension; 3. Application; 4. Analysis; 5. Synthesis; 6. Evaluation.


191

a program, must be incorporated into a curriculum guide. A taskforce on

technology in education, for instance, recommends that the CTOs requiring

software be identified and that the requirements of this software be developed.

“If the software is a major version change, course CTOs must be reviewed to

determine if any changes to the Curriculum Guides are required” ( Technology in

Education Recommendations—2002. p. 13).

Each campus establishes sequence committees comprising of all faculty

who teach in a particular sequence within a program (e.g. the programming

sequence in the Computer Information Systems program). The goals of these

committees are to “give faculty an understanding of the skills that are in the next

course” and to review each student cohort’s progress. One participant, in

describing the scope and sequence activities, presented her faculty colleagues as

a team:

“It’s like a volleyball team and the idea of when the ball comes into your court... We do a lot of talking. We set up scope and sequence charts which help each of the instructors in the next level. You can be sure that if a student hits the next term and doesn’t have those pre-requisite skills, there’s going to be some talking to.

“Over the last 10 years, the scope and sequences have been done both formally and informally... There’s a constant evaluation going on between the pre-requisite teacher and the teacher who is going to be following-up” (D3).

Some campuses augment formal scope and sequence charts to identify

coverage of course terminal objectives. The charts are used to identify topics

not covered, topics covered twice, enrichment topics and topics requiring further

coverage.

Either a dean or a chair has local curriculum responsibilities that may

include managing the scope and sequence committees and analyzing curriculum

delivery. One chair recounted a process he was undertaking:

“I’m collecting sample tests, syllabus across the board to see if we are all on the same wavelength. When we can find some differences, that’s when we get into a dialogue, a discussion as to why some instructors


192

can’t get all the way... Again we want to make sure that in the next course they (the students) have the skills they need” (D5).

In summary, DeVry’s curriculum is connected and coherent. Specific

roles, structures, tools, policies and local practices enforce a standardization—

and one that is well-accepted. The only discordant view was expressed by a

professor who disagreed about a particular curriculum change and the impact it

was having with other courses across the curriculum. Her lament reinforces the

intrinsic connectedness of the curriculum:

“Everything you take at DeVry, you will need later. They (English teachers and math teachers) are still struggling with the change and its impact. In my opinion, there was nothing good that came out of the change” (D7).

5.2.2.2. The Level of the Curriculum

The level of the curriculum is clearly established at DeVry by the

curriculum guides and their expectations about performance at the applications

level and above. The responsibility “to make sure that they (curriculum guides)

are written at a level that is appropriate and that that information gets filtered

down into the campuses” resides at corporate headquarters. The scope and

sequence committees at each campus and the input from local advisory

committees and employers ensure that the students are achieving the course

terminal objectives and the program outcomes. In this sense, the level of the

curriculum is managed to connect to a targeted market. President Ron Taylor

describes this growing market in an interview he did in 2001:

“More important is the fact that the students who represent that incremental 20% of students...are students who previously had gone into the trades, military or taken some other path into a career and is a group

that DeVry serves very well. Another group of people that DeVry serves very well is minority students and in fact, in the DeVry system, 40 to 45% of our students represent minority groups. They come in part because they are interested in the transition to a career and in part because they value a more hands-on, applied learning experience” (Fosse, 2001, p. 18).


193

At the campus level, the notion of ‘level of challenge’ connected to the

institution’s mission and growth seems to be well understood. However, its

implementation is an on-going task that evoked various perspectives about what

level means and how to balance the demands of the curriculum guides with the

reality of the classroom:

‘Given the nature of the students that we get into DeVry, ... I think there has to be a balance. A lot of our students are working and therefore if we put too much more pressure on them, I think we're going to lose them... If the program were more rigorous, we'd have a higher quality out the other end, but we'd have fewer. It’s not our mission to be a Harvard.”

This faculty member continues with some insight about the backgrounds of these

targeted students:

“I think our students our oftentimes fighting not just the battle of learning but they are also fighting a family battle because many are from families whose parents don’t want them here. So they have a double battle to fight. They are trying to understand academically what they need to do....and dealing with ‘I never went to school, you don’t need to be at school” (D3).

One perspective used both as a rationalization to students and staff and

as a competitive tactic, is to position the level of DeVry’s curriculum within the

overall educational spectrum. One participant noted, for instance that

“The mission, which is one of technology, helps a great deal to establish (the level.) In the area of electronics, there are three levels—technician, engineer and technologist and our programs are at the technologist level” (D4).

He went on to reference the improvement in technology textbooks. Another

participant cited campus policy about on-going review of textbooks at the college

level, believing that “changing textbooks is important to the vitality of the

course” (D8).

Also, DeVry programs require that all applicants have a high school

diploma’? and pass computer placement tests in reading, writing, arithmetic and

9° Tn Ontario, applicants to diploma programs can apply as mature students. They must, however, pass the computer placement tests at a higher level.


194

algebra. Standards for each program are established to guarantee that “our

students can benefit from the program in which they are enrolling” (D7). At the

same time the university is quite open about its quest to establish measured

admissions requirements that optimize new students enrolment:

“,.. standards seek to balance the efficacy of higher entering verbal and math scores against the risk of rejecting candidates who are capable of succeeding in our programs with the help of Developmental Studies courses... we want students who have a good chance of success but to also provide opportunities for those who otherwise might not attend a higher education institution” (WCA Self-Study, p. 73)

Occasionally, faculty will question these standards. More often, they are

dismissed: “I don’t think they have a direct influence on the curriculum. Rather

we set the program and ask our students to be able to live up to that (standard)”

(D4). As part of the admissions process, students’ transcripts from other

institutions are assessed. “We are always comparing transcripts and course

descriptions to ensure that the DeVry curriculum is at the college level” (D5).

This positioning within the postsecondary spectrum reinforces an understanding

about target market and the level of the curriculum:

“Certainly we don’t want to teach to the top 10% to 15%.... In some ways that differentiates us from universities. Engineering schools and whatnot are looking for that 15%; that’s their target group. So long as we are interested in the large middle group, and teach to that level... I think that’s our target group” (D4).

Faculty hiring practices further support DeVry’s approach to the level of

the curriculum. Faculty must have industrial experience and are encouraged to

continue consulting (even while they are teaching.) In the Electronics

programs, this experience is a requirement of program accreditation. Finding

new faculty who have the background and the aptitude to teach at DeVry is an

on-going task. One participant shared his views about new hires into the

Computer Engineering Technologist program who are not engineers but Ph.D.s in

computer science:


195

“They want to aim the curriculum at a more sophisticated level than we target our students for. And worse, they may target to not the

particularly relevant; it would be more theoretical and research-driven. To counter this is the momentum of the culture here and the explicit message from all leadership about applications-oriented education. That theme has to be constantly repeated—and is, especially to those faculty who are outside of engineering” (D6).

Specific practices are in place to support faculty as they build their syllabi.

As already described, the course curriculum guides “establish a standard

curriculum so that faculty teaching the same courses, will cover a specified range

of content to a required level of challenge” (New Faculty Orientation

Presentation). This expectation of faculty is encoded in faculty policies:

“Using DeVry University curriculum guides and academic standards, develop strategies to teach the course content for the entire term— including coverage of prescribed terminal course objectives, assignments, textbooks, grading scale, and delivery methods” (Canadian Faculty Handbook).

All new faculty are required to complete a 45-hour online course that

includes specific assignments associated with writing a syllabus and lesson plans

based on a curriculum guide. Furthermore, each syllabus from each faculty is

reviewed every term:

“Faculty turn in syllabi for every single course that they teach not later than the first week of the term. Those syllabi are examined by the dean who is responsible for those courses. They are looking for rigour; they are looking for exercises that promote critical thinking” (D8).

In addition, each new faculty member is assigned a mentor and

considerable time is devoted to monitoring their introduction to the campus and

to teaching at DeVry. One participant runs workshops for faculty who teach in

early terms:

“New faculty get together, as well as faculty teaching the early terms and we discuss things such as: What is the DeVry mission? What do we do with students that have histories of poor learning experience? ... One thought was that these students are much more happy when they are doing things rather than listening to people talk about doing things” (D4).


196

A consistent theme throughout the interviews, whether in Columbus or in

Calgary (and through experience at Toronto), is this on-going review of students’

achievement within a sequence of courses. While the scope and sequence

committees are designed as a communications vehicle so that faculty (and

students, indirectly) understand how courses relate to each other, a more

concrete reality is that they structure the nature of collegial interaction. This first

quote is from a Calgary participant:

“What I like about our institute is every instructor, or most of us, should have a very clear idea of what the requirements are in the other courses. And therefore when they (the students) get to that next course, there’s none of this ‘well nobody told me” (D3).

And this from a Columbus faculty (chair), commenting on how he knows

that the curriculum is being delivered at the right level:

“We get together as faculty and we exchange ideas. Together we come up with a plan or a level—these are the kinds of analysis they should go through. We compare notes with one another... That's part of my job. I want to make sure that everyone is delivering the same level across the board” (D5).

Specific administrative tools and practices are used to augment and to

focus this interaction. First, attrition and grade distribution reports are

generated for all sections of all courses as part of an annual program review.

These are reviewed for discrepancies in completion rates. “If two sections of the

Same course demonstrated significantly different attrition, for instance 15% and

40%, someone would get the faculty together to talk about this difference” (D4).

Courses that have a consistently high attrition rate (and these are consistent

across the DeVry system) are labeled ‘killer courses’. These courses prompt

considerable scrutiny:

“We do an analysis of killer courses. We run the numbers to see if we have courses that appear to be at the wrong place in the curriculum or students are just having an inordinate amount of trouble—especially given that they have passed the admission test. And that should mean that they have the aptitude through all the courses that we teach, if we have them sequenced properly and have the right pre-requisites” (D7).


197

Killer courses are seen as a problem for the institution, rather than a

reflection of students’ performance. “We’re not quick to blame students. We are

more likely to resolve our own design of the course’””” (D4).

Class visits and faculty observation are a staple of the DeVry environment.

Deans, chairs, colleagues (and even presidents) visit classes on a planned and

unplanned basis and for two reasons. First, class observation is part of on-going

review and is directly related to ensuring that the curriculum is being delivered at

the right level:

“I observe classes. Part of my job is to observe the instructor, at least

once a year and with some 2 or 3 times. It depends on the instructor; if they are struggling or having some problems in the classroom, I'll do a little bit more mentoring and observing. I'll watch the interaction between instructors and students. They want to be liked but they have to be hard and strict enough so that the students learn the material” (D5).

And second, academic managers are always seeking input in an effort to

be proactive and to avoid or head-off student complaints. One dean shared his

regimen, which includes wandering the halls at least twice a day, every day. He

talks to students during class visits and encourages students to send him e-mails

with any questions or concerns. His goal is to mingle and to listen. He shared a

specific example of a 1* term technician class that said they were being

stretched beyond what was reasonable. As a follow-up, he scheduled a class

meeting, bought donuts and explained in detail the credentials of the curriculum,

focusing on the advisory committee process and the help that is available on

campus (D1).

Deans can assess and be pro-active, chairs can review curriculums and

learning materials, but faculty are the ultimate determiners of level:

“Although the level is largely driven by the curriculum guide, in the classroom it’s the teachers’ efforts that matter... and it’s their responsibility to do this (aim at the right level). But it’s tricky because

20 Some courses are ‘good’ killer courses. The first programming course, for instance, is “when students determine whether they really want to be a CIS major and whether DeVry is the right place for them” (D7).


198

many of our classes are bi-modal. One group has had good educational experience and been exposed to technology. The other is comprised of students who take longer to learn. This can be extremely difficult” (D6).

Many of the participants provided their views on this difficulty. One was

quite candid about the nature of his struggle:

“As an instructor you want to be successful and you want to be liked. You want the students to understand the material. So you have that kind of a struggle. And if they are not getting it, you try to find ways to deliver it. And that’s the challenge—making it interesting and making it so they can understand it” (D5).

Another opined that overall approach and attitude, especially with first

year students was particularly important. The administration struggles against

an attitude, especially with new instructors, who are inclined to over-reference

the curriculum guides. Their attitude is that “you should know this. The

curriculum guide has this and we are going to get through this material.” On

the other hand, taking a ‘best practices’ approach, he has formed conclusions

about those who are very successful with first year students:

“A large part of it is attitude. They recognize where students are and

work to get them to the next level. They don’t start with the premise that students are trying to get away with something” (D6).

Furthermore, experience matters: “You learn what the hard parts... and

how to explain them. You have to be moderately flexible.” Or as another

expressed this same approach:

“...we are sensitive and we care.... Pragmatically, most faculty if they give a test and the average is say 60 or below, it would not be uncommon to go back and review that material. I don’t think we are so curriculum bound that we don’t have time and desire to bring people up to speed” (D4).

Counter this approach with that of another participant who told me about

what happens to students who don’t have the pre-requisite skill sets. It’s an

instructive example of the impact of both the standardized, standards-based

curriculum and the way it is implemented:


199

“If it’s one or two, they are told: You didn’t get it, it’s up to you to catch- up. We aren't going to hold up the whole class” (D3).

She gives the example of the 6" term students who couldn't write a stats

paper; she failed them and told them to go back and re-learn the English. “You

should know it. You don’t know it and the necessary level. You're not passing

my class.”

While this example may seem hard, others reinforced their sense of

accountability to the students, their colleagues and ultimately the employers:

“I have to evaluate what I’m doing in my class... It’s up to me to make sure it (the curriculum) is accessible but it’s also up to me to make sure that the only people who pass are those who are willing and able to meet the competencies of the course at 60% or above... That’s a challenge for me, but I have a responsibility to all DeVry graduates to make sure that is the case in all of my courses” (D7).

One of the goals of the corporation, announced in 1997, is to achieve a

50% completion rate. Such a goal has two business-related outcomes: it

improves the university’s key performance indicators and it raises revenue.

Consequently, retention (or as DeVry measures it—attrition) is “not like

something we're afraid to talk about... it’s part of our desire and part of our

mission”. However, like other realities, it introduces a tension, characterized as a

fine line between failure rates and “the product we end up with”. Again the

curriculum guides represent the resolution, for “the terminal objectives must be

met so that we have a quality and not just a quantity of graduates” (D4).

Given the bimodal distribution of entering students, some DeVry

campuses (although not the ones that I visited) provide honors classes for those

who are exceeding the outcomes standards. One participant, in discussing a

perception that these quality students were dropping out, was critical of an

approach to the level of curriculum in first year:

“We do our students no favour by dumbing down the course. I have students who come to my office who say ‘we don’t do enough in first year here’. I had a student who actually said ‘I had a 4.0 in my first two terms and I didn’t do squat.’ His premise was, I’m not real, real smart.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 5: Findings

200

This may be why we are losing the quality students. They think that DeVry is going to be a challenge and they get here and for a year, it isn’t.”

Her solution is to “insert rigor without inserting a killer course.” She contends

that the campus is working at cross-purposes:

“By continuing to focus on killer courses, we are trying to get everyone through the curriculum. Without introducing honors courses, you aren’t able to do both” (D7).

In summary, DeVry’s curriculum is aimed at a level that fits its mission

and its market. Level is a “curricular managed function whose responsibility...

resides at OBT (head office) to make sure that they (the curriculum guides) are

written at a level that is appropriate” (D8). However, at the campus level

“Getting to the right level... is quite complex. We’re still trying to get there. We never will stop. It’s just continuous and once you think you've got it, something comes along which changes (new course, someone

retires.) It’s a struggle” (D5).

5.2.2.3. Communicating the Curriculum to Students

DeVry's communications with prospective students is developed centrally

and is intentionally incremental. Print promotional materials focus on what

program graduates can do:

“... Will perform the following tasks: plan and design networks, monitor and evaluate...” (7he DeVry Advantage).

In addition, they reference the nature of the careers or positions that are

available to individuals with these skills and knowledge:

“Engineering technologists work in a variety of environments, including research labs, corporate offices, production areas and on-site consulting. They are also involved in varying projects and teams (EET COS).

Promotional materials also list the kinds of entry-level positions for which

graduates are prepared.


201

All advertising and marketing activity is designed to prompt a personal

interview with an admissions advisor. During the interview, the advisor delivers

a scripted message about DeVry, the nature of its applications-oriented

curriculum and the opportunities available to graduates, including the extent of

career services support provided’. Based on a dialogue structured around

questions in a Personal Information Evaluation form (PIE), the advisor assists the

individual to choose the right program, based on a self-assessment of strengths

and aptitudes as well as aspirations. During the interview, the advisor provides

detailed information about programs of study, based on their own ‘product-

knowledge’ training.

This same advisor enrolls the student, at which time a prescribed

applications process is followed. All applicants sign an enrolment agreement that

sets out the details of the transaction, including the tuition, the program of study

and the conditions for registration. Applicants receive a program study plan for

the term they are beginning their studies and an Academic Calendar. The study

plan displays the courses by sequence and by term along with their credit value

and contact hours. (An example of a program of study is included as Appendix

K.) The calendar lists the program courses, arranged by areas of study and/or

by term (which matches the sequences in the study plan) and course

descriptions. Any change to curriculum is described in a calendar addendum.

In the calendar, program outcomes are vague (although perhaps

inspiring). Here’s how the six-term Electronics Engineering Technology program

in Toronto is described:

“... resulting in graduates who are well-grounded in current technology and in electronics principles and applications. The curriculum offers a

broad base of skills in instrumentation and controls, microprocessor and computer systems, and wireless and telecommunications. In addition, the

coursework integrates interpersonal and communication skills and relates electronics theory and applications to the real world.

21 All DeVry graduates receive six-months of placement support which includes developing interview opportunities and personal counseling.


202

Graduates use their technical and practical proficiency to implement and extend current technology, and may develop prototype products, optimize

designs or manage system operations. These electronics professionals take a hands-on approach to applying engineering methods and principles and are typically called on to perform test engineering and evaluation

activities, as well as to provide manufacturing support and quality assurance. Their broad range of knowledge prepares them to engage in lifelong learning as new technologies emerge and to progress in their professional responsibilities” (2002-2003 Academic Calendar, p. 20).

Course descriptions are taken directly from the curriculum guide that has

been approved and/or updated by the program director. These descriptions are

uneven in their structure. Some course descriptions include what students learn

to do: “Students learn to record financial information and prepare financial

statements for service and merchandising organizations” (Ca/endar). More

prevalent is what will be studied: “This course introduces operations

management and examines the products-to-services spectrum in terms of

various transformation processes” (Calendar).

Once registered and in-class, all students receive a course syllabus for

each course. They know that “they have a right to expect the syllabus in the

first week.” The most common faculty practice is to list the course terminal

objectives from the curriculum guide. These CTO’s are very clear about

students’ learning outcomes. Furthermore:

“Faculty know that their syllabus must have dates of exams, activities, a daily calendar (or weekly, depending on how often the class meets), office hours, how they can be contacted. Deans and associated deans check for those when those syllabi come in the first week. If they are not on there, they will send it back and say, you must have this on there” (D8).

5.2.3. Cross-Site Comparison of Curriculum Processes

Overall, the two institutions’ educational processes are remarkably similar

as they relate to curriculum coherence, the level of the curriculum and

communications with students. Courses are structured within programs of study


203

and generic skills are infused throughout the curriculum; only general education

courses are offered as electives. Program outcomes are focused on careers and

the job market and rely on input from advisory committees. Curriculum content

is managed by the institution and developed by faculty who are directed and

limited by standards documents and associated policies.

Questions about the level of the curriculum evoke the same kind of

responses at each site. Ultimately, the level of the curriculum is measured by

graduates’ competencies and the curriculum is developed and delivered against

outcome standards. Each has admissions requirements that are designed to

admit students who can benefit from the curriculum. Each institution has formal

and informal means to support faculty who deliver the curriculum at the right

level for the students in the classroom. Finally, the level of the curriculum is

associated with the institution’s mission.

Both institutions communicate the curriculum and its demands to their

students. Specific methods are employed to ensure that applicants and students

understand how the curriculum is connected. Two-way communications is

important in ensuring that the curriculum is being delivered at the right level.

Yet, within these similarities, there are subtle and real differences, some

of which may provide insight about the fundamental characteristics of public and

of for-profit, publicly-traded institutions. These differences are presented in the

following section and then are displayed in summary form in Table 23:

Similarities and Differences in Curriculum.

5.2.3.1. Differences within Similar Curriculum Processes

Advisory Committees: At Sheridan, advisory committees are more diverse in

their makeup, including not only employers and industry representatives, but

also educators, union officials and students. Furthermore, advisory committees

are part of the college’s governance structure; they meet at least twice a year

and report to the Board of Governors. In many instances, committee members


204

are asked to assume additional roles, including marketing, fund-raising (at least

for capital) and program review at a detailed level.

At DeVry, local advisory committee input is focused directly on employer

needs and is fed into a national curriculum development model. There are no

policies about the make-up of the committee, nor are there expectations beyond

the meetings.

Standards: Sheridan has two sets of standards that impact curriculum—

provincial program standards and college course outline standards. The program

standards are explicit and include vocational, generic skills and general education

standards for the program along with elements of performance that graduates

must be able to demonstrate. Each course at Sheridan must follow the course

outline standards. These course outline standards ensure a reference to the

program standards; however there is no explicit connection between course

outcomes and program outcomes.

DeVry’s curriculum guides document a specified range of content and

standards of achievement in each course. These guides “ensure a consistent

level of quality” in different and expanding markets. However, there are no

program standards, for each campus has the opportunity to develop specific

courses and CTOs within courses for its own market.

Faculty roles and responsibilities: Sheridan faculty are responsible for developing

course outlines. They are expected to stay current in their fields and to receive

and use input from advisory committees, colleagues, administration, and the

Educational Planning and Review Committee which includes peers, students, and

representatives from across the college. Faculty seem to have more flexibility as

they develop personal approaches to aiming the curriculum at the right level.

Although a DeVry faculty member may be commissioned to write a

curriculum guide and may be invited to review a curriculum guide in

development, faculty’s on-going curriculum responsibilities are to prepare a


205

syllabus based on the curriculum guide. These syllabi are reviewed by

management. Also, the level of the curriculum seems to be more managed at

DeVry. The hand-off of student achievement within a sequence of courses is

emphasized on a day-to-day basis.

Curriculum management: Sheridan‘s curriculum is managed by a program

coordinator who is a member of faculty. An associate dean, who is likely to

have multiple programs within his/her portfolio, provides management oversight.

The school dean has ultimate accountability for the program and course

curriculum. The college uses program mapping and detailed program outlines to

track the development of standards within program courses. This tool is not fully

developed, and significant resources are necessary to align course changes with

program outcomes. Faculty collegial activities and student feedback are

fundamental to curriculum management at the college.

Curriculum is managed from the top-down (or centre-out) at DeVry. A

program director has accountability for all curriculum guides and the program

structure. Campus deans, chairs and some faculty participate in standing

committees to provide input. Scope and sequence committees and charts

provide the tracking tools and the forum for collegial discussions about

curriculum and its level. Campus management is pro-active in managing

faculty's delivery and students’ expectations.

Level relative to function and mission: As a community college, Sheridan’s

function is to provide vocational preparation for members of its community. In

policy, admissions requirements are minimal unless the program is ‘over-

subscribed’ in which case, additional criteria can be applied. The programs

within the scope of my study were both under- and over-subscribed and both

attract students who are not prepared and who question their program choice.

The level of the curriculum is also associated with the college’s aspirations to

become a polytechnic and/or to offer a number of applied degrees.


206

DeVry’s function is to maximize shareholder value through profit and

growth. Its approach to level is consistent with an understood, yet bimodal

target market. Faculty understand their need to balance rigour with the needs of

the classroom, to improve retention and to ensure that DeVry graduates will be

able to perform according to employer expectations.

Communications: While Sheridan’s pre-enrolment communications are limited, in

principle, students have access to all curriculum materials and are advised

accordingly.

DeVry’s communications about program curriculum unfolds through the

recruitment process. At registration, communication is transactional and

officious; the goal is to ensure that the student understands what he or she is

purchasing. This relationship continues; at the beginning of each term, the

program of study is reviewed and students receive course syllabi that specify

course learning outcomes and requirements.

The similarities and differences within the similarities are summarized in

Table 23: Similarities and Differences in Curriculum presented on the next page:


sBulpuly :¢

Jaydeup 4opes

901Beg-UON S,OleIUC

Ul AISuaAIg

|eINpSd04d

“@>{I[-JAWINSUOD pue

[euopesue. siOW

Ss! SuOeIUNWWWO?

"APM

-OM} S| SUOMEI/UNWWOD J8YyI28}-]UBPNIS

Sjuapnys

QO} PayedIUNWLWODS

SI LUN|NSWND

“wnjnowan> 94}

JO 1NOBU

pue UOQUeye/

JUSPNIs BdUe]eq

Aynoe4 "yWyoid

pue yyou6

0} pay

Ss! jeAo7q

DIUYIS}jod e Bwodeq

0} suONesdse

abei}oo pue

spiepuejs seyenpei6

spaye

jaAe7 ‘UOISSILU

pUe UONDUNY

YUM paye—osse

SI jeans]

WNINDWIND

"BADe-O1d

S| JUsWabeueL)

"JPAR] PU JUBWAAaIYOe

JUapN Ss

923 Ssd}IWWOD sduenbas

pue adoos

"SOO

peay Wo. pabeuew

s! wnjndwns

‘Juewabeuew sapere

e JO SJuaWAala

Aa

a4e yOeqpea}

JuSspNys pue

uoesoge|joo Aynoey

‘Burddew weiGoig

“sajol payloads

saey siojeijsiuilmpe

pue Ajnoe4

‘pebeuew s!

winjndiun>

‘Spsepuels weiBoid

ou sue

seu "Ayenb

Jo jaa]

JUS sISuOD e ainsus

sspin6 wnyndwind

esuno>

*Sawodjno wesBoid UM

UONISUUOD

8uU} Jnoqe

souepin6 apiaoid

spuepueys duljyno

asunos ‘Spuepuejs

uoneonpe je49uUa6

pue s|/pjS

DuaUab ‘;eUONeIOA

seyenpes6 ysijqeyse

spuepueys wesboid

‘ABAIjap pue

JUsWdoOjeAep WinyndWind

Yoddns 0}

a0e/d ul

sue Sadijod

pue spuepuels

"Sasse00id asduenbas

pue adoos

ybnoiy} pabeuew

si jaae7

“uaweBbeuew

Aq pamataa

aie iqe||As

ye ‘saurljepin6

@SiNOD UO

pase iqe||As

auedaud AWnde4

"JBA9| Bululwuayep

ul Ayiqixey

aaey ‘saulqno

3SJNOD UO

Indu! pesidsapim

SAIade AINDe4

"JOAR] YH

Buy} 3e

7! JaAl|ap

pue winyndiuno

doyeaap Aynde4

"JEpow LuN|NdLUNd

jeuOHeU e Ou!

paj pue

spaou JeAo|dwa

uo pasndoJ

si nduy

‘diussapea|fuawdojeaep wesboid

pue Q0ueUJSAOB

JO Wed

sue Adu,

‘diusuequow QSJOAIP

2 SARY

PUR /Ed0|

Se SBaPILWWOD

"}Ndul sayiwwosd AUOSIApe

UO AjaJ

pue Sjaae9

UO pasndo}

aie SawodjNO

“Apnjs jo

swesBoid uluM

paunyonys ase

sasunoD

Aysseaiun /2621109

Aiaed 26a]/0D

ueprsys

SONHEPWNIS

94} UUM

SedUdI0jJIC SanuepWis

WIN|NILLIND Ul

SBDUdJOyIG pue

SAQWEPIWIS :¢7

BIGeL

L0C

208

5.3. Educational Processes—Instruction

5.3.1. Instruction at Sheridan

5.3.1.1. Involving Students in the Instructional Process

Sheridan’s approach to instruction aligns with its strategic intention to be

recognized as innovative and flexible while providing an overall student

experience appropriate for a leading public institution. In the 2002 Annual

Report, these goals are expressed in the context of the college’s continuous

improvement:

“Sheridan strives to ensure increasing excellence in program content and delivery, and to provide a positive learning environment... Innovation and flexibility drive our academic agenda. We recognize that today’s learners come to us with different needs, aptitudes and personal circumstance....

Today’s postsecondary student brings a variety of learning and life

experiences. Differences in race, language, religion, gender, age and cultural values bring a richness to learning experiences and must be considered in the design of curriculum and learning activities. We are challenged to become increasingly learning-centred and to provide flexible, just-in-time learning which is on task, current, well-supported, accessible and properly evaluated. No longer do we judge ourselves on

the excellence of our teaching, but rather on the depth and effectiveness of learning that we produce.” (Annual Report, p.8)

The importance of innovation in curriculum and instruction is codified in

policy:

“Sheridan is committed to promoting curricular and instructional innovation as a means of ensuring excellence in student learning outcomes. Sheridan supports the development of faculty skills in curriculum development and delivery through effective orientation and on- going development processes” (Policy on Curricular and Instructional Innovation).

Furthermore, there is an explicit attempt to incorporate the program

outcomes and goals into the instructional experience:


209

“It is also essential that the abilities, skills and learning that are valued by the workplace and the community are incorporated into all aspects of our students’ programs. Therefore we strive to ensure our students: " Develop the necessary skills and abilities to enhance their ability to contribute fully to both the workplace and to society. «Have opportunities to interact with others who have different academic and career goals to provide a diversity of perspectives on issues. « Experience the world they are preparing to enter through relevant learning modes and opportunities” (Annual Report, p. 8).

The college’s introduction of a laptop-computing environment further

supports both the commitment to instructional innovation and student

engagement. First introduced in 1999, the project is called DELTA? (Delivering

Emerging Learning Technologies Anywhere, Anytime to Anyone). Its

promotional promises are explicit:

“When you enrol in a DELTA? program, you benefit from an innovative and student-centred learning experience, rich in dynamic course content and practical applications” (Welcome to Sheridan)

The Calendar is more specific about the nature of these learning experiences:

“Learning opportunities unique to mobile computing may include: Redesigned curricula that incorporates the incredible strengths of computers in terms of calculation, visualization, organization, communication and problem-solving, collaborative on-line work groups, Web-based research, and subject-area chat rooms.”

In the documentation, as well as in many of the my interviews, ‘learner-

centred’ is used as an umbrella term to capture the attempt to connect the

learning preferences and needs of Sheridan’s students through the use of

multiple learning strategies. However, “there are no preferred instructional

methods” (S1). Furthermore, and this is well understood: “Teachers have

‘freedom of delivery’. They have the knowledge about the right way to deliver so

that learning happens” (S3). This respect for and expectation of faculty begins

at the hiring stage when prospective faculty are asked to prepare and deliver a

lesson plan. A large part of the hiring decision is based on the candidate's

understanding of active learning:


210

“T want to know how candidates would approach developing a concept or outcome over a lesson or series of lessons. I want to see that a candidate understands that there are multiple learning styles; as a result they must create multiple learning strategies demonstrating their understanding that engaged learners learn faster, better, stronger... than passive learners” (S1).

This understanding is developed and sustained through college policies

and practices, including the 7eacher Education Policy and Policies on Faculty

Evaluation/Renewat:

“Sheridan is committed to ensuring that all faculty are skilled in teaching and learning postsecondary level students and, through its Teacher Education policy requires that all new full-time and part-time faculty complete teacher education courses provided by the College and complemented by others offered in conjunction with university education programs” (Faculty Evaluation/Renewal).

The intention of the teacher education and teacher orientation “is to learn

multiple strategies, to recognize multiple learning styles and to learn how to

design multiple strategies to address them.” The three courses in the teacher

education sequence focus on instructional strategies. The first course introduces

“the range and appropriateness of instructional strategies and includes

instruction on how to do ‘lecture bursts’: “We demonstrate and model for them

so that after 10, 12 minutes there’s an activity that causes students to process

the information that was given previously.” In the second course, the outcomes

are more specific and applied:

“Analyze the effectiveness of a variety of instructional strategies as they relate to facilitating the achievement of the intended outcomes in each of the three domains of learning « Differentiate between various learning styles and learning style tools

including MBTI, multiple intelligences, and human dynamics « Define and understand your own preferred learning style = Appreciate the diversity of adult learners and the impact on teaching

situations

« Select appropriate instructional strategies for the intended learning”


211

In the final course, faculty are expected to “identify the criteria for the selection

of instructional strategies” and to “discuss the purpose and effectiveness of

individual, small and large group instructional strategies.”

Core to the college’s approach throughout this sequence and

complementary support is a consistent definition of learning that was expressed

in this way by one of the participants in the study:

“Learning is the processing of information to review, reinforce or acquire knowledge, further develop skills and acquire attitudes as appropriate. Thus true learning happens when student process information. We teach faculty how to help students process information” (S5).

Student involvement is central to this definition of learning and is

incorporated into both what faculty are taught about instructional strategies and

how they are taught:

“We drive home active learning. They learn different strategies related to it. We model and use collaborative leaning techniques, debates—anything that causes students to either process the information individually or collectively” (S5).

While this emphasis on active learning strategies is directed at new

faculty, the experienced faculty I interviewed were just as engaged in finding

ways to involve students. A well-used strategy “in order that they really

comprehend and understand what goes on” is to give them real-life projects:

“For instance we ask them to build a burglar alarm system for their house or their car. And by doing that they show a great level of enthusiasm because this is something they like to do. They use this knowledge as they progress through the curriculum, and they really appreciate that” (S4).

The fact that every student has a laptop outfitted with prescribed learning

software and plugged into the college’s network has transformed the learning

environment. One outcome has been a review of instructional strategies. As

one very experienced faculty noted:

“Mobile computing has changed everything. We are first-year teachers all over again. It has forced us to rationalize everything all over again—and that’s a good thing. The thoughtful faculty have come to the value-added


212

question. If I’m to implement this on the computer which will take me all this time, what’s the benefit? Will students actually benefit? Will they use this service?” (S3).

A typical class in both program areas that I investigated begins with an

introduction that includes the teacher’s objectives and then connects the new

topic with previously covered content and with its applications in industry. As

one faculty explained this pragmatic approach:

“Teaching computer programming, you have to program the computer.... I organize a lesson around a concept or technique and enumerate them. Then I lay out a sequence—what has to be known and understood before what. The concept is teacher-centred for that moment—questions, answers, find something that the students know that is closely related to the new idea; build a bridge between them; draw the clear boundaries around the new concept—it’s this, this and this, not that. Example, example, example. Counter examples. Then onto the machines...” (S3).

An electronics professor explained how he takes advantage of the mobile

computing environment in a similar fashion. After his context-building

introduction, he simulates what is to be done in the lab, displaying his computer

screen and building or designing the circuit on Multisim software.

“The students all have the simulator too. We do it together. I’m not just standing there saying ‘this is how I do it.’ A lot of times they are typing it out and running it and running into the same problems during the lecture. It seems to work out. They’re involved. You tend to lose the weaker students when they are not involved. When they are involved, it makes a big difference” (S7).

Classrooms have been renovated to “facilitate the mobile ‘e-learning’

model” ( 7ransformation, Becoming Sheridan Polytechnic). Here's how this same

participant describes the classroom that he often uses:

“There's a jack in front of every student. They are all looking at you. The podium is on one side with a camera, really big screen, excellent projector, good acoustics. And when you lift up the screen, the whiteboard is right there. It’s wonderful.... The investment in the

classrooms by the college was very helpful and I feel obligated and I do what I can with the laptops. And I know that every year I’m going to be able to do more” (S7).


213

However, none of the participants suggested that the college had

achieved an instructional nirvana. One administrator shared the nature of the

advice he provides to faculty whose instructional strategies are in question.

Clearly the focus is on the basics:

“There are lots of faculty who need additional help. Most of the time, they know what they have to do, but they just have to be made aware of instructional strategies. And these would be anything from look at the students rather than the blackboard. Keep them engaged with interactive questions. Identify a variety of ways to making them participate by small projects, working in a group—to keep them constantly active. Giving them an application to ensure that learning has taken place.... And I tell them that they have to stop, pause and do all of those feedback strategies to make sure that the learning happens” (S6).

According to the Educational Processes Model, instructional strategies

should be aimed at the learning preferences and needs of the students. And

while the college has demonstrated strategic and proactive strategies about

instruction, its methodology in determining student needs has been more

reactive, responding to student input gained through student questionnaires, the

KPI data and a formal student complaints process.

Student questionnaires have had a turbulent history at Sheridan; their

use, form and methodologies have evolved to the point where there is now a

t?? that will be used in all schools with the single instrument in developmen

opportunity to ask a limited number of school-specific questions. Given the

intention “to provide learning strategies to address every learning style”, the

questionnaire is an integral component to

“review this through limited observation and feedback from every student on every course, every semester. These questionnaires need to be carefully constructed in a way that checks for realities” (S5).

The current questionnaire has emerged from a development process that

included input from all stakeholder groups including the Student Union and the

local executive of the faculty union. A draft version was placed in the student

22 This new questionnaire is now used across the college.


214

newspaper for everyone to comment. The test version was recently issued by

the Vice-President, Academic and although still ‘in-development’ is being used

across the college’. The relevant statements about instructional strategies

focus on opportunities and expectations:

#26: The instructor provides effective learning experiences. #27: Expectations of student responsibilities are clear #28: The instructor encourages student contributions. #29: Appropriate instructional strategies are used.

#30. The instructor provides challenging ways for me to learn.

The Student Satisfaction survey is administered once a year as part of the

college’s Key Performance Indicators (KPI) process. Increasingly the college

community is beginning to understand and use the information emerging from

this data:

“The KPI questionnaires provide some answers. In some programs, the students are indicating more engagement than they are in others. They (faculty and administration) are starting to use this analysis” (S1).

The student complaints process seems to unearth issues about

instructional strategies at a deeper level. These complaints also prompt

management action:

“When student complaints focus on ‘we haven't learned anything’ then the flag goes on and we advise the teachers of the right strategies” (S6).

This administrator's approach is straightforward. He says to the teacher: “You

have a bunch of students whose learning is not synchronized with your teaching.

Why don’t you try this, why don’t you try that... “

And what are the learning needs and preferences of Sheridan students?

This question evoked a consistent response that surprised me given the diverse

student population that enrolls in these technology programs. First, students are

3 The questionnaire was subsequently truncated to 15 questions. In the winter semester, 2003, 31,835 surveys were electronically administered in class. An outside firm was contracted to process and report on the data. Reports included comparative data for each school and for the college (Personal correspondence).


215

not able to visualize things very well, a cognitive skill that is necessary in the

electronics program and is addressed through lab assignments:

“But when they come (to the lab) and actually build something, everything starts falling into place and making sense to them....It’s the lab that really makes them understand” (S4).

Another electronics professor noting, “text is boring” spoke to his ability to

display theoretical concepts in his DELTA? lectures. However, more fundamental

is his focus on the practical:

“I've always had a philosophy that college has to be different. If it’s not practical, if I can’t give them a reason why this is useful that I’m teaching, then it’s not worth teaching to them. It might be to a university level— engineering or physics...” (S7).

Second, there is a general understanding about additional demands on

students. At the Brampton campus, in particular, students’ language

competencies impose additional learning tasks:

“What we see here is the difficulty with the language. We have a lot of students whose first language is not English. Especially I see them from a Chinese background who are coming more and more” (S4).

Many students work and have family responsibilities—although these

students seem more prepared and able to balance outside responsibilities with

the demands of the curriculum than those right out of high school. The

consensus is that these younger students are more easily distracted. Here’s how

one participant described the student population relative to their learning needs:

“We find that mature students do better because they are dedicated to

their goal. The teenagers—many are here because their parents have forced them into this institution ... are not multi-taskers...That’s one of the reasons why we expect them to not only learn how to learn and how to work hard and learn the material and manage their time and their multi- tasking. All of those soft skills have to be in them for them to fly with flying colours” (S6).

Perhaps these additional demands have led to the third perspective on

student preferences, which are characterized as ‘wants’. When I asked one

faculty about student learning needs the response was cryptic: “I hear the word


216

needs and know it frequently means ‘wants’. I want it all now, and I want it my

way, and it has to be easy” (S3). This preference is most often played out as a

student complaint. One administrator was straightforward in his description of

circumstance and motive:

“60% of the time complaints are based on the fear of failing a course. They put up with things until the mid-terms when they realize their GPA will suffer. Then the flag goes up. Instead of making themselves work harder, they go to an avenue of complaint to see if we will downgrade the course—make it easier” (S6).

In these circumstances, the response may be to change the pace or nature of

the delivery: “The delivery strategy can be accelerated or enhanced... to suit

your learning capabilities while the learning outcomes cannot be compromised.”

To address these learning needs and preferences, the college has

introduced policies, practices and innovations to supplement the on-going

collegial discussion about “ways to build meaningful participation into class

activities.” Management practices, while reactive, are directed at improving the

quality of instruction. Based on student input (as a complaint or course

evaluation data), the associate dean will make the teacher aware of any

situation immediately. “I then share this (the input) with the faculty, trying to be

neutral, and provide a list of things that I want the faculty member to do” (S6).

However, the extent of management intervention is limited by the resources

assigned to this function. In the School of Technology, for instance, the

associate dean supervises 54 full-time faculty and 35 part-time faculty who

provide instruction to 1200 full-time students. This limitation is understood and

accepted:

“Yes they say it (get students involved in the classroom), but there is no connection of authority, really. There’s no directive process that reaches

down into what a faculty member does in the classroom—aside from hard-nosed in-class observation and discipline. We don’t have the supervisory resources to do that” (S3).

Instead, the college relies on collegial activities such as the Peer Coaching

Program, which is designed as


217

“a collaborative, constructive program to link college faculty interested in developing aspects of their teaching with a peer who supports them. The mutual goal is to enhance the quality of the student learning.”

Other collegial activities and opportunities to promote curricular and

instructional innovation are described in Policies on Faculty Evaluation/Renewal.

The college supports a number of self-directed support groups where faculty

explore “innovative approaches to teaching and learning.” Also each year there

is an Award of Merit that recognizes faculty and/or faculty groups for their

contribution to instructional innovation. Finally faculty may apply for a

professional development leave where sabbaticals “involve exploration and

development of innovative and curriculum and instruction”.

On the meta-level, the college’s laptop computing (DELTA?) initiative

represents a major innovation, consistent with Dill’s and Teixeira’s notion of the

competitive advantage of a programmatic or procedural innovation (Dill;

Teixeira, 2000). My questioning evoked a diverse set of views on the

advantages and challenges of the DELTA? implementation and the impact on

instruction and the classroom environment. And every advantage seemed to

receive a counterpoint. While one senior administrator gushed:

The LapTop Project has introduced a lot of strategies around learning

centred-ness that are incorporated into a good laptop course. Whether they know it or not, they (the faculty) are putting in place a hell of a lot of learning centred-ness. It’s quite amazing.... Look at what’s happening in the classroom. Even if a teacher is still lecturing 100% of the time, they are now doing it with powerpoint slides that the student can take notes on” (S1).

A senior faculty is not as convinced: “Power point lectures are the same as

overheads—it is not an active learning process” (S3).

What does not seem to be in debate is the fact that the introduction of

Laptops has changed the dynamics of the classroom environment, the nature of

student engagement and the content of faculty dialogue. On the one hand,

faculty have more tools to engage students: simulations; links to websites that


218

have “really interesting presentation of the topic... that can really help the

students comprehend the concept”; software to manage online study groups.

One participant noted that “the laptop is the centre of their lives” and that

having more access to resources “helps students an awfully lot” (S7).

Certainly the overall impression about mobile computing is positive.

Students indicate a fairly good satisfaction level in response to a specific question

the college added to the basic KPI survey questions. Faculty are generally

positive. At the same time, those I interviewed acknowledge that students’

attention is not always directed at the day’s lesson plan:

“because students have their computers on, they are engaging in non- class activities—which is making it even more important to find and share strategies that lead to meaningful student participation” (S2).

Faculty shared their perceptions about the nature of the distractions.

Students download movies and games or view assignments, grades, tests and

sample tests, all of which are available on-line. And while the renovated

classrooms received good reviews, especially around restricting class size, they

are “not designed to see what the students are doing on the laptop. We don't

really know that they are learning. They are physically present, but mentally

they may be somewhere else” (S3). In fact, one participant expressed concern

about a monotony that the laptop has introduced:

“Every course they go there, open up the laptop, they download something. So it gets monotonous. Instead of focusing on the new subject, they focus on the same tool, how it is going to be surfed differently” (S6).

Some students question why they have to attend class, asking why they

cannot complete the lesson and assignment from their residence. At the same

time, faculty feel compelled to use the laptop more effectively. One noted that

“there is definitely a push to use the laptop fully. I feel that I need to use it

wherever necessary” (S7). Another suggested that the even used effectively,

the laptop restricts the range and impact of learning strategies:


219

“Before laptops, students would be more tactilely involved in their learning. They would go to lab; there was more variety and more tools in

their learning experiences” (S6).

The electronics lab remains an important teaching facility in the

electronics programs; in fact it is the locus of individualization instruction in the

program. This and other practices and opportunities will be examined in the

next section.

5.3.1.2. Individualizing Instruction

Sheridan’s approach to individualizing instruction is conventional. All

students are part of a class that follows the course outline including the

assignments as set out in the topical outline. Individual faculty members may

make one-off arrangements with respect to course management issues such as

deadlines and attendance. And in some cases assignment choice may be

individualized; that is, the student may have the opportunity to choose the

context or subject area for a project that develops outcomes. Here is an

example from the electronics program practices:

“The only time it (instruction) is individualized is during the practical aspect of the lab. If they would like to do a project of their own, and they consult with the professor who determines that it is within the limits and confinements of the course or related to what they are doing there” (S4).

The electronics program also employees a lab supervisor, a support staff

member who plays a para-teaching role to support student learning:

“... we have a person in charge of the lab who is a great help to the students. He always goes out of his way to help the students who are struggling with the lab—outside of the lab time, especially. He tries to help them out with their experiments; he goes through the theory with

them, explaining it” (S4).

This attention to individual needs is featured in the college’s promotional

materials; in the Ca/endar, the president identifies the “wealth of services and

activities to make your experience a valuable one, from tech tutors, to


220

counseling to peer mentoring...”. The Peer Tutoring Service provides access to

senior students who “help enhance your skills in the academic subject of your

choice and to help you improve your grades (Ca/endar, p. 8). Over 200 students

work in the Career Centres, which is where the peer tutoring service is located.

All public colleges in Ontario are legislated to provide appropriate

accommodation for students with disabilities. This is a significant investment in

the “ongoing assistance and continuing access to learning” for those who qualify

for this program which is administered through the Disability Services Office at

each campus.

Those who need special attention self-identify and/or the faculty member

will initiate intervention. Faculty post their office hours, which by collective

agreement are two hours a week although most faculty are available to students

on a drop-in basis. Overall faculty expressed a rueful disappointment about their

ability to deal with individual student needs:

“We do discuss individual students or small groups sometimes, but it strictly informal. We have tried to put teachers of cohorts together periodically, say through a first semester. And it’s just not worked; it seemed expensive” (S3).

Another was candid about the difficulty of providing individual attention

with a class size of 65 to 70 with a lab split, noting “you tend to focus on

students who ask the questions” (S7).

5.3.1.3. Evaluation and Feedback

“In a perfect world, in every course you'd be able to negotiate how you are going to earn your grade, and what you are going to do. Even if you don’t do that, every course needs to have different kinds of activities so that every student will have the opportunity to shine” (S1).

So says a senior administrator envisioning how evaluation might be and

should be implemented at the college. Further in the interview, she returned to

current reality: “No student should be surprised about their grade”


221

This simple statement summarizes the Educational Processes Model’s best

practices about evaluation and feedback. Students are informed of how they are

doing and what they need to do to improve their achievement of the learning

outcomes. At Sheridan, expectations about student evaluation and feedback are

codified in policy that is explicit about principles and standards and that

addresses objectivity, clear communications and equity. These principles are

documented in the EPPR’s Principles and Standards for Course Evaluation.

“2. Evaluation of students is the responsibility of the faculty member within the context of the collective agreement.

7. Decisions and explanations about evaluation are based on accurate information. Students and faculty are expected to provide supportable explanations for all aspects of evaluation such as how grades are determined, missed due-dates or tests, and late assignments.

10. Objective evaluation where weighted criteria is used and communicated provides effective direction, feedback and learning. Subjective evaluation is discouraged where it provides little feedback and where it is difficult to avoid concerns about personal bias.

11. Participation is expected in a learning environment and is often evaluated as a generic skill within the context of team work or development. Participation is not always ‘overt’, and is difficult to measure and explain.”

This same document also presents the college’s standards for course

evaluation:

“1. For courses with the same code, evaluation plans, practices and policies are the same...

4. Evaluation plans must include a breakdown showing percentages for each of the components.

6. No one evaluation counts for more than 50% of a student's final

grade.

7. There are at least three evaluations of student learning in each course.


222

13. The evaluation plan and strategies stated in the course outline must not change during the course without the agreement of the coordinator and written acknowledgement of all students in the section.”

These principles and standards are implemented in three ways. First all

course outlines are reviewed using a process already described: (EPPR, program

coordinator, course leaders). The EPPR examines the course outcomes and the

evaluation, in particular. “We have a real focus on matching the evaluation

approach with learning outcomes” (S5). In addition this collegial body ensures

that “feedback is multiple and frequent.”

Second, faculty members, by themselves and in collaboration, integrate

these evaluation principles and standards into classroom practices. A typical

evaluation schedule is a mid-term test, a final exam and a Series of assignments.

First year exams and tests are common in the electronics program. In the

second and third year courses, faculty develop their own evaluation schedules.

In the computer programs, the test and exams, although not common because

they are written at different times, are written by a faculty group and structured

in the same framework.

‘...50 if there are multiple choice questions everyone will have the same number and marking scheme. We'll lay out topical areas and everyone follows that. It is not a common test.... A natural collegial process for us is to look at each others’ tests—although this is not formal” (S3).

To ensure that students are not surprised by the content or the structure

of the exams, faculty have developed their own individual approaches. One

faculty member shared how he gives his students the entire structure of the

exams and tests:

“What I'll do is leave all the question numbers in but take out the meat. So, question 23 will be ‘write a program that...’ I'll even put in the

topical area. That way they know that there’s a question about this; that they are going to have to write a program, there are 25 multiple choice questions; these are the topics of those questions. So I give all that to them.”


223

“If it’s a good test, it’s no different than the learning outcomes. So how can you surprise the students by withholding anything? They know the learning outcomes. You are obliged to declare them. It’s in the course

outline” (S3).

I questioned whether this level of foreclosure was common practice. The

participant, acknowledging that some of his colleagues would be aghast at this

practice, conceded that he had not shared this with his colleagues, noting that

‘it’s not worth the confrontation.”

That said, other faculty have developed similar practices. One electronics

faculty member shared his approach. First, he does not use the word ‘exam’; his

courses are set up so that students are not tested twice on the same material.

Second, his tests are a “validation of the materials learned”; they do not go

beyond what has been covered in the course. And finally, before each test, he

Says:

“Here are the questions that I want to ask you. If you want to get 100%, this is how to do it” (S7).

I also got the impression that results on tests and exams, while important,

are balanced by student's demonstration of learning through lab assignments

whether in the electronics lab or the lab-type laptop environment used in the

computing programs.

And, as is the case with instruction, the introduction of laptops has

impacted evaluation strategies. Because the material tends to be more current

and the content has expanded, faculty use more quizzes and short tests to

ensure that students have covered the material. In the opinion of one

administrator

“... the evaluation strategies are changing but still the components are so many that it’s still stressing out the students because the blend is still there—the old way and the new way” (S6).

This blending has tended to impact student workload, which is not

coordinated and planned across the term of study. Another participant was

more concrete about the impact:


224

“We have not revised student evaluation strategies to align with the new

content or delivery. And that is where student complaints have increased. They are learning more in the same time... The expectation to have the teachers respond back to questions students have has increased.... Teachers get 200 e-mails a week” (S2).

Another faculty member introduced a more subtle difference that strikes

at the core of student/teacher interaction and feedback. In commenting on the

classroom configuration and students’ pre-occupation with the laptop, he is now

unable to assess classroom learning:

“I had always been the kind of teacher that had his eyes on the students...it’s like a radar sweep. You can tell by looking in people’s eyes whether they are with you or not. They are not attending in any way what's going on in your classroom” (S3).

The college is responding to this and other challenges. (Another real

challenge is the increased amount of group work and the difficulties of group

assessment.) One participant in the study noted that evaluation had not been an

area of focus at Sheridan, but now in curriculum sessions, in the EPPR course

review process and in program review, the college is “driving very hard at the

relationship between learning outcomes and the nature of evaluation” (S5).

Another noted a grid that had been developed to show assessment strategies

relative to the kinds of outcomes and the “fair amount of work in PD on rubrics

and how to lay out evaluation criteria” (S1).

Again, the overall approach is to prepare faculty through teacher

education and peer processes, to improve practices through systemic review and

to provide management intervention when appropriate. Within the faculty

education sequence, new faculty are introduced to “types of evaluation and

characteristics and techniques in evaluating students” in the introductory course.

This is followed up with a primer on the use of the terms assessment, evaluation,

mark and grade in the second course. In the final course, faculty are expected

to be able to use “a variety of assessment tools to accurately measure learners’


225

progress and performance and to evaluate and improve test items after each

administration.”

The student feedback instrument includes the following statements

directly related to the nature of course evaluation:

“Criteria for grading is clearly explained’ ” “Grading of assignments/tests is fair.” “Feedback about student work is helpful.” “Tests and assignments are returned in a timely manner.” “Projects and assignments are appropriate and challenging.”

One faculty member summarized student feedback, in what sounded like a

lesson learned: “They get all over you if you are ambiguous” (S7).

As already noted, the frequency and scope of this feedback ensures that

administration is aware of students’ opinions about faculty members’ evaluation

strategies. When appropriate, the associate dean will intervene, introducing

basic strategies to assist the faculty member address the student concerns.

On a periodic basis, a program’s overall approach to evaluation will be

analyzed. Using a simple graph, the Program Review unit will

“match the level of learning as defined by Bloom against level of application... So when I look at the tests, assignments, evaluations— whatever, I take the instructions for the assignment, for example, and I measure those against level of Bloom’s taxonomy” (S5).

A second analysis system measures the level of complexity—"to what level of

problem-solving, or complex critical thinking... students working at in the

assignment.”

Student achievement is also tracked at the program level by the college's

academic policies on student academic progression. While some programs

continue to conduct progress meetings at the end of 2", 4" and 6" terms, this

practice has been omitted from the College Calendar. Students’ grade point

averages are calculated on a term basis and posted on a web-based student

information system. Any actions based a student not achieving academic

progress standards are initiated by Academic Services. As such, progression is


226

based solely on the results of individual courses and their appropriate sequences

as displayed on the program map.

In summary, instruction at Sheridan is innovative. And with innovation

comes challenges, which the college is addressing through its policies and

practices.

5.3.2. Instruction at DeVry

5.3.2.1 Involving Students in the Instructional Process

DeVry’s approach to instruction is remarkably similar to Sheridan’s.

Promotional materials reference small class sizes, averaging 35; “a personal,

interactive approach to higher education”; project-team approaches; applied,

hands-on experiences, which reference laboratories equipped with up-to-date

equipment; and a “learn-by-doing” approach. Furthermore, generic skills (oral

and written communications, teamwork, problem-solving and information

literacy) are infused into the curriculum; students are practicing these skills in all

courses. DeVry has even structured its approach to instructional strategies

around the same principle of ‘learner-centred’. The premises of the learner-

centered model serve as the theoretical base for the Teacher Excellence Course,

which is mandatory for all new faculty. This is how these premises are

described:

1. Learners are distinct and unique. Their distinctiveness and uniqueness must be attended to and taken into account if learners are to engage in and take responsibility for their own learning.

2. Learners’ unique differences include their: Emotional states of mind Learning rates

Learning styles Abilities and talents

Feelings of efficacy Other academic and nonacademic attributes and needs


227

These must be taken into account if all learners are to be provided with the necessary challenges and opportunities for learning and self-

development.

3. Learning is a constructive process that occurs best when what is being learned is relevant and meaningful to the learner and when the learner is actively engaged in creating his or her own knowledge and understanding by connecting what is being learned with prior knowledge and experience.

4. Learning occurs best in a positive environment, one that contains positive interpersonal relationships and interactions, which contains comfort and order, and in which the learner feels appreciated, acknowledged, respected and validated.

5. Learning is a fundamentally natural process; learners are naturally curious and basically interested in learning about and mastering their world. Although negative thoughts and feelings sometimes interfere with this natural inclination and must be dealt with, the learners do not require “fixing”. (Internal Memo Re: Teaching Excellence Course).

While the approach is similar, the motives appear to be different. At

DeVry instructional strategies are consistent with the corporation’s marketing and

brand positioning. This is how President Ron Taylor summarizes the university’s

instructional strategies:

“A ... reason that people come to DeVry is because we have adopted an approach to education that serves the cognitive learning style of many students in a very effective way. Our model is to combine traditional

lecture and reading formats with laboratories so that our students learn by manipulating and doing things with their hands, which is an approach that serves the needs of many of our students very well” (Fosse, 2001, p.10).

He then links this instructional approach with enrolment growth,

explaining the demographic drivers of DeVry’s business and how DeVry is

positioned to capitalize on increasing postsecondary participation:

“More important is the fact that the students who represent that incremental 20% of students...are students who previously had gone into the trades, military or taken some other path into a career and is a group that DeVry serves very well. Another group of people that DeVry serves very well is minority students and in fact, in the DeVry system, 40 to 45%


228

of our students represent minority groups. They come in part because they are interested in the transition to a career and in part because they value a more hands-on, applied learning experience” (Fosse, 2001, p. 18).

A faculty member, closer to the day-to-day reality of the student body,

was even clearer about the nature of the DeVry student and how the university’s

approach to instruction serves the target market and the university's business

goals:

“Because we target ourselves and market ourselves (the way we do), we do get students who are maybe a little more academically challenging to work with because they don’t do things the way we do who have been successful in education. So yes we do have a special market here. We do, I think, serve that market well with our focus on labs, with our focus on hands-on. We take those students who because of their learning style,

not because of their intelligence, may not have been able to be successful at other places. We get them a college degree and we get them a good job. And that drives our admissions” (D7).

In addition to enrolment and growth, DeVry’s instructional strategies are

designed to support quality and profitability. As at Sheridan, technology and

innovation are important elements of this strategy. The Technology Vision

statement speaks to “technology resources that enhance students’ educational

experiences both in and out of the classroom.” These experiences include

“applied interactive educational experience”, remote student access to course

materials and communications and collaborative technologies. The document is

clear about the benefits of this investment:

“Given our understanding that people learn using different modalities, technology-based tools can widen the range of delivery methods available to instructors, thus allowing us to serve students more efficiently and

effectively and thereby impact student learning success, improve graduation rates, and increase student satisfaction” (Technology in Education Recommendations, 2002).

These delivery strategies are also designed to increase market share while

improving margins. The most recent strategic plan describes the technology-

dependent, diversified delivery system which includes delivery on large


229

campuses, DeVry University Centers (DVUC) and on-line. “This strategy

dovetails with the market segmentation plan, which helps match key student

segments with their particular programs of interest and preferred delivery sites.”

This strategy will be implemented with a “relatively standard model for both

operational and marketing reasons....” The plan sets out the conditions and

advantages of increased technology-mediated instruction in terms of important

efficiencies:

“Key opportunities for more effectively utilizing the space capacity of our campuses include (1) the implementation of on-site and online study options to reduce low-draw course delivery and (2) better coordination, and utilization of local DVUC sites to serve accelerated-program students” (DeVry Strategic Plan).

DeVry’s considerable institutional research infrastructure affirms and

modifies this continuous understanding of market segments. DeVry collects data

about who responds to what advertising and promotional activities, the

demographic and educational backgrounds of who enrolls, who begins classes

and who is successful in their studies and career search. Specific functional units

use this data to improve business success. Instructional strategies are modified

to respond to this data-driven information at a meta-level while being responsive

to both student and faculty input at the campus level.

Student input is encouraged. Course evaluations and an annual student

satisfaction survey are administered on a regular basis. Course evaluations are

standardized across the university system. In policy, at least two of each faculty

member's courses are evaluated each term. Student input is tallied and shared

with faculty. These results are an important component in faculty performance

reviews. The evaluation form presents statements and asks students to respond

at their level of agreement. The following statements address instructional

strategies. They also provide yet more insight into what’s important to DeVry:

18. Motivating me to complete my studies at DeVry University.

22. Providing helpful academic assistance. 29. Providing a variety of learning activities in the classroom.


230

Perhaps more important, DeVry academic management is pro-active in

soliciting input and being clear about what students can expect in DeVry’s

classrooms. Here’s how a senior academic manager describes this

communications:

“I tell them that they have rights which are outlined in the Student Handbook. They are paying for their education. They have a right to be challenged. They have a right for faculty to be available to answer their questions. They have a right to be helped... and it doesn’t take long for student complaints to start coming in if a faculty member is not effective.”

This same participant, who has worked at many public institutions, shared

her insight about the nature of the relationship:

“DeVry students are more aware of these rights than students at other colleges. And I think the high price of a DeVry education is a factor in that. We have students from very meager backgrounds, many of whom are in debt a long ways. They want what they are paying for and if they don’t get it, they'll let you know” (D8).

This approach is consistent across the system. A president at another

campus describes “our attempting to build a culture of customer service” by

adjusting the fit of the DeVry experience to the student. Key strategies are to

promote a “culture of listening” and to “react quickly to student concerns by

identifying and resolving issues” (Internal Document).

And what are the learning needs and preferences of DeVry students? The

participants in my study were well able to articulate learners’ characteristics;

their perceptions also align with the marketing strategies. First, “our students

don’t like being talked at; they like to do” (D1). A colleague at the same campus

used the words “hands-on” and went on to explain:

“They have to work with the information; they have to process it; they have to give presentations. They have to do all those kinds of things to pull those senses together. They are not auditory” (D3).

They also need assistance in visualization, a fact that is cited when explaining

the importance of facilities (laptops, overhead projection) and software.


231

A dean expressed student needs as the inverse of what he is told about:

“boring faculty and accents that they cannot understand” (D1). Both an aversion

to “lecture, lecture, lecture” and an attempt to make classes interactive seem to

be the response to this preference. Variety is equally important. As one faculty

noted:

“Try to mix it up as much as possible. Nowadays, students get turned off so quickly. Everything is so fast and they want that stimulus so quickly. It's different than it used to be” (D5).

Another was more circumspect about the challenge of over-stimulus and

the amount of information that learners must deal with:

“I think students are much more inclined to throw away stuff and try to find what I need to know and forget what I don’t need to know, rather than learning for the sake of learning. They are confronted with high volume learning situations. They are also confronted with cursory

learning. They don’t dig into things, but rely on media: How many books would you have to read to learn what you do from watching a half-hour of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos? We have to recognize the contemporary learner”

(D4)

DeVry students seem to prefer group activities. One faculty shared his

perceptions:

“It is obvious to me that there are some students that just are not as persistent as individual learners; their attention span is not great...but you put that student in a group situation and they might come to life and they might participate and contribute in the right ways” (D4).

Another shared her perceptions about the impact of teamwork:

“Many, many gave stories about other schools, feeling very alone, not belonging and being downright lonely. It was amazing how many mentioned a feeling of belonging at DeVry, emphasizing the amount of teamwork they have done during the term and how this helped them to get to know one another, make friends and have others to depend upon and for support” (Personal, internal documeng,.

And finally, there is a perception that some DeVry students lack

confidence in their ability to learn. A faculty member shared his on-going

attempts to build student confidence; one strategy he uses is to connect new


232

learning to what they know and to encourage students to “think about what you

have learned, not what you haven't learned” (D2). Another talked about this

being an on-going theme in faculty discussions and workshops:

“Every student (in the class) should be feeling that they are capable and that if they put forth the effort, they have the ability to do these things” (D4).

A Toronto faculty member shared the results of some student input about

this subject. On an exam, she asked a question about motivation, requiring each

student to explain Maslow’s hierarchy with reference to self. She discovered that

“Many are at the ego/esteem level. I read answer after answer discussing their lack of worth, lack of value, not feeling appreciated nor respected (feeling different and not fitting in). Often times, these responses came from students who appear to be quite sure of themselves. Again, it was amazing how many of them said that DeVry had given them a sense of purpose, a feeling of achievement and worth. Several mentioned the impact that positive comments written on a quiz or an assignment and

verbally from instructors has had on them. Quite a few mentioned that this is the first time they actually believe in themselves and feel that they

can reach a goal!” (Internal, personal communication).

Another participant linked confidence with motivation and noted the

attempt to maintain a career focus. “We try to bring in as many industry

speakers as possible because they have credibility” (D1).

While these perceptions about student learning preferences impact the

specific instructional strategies used at DeVry, faculty have ‘freedom’ to work

within a broad set of expectations which were expressed quite clearly:

“We do try to encourage faculty to be student-focused, to realize that not everybody learns the same way, to have multiple measures of achievement, to asses often, to make sure that students know where they are in the class all the time, to vary their teaching methods—not to use a powerpoint every single day in class, not to handout a resource guide every single day of class” (D8).

A faculty member at this same campus believes that he can “deliver the

course however I want as long as I can meet the terminal objectives (D5)” and

within the boundaries which are explicitly stated in the faculty policies. At


233

another campus, there is a sense of a “lot of freedom”. The message from the

president is: “Try it. The classroom is your domain. You have control over what

happens” (D3).

Nevertheless, a recommended structure is provided to new faculty. Here’s

how a Chair, responsible for mentoring new faculty, explains his typical class and

the one that he recommends to those he mentors:

« “Give them the learning outcomes. What are they going to learn today. « The delivery tends to be a lecture. You provide them with a handout—

a system for note taking. You don’t give them everything but enough to keep them focused. .

« Iuse examples. Here’s what it looks like. If I’m in a room (multimedia or a lecture/lab) where I can show, then I do.

= Then I give them an assignment: OK let’s apply it. Now you do it. This is the lab assignment.

« They bring it back. We discuss the concepts and what they missed. = Then we test them” (D5).

Another participant shared a teaching analogy that I found compelling and

representative of DeVry’s approach to instruction. It warrants the unabridged

version of the entire segment of the interview:

“One of the theories (of learning) is that you can’t learn anything if you don’t already know something about it. The example I use is about learning the word ‘ice’ if you go to school on a south seas island without electricity when the coldest it gets is 70 degrees. You can learn the definition and you can understand every word in the definition. But do you have any way to conceptualize what is ice? Not a chance! If someone dropped some crushed ice on the beach, you'd think it was magic—you pick it up, it disappears.

However, when you have the two things together—the definition and the ice—then you understand. But either of them by themselves doesn't accomplish anything.

My job is to bring them the refrigerator.

Without experience (in systems analysis), it may be that you understand every word in this textbook, but won't have a clue what it’s talking about.

I’m going to bring the refrigerator, and I’m going to talk about the text. That’s why you do the projects, that’s why you have a team project— that’s playing with the ice” (D7).


234

All the faculty I interviewed were engaged in the quest to optimize

student involvement. They shared their own strategies, including those that

enhance lectures. One awards ‘pizza points’ to those who find intentional

mistakes (D2). Another states that “we're a skill and drill kind of program”. He

uses lectures and then he does “a quick, 10 question true or false” (D5).

Another notes the importance of “getting them active. You have to introduce an

idea and then have the students do something with it.” This same professor is

disappointed that there are not more lab/lecture rooms at his campus. He

contends that “in programming, students should never be taught with a block of

lecture and a block of lab.” His own effectiveness improved, he says, “when I

started to perceive myself as a facilitator and not a lecturer.” Yet in a statement

of reality and disappointment, he notes: “When we get busy, we tend to fall back

on the straight forward ‘get a lecture; pop this stuff out; give them a homework

assignment; give them a test” (D6).

Group activities include team projects. The goal at Calgary is to establish

a guided discovery approach, described by one participant in this way:

“Here’s the material; let’s work in groups; let’s work in teams; let’s find the information; let’s solve the problem. Let’s work together to solve the problem. The instructor is not at the front of the room but is watching as they do the learning” (D3).

One implementation of this strategy is called ‘let’s destroy this thing’ when

weaker and stronger students are paired and assigned the task of trying to find

ways for something not to work.

These preferred methods of instruction are inculcated through specific

campus practices that begin with faculty hiring and are followed up with

orientation, mentoring and collegial activities, course assignments and

management review. Typically, new teachers are hired as adjunct faculty to

teach one or two courses. Attitude is key:

“You hire an attitude. You get somebody in who is willing to be flexible, that honestly wants to teach and be an effective teacher, they will listen.


235

When they hear that someone has been successful doing something, they will try it. Those who are not willing to change to be effective you don’t want in the classroom” (D6).

New faculty, as part of their orientation, must complete the Teaching

Excellence Course. This course introduces key learning outcomes that address

class management, strategies aimed at diverse student needs and the use of

technology:

“Demonstrate appropriate strategies for dealing with issues pertaining to students and classroom management (i.e. tardiness, absenteeism, disruptive behaviour).

Provide weekly teaching plans that implement a variety of learning experiences emphasizing DeVry University’s unique learner-centred classroom experience.

Apply technology to deliver course objectives.... Understand how to use technology as an instructor in the classroom using an e-learning platform” (Teaching Excellence Course. Internal memo).

New faculty are also teamed with a mentor. The goal is to assign a

mentor who is teaching the same course so “they don’t have to recreate the

wheel” (D5). One mentor describes how he supports new faculty:

“I make sure that when new faculty come in they are mentored either through me or someone else that I know that has good experience, turn over materials, talk about the difficulties of the course—the lumps, the bruises. If they haven’t taught much before, to tell them about the things they can get in trouble in the classroom, with their exams and stuff...” (D6).

This sharing is pervasive. Faculty share their course work. One Calgary

participant presented this practice as a challenge: “Are you free to give all your

lessons to someone else? This takes a lot of trust” (D3). A Columbus faculty

used generosity as a leadership strategy:

“The way I got my things across was that I just shared. This is what I am

doing. If you want, you can use my labs. Here are my notes, here are my slides.... Here’s my syllabus; modify it if you want to. Here’s why I


236

require a writing assignment and an oral presentation in every course I

teach...” (D7).

Another participant talked about the on-going discussions about

methodology:

“We don’t get together as much as we like. Instructors tend to be: There’s only one way, my way. So we get into some pretty lively discussions. But when you break it down and after the emotion is out of it, we’re there for the benefit of the students and we want the best for them” (D5).

Best practices are the focus of faculty meetings where faculty share what works

for them. “A good deal of it is just osmosis, word of mouth. It’s faculty talking

with other faculty” (D4).

Faculty approaches and strengths determine course assignments. A dean

explains the importance and thought that goes into assignment building and the

connection with student needs and success:

“We are quite careful about who teaches what terms. First term students expect structure; final term students expect to be self-directed. We assign faculty for first term who are structured, have good relationship

with students and can handle the discipline issues” (D1).

New faculty are assessed closely. One participant shared his approach to

assessing new faculty:

“I visit classes and look for several things: Content knowledge which is always presumed. The ability to communicate it on a level that the students understand. Paying attention to the students. Other things just tend to be techniques—using interactive techniques in a lecture” (D6).

This assessment is not, however, limited to new faculty. All faculty at

DeVry are subject to an annual review based in part on student evaluations and

class observations. Faculty accountabilities are set out in policy, and

instructional effectiveness constitutes a large portion of these expectations.

Faculty are expected to “pace delivery to meet the needs of the class and

accomplish the course objectives.” There are clear statements about the

expected use of educational technologies, about establishing positive learning


237

opportunities and about being a “a learner-centered educator by recognizing the

different ways of learning (visual, auditory, kinesthetic) and then appropriately

utilizing multiple teaching methods” (Faculty Policy Manual. Drafé).

A senior administrator commented on the link between policy and

management practices:

“There are accountabilities in the faculty evaluation (policies) which deal with instructional effectiveness. We do look at those items on the faculty evaluation form and we do look at student evaluations. We do do an in-

class visitation for every faculty member, every term and they’re evaluated in every class, every term. I think we’re on top of that as much as we're able” (D8).

The class observation form, which the visiting administrator uses to assess

the class experience, lists a set of questions some of which relate to the level of

student involvement:

“Were students involved? Were students engaged in a ‘learning process’? Were various learning styles employed by faculty?”

In summary, DeVry’s instructional strategies, like its approach to

curriculum, are consistent with its marketing. Faculty are encouraged to develop

interactive learning experiences that anticipate diverse learning styles and

learning needs. At the same time, there is a clear expectation to cover the

course terminal objectives and to motivate students to stay in school. Student

success means higher retention and more revenue. This reality is well-

understood at DeVry. One participant, commenting on the effectiveness of the

campus’s methodologies stated:

“Look at the completion rates, relative to other post-secondary institutions.”

This same participant, who has taught in several public institutions, contends

that DeVry has encouraged effective instructional strategies.

“There's an appreciation. In the public sector, there’s no acknowledgement... Here, somebody appreciated what you did” (D2).


238

5.3.2.2. Individualizing Instruction

DeVry’s promotional materials highlight faculty availability and the

opportunity for “one-on-one advising sessions when you need them”. This

benefit is ensured by clear statements of accountability in faculty policy. Faculty

are expected to “respond positively and promptly to reasonable requests for

extra help” (Canadian Faculty Policies Handbook). One of the items on the

student evaluation form probes whether faculty have informed students of their

scheduled office hours and whether faculty are in fact available during those

times.

In the classroom, individualized instruction is the purview of the faculty.

Some faculty will assign more challenging questions to stronger students; some

will make special assignments for those who are falling behind. Projects may

have “different flavours”; one faculty “prepares four different projects, all of

which are designed to apply the same theories” (D7). While some faculty regret

that there is not an honours program for exceptional students, individual

attention is focused more on the ‘average student’. This overall approach is best

expressed by this participant:

“If a student is struggling there are three avenues: try to see me in my office hours. Make sure you're in lab so I can see you. We try to hook them up with a tutor” (D5).

Faculty schedules include the lab component of a course. Depending on

the size of the class, a faculty will have a Faculty Assistant (FA), a senior student

who is employed by the college to assist with objective marking and to

complement one-on-one student support. The lab provides the locus of

individual attention. One faculty talked about his particular ‘style’ of

individualization being in the lab: “I walk around the lab and talk about things we

did in class” (D4). Another is more structured:

“I try to make sure that I visit every student at least once and I look over their code before they run it and give students that personal immediate interaction. I also recommend that my faculty do it. They believe in it, but when you get classes that are 40-45 students—it’s horrible” (D6).


239

Each campus has an Academic Support Centre (at the Toronto campus,

it’s called a Student Resource Centre) that offers a range of services to support

student learning. These services may include “tutoring, software and hardware

tools, academic help desks, on-line academic support, mini-sessions on focused

topics, workshops and seminars and others....” Tutoring is available by referral or

by self-referral, and on an individual or group basis (WCA Se/f-Study). The ASCs

at both the Calgary and Columbus campuses have received certification for their

tutoring programs through the College Reading and Learning Association. Both

are well respected by faculty and students. In Columbus, according to one

participant, “about 80% of the traffic is from students who just decide to do it”

(D4).

While attendance tracking helps identify students needing additional

support, one participant noted that the low performing students don’t come to

class. For those who do, faculty are encouraged to be aggressive in their

intervention. Here’s how one faculty deals with students who are having trouble

with their coursework:

“Oftentimes there is a correlation between attendance and performance. So I might write a reminder—as gently as I can—I usually will make a comment on a test paper, such as ‘If you were here more often, I think you'd do better in the class’. Usually those sorts of gentle interventions prompt a discussion after class. At which point individualized actions are discussed: tutoring, meetings, etc... I believe that students who are having a difficult time that want to put forth an effort have a pretty good chance of turning it around” (D4).

Another faculty member distributes 3X5 cards at the beginning of the

course, asking students to put them into the textbook. They are instructed to

write down questions as they read. “If you are not comfortable asking a

question in this class, put the question on the podium.” Questions show up on

the podium “about twice a term.” And she guesses that they don’t use the cards

a lot. “It’s just one more tool that they can use” (D7).


240

Although not really individualization, DeVry’s approach to developmental

students represents another way that DeVry allocates resources to improve

enrolment:

“Developmental Studies are required of all those students who place at the low end of the ranges on DeVry’s admissions tests in reading, writing, algebra, and math. These courses are organized to redress more basic deficiencies than those addressed by the ASCs (Academic Support Centers). Developmental Studies courses are typically intensive semester- length interventions with the goal of providing the essential academic skills needed to start mainstream courses” (WCA Self-Study)

5.3.2.3. Evaluation and Feedback

At DeVry there are three elements of evaluation and feedback—grading,

feedback and assessment. First, student performance is graded in conventional

ways. One participant provided the menu:

“There are quizzes, homeworks, labs, mid-terms, final exams. There are sometimes personal assessments that are thrown-in. (contributions in class). There are assessments of how they write things” (D2).

As at Sheridan, the emphasis is on multiple measures that are reliable and

appropriate. Furthermore, the expectation is that faculty clearly communicate

what is expected. Faculty policies connect course objectives and evaluation

strategies:

“Ensure that the content and level of material included on exams

correspond to Course Terminal Objectives, have been adequately covered in the course, demonstrated, and the relevant homework has been reviewed.

Design assignments and tests to conform to the course objectives and to measure multiple levels of student learning (such as application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation)” (Faculty Policies).

Second, there are expectations about the timeliness and specificity of

student feedback. Typically “in the lower level classes, there’s more feedback—

more quality as well”, according to one participant (D4). Students “must know


241

how they are standing.” Many faculty have started to use electronic gradebooks

accessible through the campus’ Blackboard site (web portal) (D5).

One of the items in the student evaluation form asks about the prompt

return of graded work. According to an academic manager at one of the

campuses, nothing is written about assignment or test turnaround time;

however, the culture identifies the tardy:

“Because we do have a number of very good faculty who do the things that are expected of faculty underneath the faculty description and professional responsibilities in the faculty handbook. If a student has 5 professors and 4 of them are handing work back in a timely manner and that 5" one isn't, it’s very glaring. So they'll either ask that faculty member about it, or they will come in and complain” (D8).

The third element is assessment which overlays the other two practices.

Responding to the requirements of the North Central Association to create a

“culture of assessment”, DeVry faculty have come to distinguish between student

grading—how an individual student performs on a test or assignment and the

assessment of student learning—whether, what and how students are learning

relative to the course and program learning outcomes. One of the learning

outcomes of the Teaching Excellence course describes what faculty should be

able to do:

“Demonstrate knowledge and application of a variety of assessment techniques. The new faculty member will be able to use collaborative work and group activities to assess learning; exemplify Socratic dialogue and other questioning methods to assess learning; use a variety of techniques to determine student learning” ( Teaching Excellence Course).

The assessment program is integral to DeVry’s approach to continuous

learning and will be fully described later in this chapter. However, I have noticed

at my own campus and also at the sites I visited, that assessment is emerging as

a way to improve student evaluation and feedback. At a faculty professional

development day in Toronto, the campus’ assessment committee shared

strategies to improve assessment at the course level, including the introduction


242

of rubrics to measure the effectiveness of faculty assignments relative to

program critical thinking outcomes.

While this formal emphasis on assessment is noteworthy, so is the grading

system and the policies on satisfactory academic progress that at face value are

more rigorous than those at Sheridan and other Ontario colleges. The following

table compares the grading schemes at DeVry and Sheridan.

Table 24: Grading Schemes at DeVry and Sheridan

DeVry’s Grades and Designations Sheridan's Grading System Grade Percentage Grade Index | Grade Numeric Grade Point

Equivalent Points Equivalent Equivalent

A 90-100 4 At 90-100 4.0 B 80-89 3 A 80-89 4.0 C 70-79 2 B* 75-79 3.5 D 60-69 1 B 70-74 3.0 F Below 60 0 ct 65-69 2.5 I Incomplete 0 Cc 60-64 2.0

D 50-59 1.0 F Below 50 0.0 I Incomplete

These seemingly more demanding standards are in place for satisfactory

academic progress as well. To be in good academic standing, students must

maintain a cumulative grade point average of 2.00 or higher (a 70% average).

Students who have a term grade point average below 1 are dismissed (with the

right of appeal); those with a cumulative GPA of less than 2 are placed on

probation with clear timelines and expectations about raising their GPA to a

satisfactory level.


243

For comparative purposes, Sheridan‘s Calendar makes the following

statement about Academic Standings:

‘A student will be withdrawn from a program if the student has a GPA of less than 1.70 and/or the student will no longer benefit from continuing in

the program” (Sheridan Calendar, p. 139)"

Sheridan students must maintain an average in the 57% range to remain in the

program.

DeVry’s policies also emphasize the university’s approach to academic

integrity. All course syllabi include a statement about academic integrity with a

reference to the entire policy, which is presented in the Student Handbook. Also

each course syllabus includes a definition of plagiarism. In the 2002-2003

review of Faculty Policies, an Academic Integrity Policy was included into the

policies. It makes clear each faculty member’s accountability:

“DeVry University is committed to upholding academic integrity in all aspects of its operation. Actions or inactions that could reflect negatively upon the academic integrity of DeVry University will not be tolerated. This Academic Integrity Policy is designed to assist faculty in their understanding of academic integrity. All faculty members are required to adhere to these standards” (Faculty Policy Manual).

The policy goes on to provide a very broad set of actions and inactions that

constitute academic integrity.

How does this focus on standards and integrity play out in the classroom?

One participant conceded that “we have high standards, yet we understand that

things in life happen; we make allowances” (D2). Yet there is no consistent set

of practices on student evaluation and feedback. The Teaching Excellence

course introduces evaluation tools and criteria, the goal being to ensure that new

faculty know how to build reliable and appropriate evaluation. Deans and chairs

do review exams on a regular basis, especially those of new faculty and in ‘killer

courses’, which typically attract even more attention:

24 Graduation requirements are more demanding. Beginning in the Fall 2000, to graduate, students must complete all program requirements and obtain a minimum cumulative GPA of 2.00 or C. (Student Handbook, 2001-2002, p. 28)


244

“In my role as a chair, I pay particular attention to assignments, tests, etc in killer courses. I keep a file and will monitor the complexity of tests and assignments” (D5).

Level of complexity relative to the curriculum guides is the touchstone for

evaluation at DeVry, not the amount of work, which seems to be persistent. At

Columbus, there is an informal understanding that each course has something

going on every week—“either a test or a lab; something with a deliverable”

(D5).

One faculty confessed to shortcuts to deal with workload:

“When I grade a homework, I would grade 2 of 12 questions. But I don’t write paragraphs. I confess that I should do a better job... This question was on the table for the most recent faculty meeting about instructional practices” (D4).

Other faculty shared their best practices about motivating students to rise

to the workload demands. A Calgary participant references reality:

“Marks and time are students’ currency. I tell them how long an assignment should take. This assignment should take you about 5 commercial breaks. These kinds of criteria give students a sense of how they are doing and how hard they need to work” (D2).

A Columbus participant shared her strategy to get students’ attention, her

tongue only slightly lodged in her cheek:

“T tell my students that they will have a quiz everyday probably, except the days they have tests, because I understand that when they pay as much money as they pay to come to DeVry, they come fully intending to all the homework. And I know that when they have more to do than they have time to do, they will focus on their tests—therefore, it’s always going to be my class!” (D7).

5.3.3. Cross-Site Comparison of Instructional Processes

As with curriculum, each institution’s approach to instructional processes

is similar. Instructional strategies are strategic and designed to be learner-

centred and to provide a variety of involving activities for students to process


245

information and to connect new information with prior knowledge. While basic

classroom methodologies are introduced and reinforced at both colleges,

innovation is also integral, and both rely on educational technologies to provide

this innovation. Both are responsive to student input to improve instructional

strategies.

Both institutions take a conventional approach to individualization, relying

on faculty to adjust assignments and deadlines and to intervene to assist

individual students. At both institutions, the lab environments appear to be the

primary locus for individualized instruction and both provide tutoring services and

special programs for identified segments of the student population.

Both institutions have a current focus on student evaluation and feedback,

ensuring that these align with new initiatives, and that students are

demonstrating an appropriate level of achievement through their assignments,

quizzes and exams. Both even reference Bloom’s Taxonomy in measuring the

complexity of student expectations.

Yet, there are noticeable differences within some these similarities, which

will be described in the next section.

5.3.3.1 Differences within Similar Instructional Processes

Strategic Instruction: Sheridan has positioned itself as an innovative institution,

relying on instructional technologies and the laptop initiative in particular to

distinguish its programs and instruction and to enhance its reputation. However,

as a public institution with specific functions within the community, the college is

also required to accept students who meet minimum admissions requirements

and to provide a diversity of perspectives. At this time, these additional

functions do not seem to align with the innovation.

DeVry, on the other hand, does not position itself as innovative; instead it

extols a hands-on, applied education and the kind of instructional strategies that

appeal to targeted market segments of students who represent market


246

opportunities. Instructional strategies provide means to increase these markets

and also to improve efficiencies and reduce costs.

Student Needs and Input: Sheridan students are diverse and representative of

the entire community. In the classroom, the laptop has become the focus of

their involvement. Yet, for some, who are easily distracted, the laptop has

introduced a set of challenges and the number of student complaints has

increased. As well, students are stakeholders in the college community with

broad input on policies and practices, including the development of the course

questionnaire, the development and implementation of the formal complaints

process and formal input into course outline review through representation on

EPPR. | DeVry’s students are represented as less diverse, although there is

certainly a bimodal grouping by level of abilities. Generally they are not deep,

nor confident learners, and they prefer group activities. DeVry students are not

stakeholders, but customers whose input is sought by faculty and management.

DeVry is responsive to student needs and preferences, and faculty are expected

to use instructional strategies to increase student motivation, satisfaction and

retention.

Responsiveness to Student Input: While both use the same tools to ascertain

student input, the data is used for different purposes and used differently. At

Sheridan, the student satisfaction, KPI data impacts the college’s reputation and

funding. And while there is general agreement to the usefulness of the data,

there is also recognition of the limited resources available to analyze the data

and to use the information to improve instructional practices.

This lack of resources is also apparent in the extent of the College's

management of instructional practices. College administrators are hard-pressed

to respond to student complaints and obvious problems as identified through

student evaluations. Instead the quality of instructional processes relies on


247

faculty professionalism and collegial practices although there does not appear to

be more collegial activities at Sheridan than at DeVry.

At DeVry, relatively more resources are allocated to managing

instructional processes. All new faculty are assigned a mentor. All faculty are

observed in class each term. These observations, along with the results of the

student evaluations, are important input into each faculty member's annual

performance review where classroom strategies, including preparation and

delivery, student interaction and evaluation strategies, comprise the largest

component of the review.

Individualized Special Services: Sheridan’s public responsibility is to provide an

Office of Disability Services. In follow-up research I learned that this office

receives a special grant; however it does not cover the full cost of the service.

DeVry‘s Developmental Studies program, on the other hand, provides an

admissions avenue for those who do not meet the standards. This is another way

to increase revenue.

Focus on Student Evaluation: Sheridan’s energies are focused on aligning

evaluation strategies with the laptop environment to minimize student complaints

and to ensure that the course outline standards for course evaluation are

appropriate and in-use throughout the college. These standards are explicit and

are the only instance where policy at Sheridan is more prescriptive than DeVry’s

policies.

DeVry, on the other hand, is developing its culture of assessment,

responding to the demands of institutional accreditation. Again, more

management resources are allocated to evaluation, including a review of exams

and assignments to ensure that students are being asked to perform at a level of

applications or above. There appears to be clearer expectations about student

feedback. Furthermore, DeVry's standards of achievement appear to be higher


248

than Sheridan’s. A failing grade in a course is higher (60% vs. 50%) and

satisfactory academic standing requires a higher grade point average.


Table 25: Similarities and Differences in Instruction presented on the next page.


sOulpuly :¢

Jaydeyp 4opes

9016aq-UON S,oueIUO

Ul AIsuaAig

[eINps201g

“sayy aq

0} weedde

(ssaiBoud Slwapece

pue sapei6)

spsepueis "Jualussasse

JO dunjjnd,

e papuewep

sey uoneNpeid2y

'S, AiAeq ueu}

sAdiudsaid

SJOLW BIL

UONENJEAS JUSPNIS

UO S2IDI|Od

"uoHpnysul doyde7q

uM

saBeye.js

uonenjers ubije

0} Bupiom

s| a6ayjo>

"SNd0J JUa.UND

e SI UONeNjeAs

JuapNisS

"JuawjOlua Juapn}s

‘papiAoid MOU

SASPBJDUI SAaIDNIS

|e]UeWdojanaq "SadIAEs

Aqiqesiq spuny

a6ajjo> au

Que SadIAJas

|eIDeds pue

sjeuoIn, ‘uonuaye

JENPIAIPU! JO

SNdO| BUI

a4e Sqeq

“UORONASUI azI|eNpIAIpul

AYNDe5

"seoipeud jeuonon.jsu!

Buibeuew joj

payedojje sue

saounosay Su0p

‘sjuapnys uleye!

pue Ajsnes

‘ayeanqow 0}

peubisap sue

seifejes

[EuONON.ASU! ‘S¥aWOJSND

sue SjUapNIS

‘Peulyep BOW

Sie Spseu

JUuapNys

‘WsI|euoIssajoid Aqjnde}

UO Sales

UORDNIYsul Jo

Ayyenb au

‘dn-mojjoy yo

yunowe 94}

Bunouyses ‘payul|

a1e Sadunosay

‘Buipungy

pue uonejndas

sped!

yndul Juapnys

"UuONeW4Oy 3999eud

pue AdI|Od

ul 3/01

B BARY

OYM SJapjoysyeys

o1e sJUapN}sS

“BSJBAIP S4OW

ae Spsau

JUapNIS ‘soiBeje.4s

aAcidwi! 0}

Indu! pue

speau S{uapnys

0} avisuodsad

Ss! UOIINISUT

“SolDojouYyde} JEUCI}eINpa

UO Salas

UOEAOULUT

“SOMIANIE HUIAJOAU!

JO AjaieA

B UUM

paujqUuad-saWUe9] SI UONDNSUT

“Ayyiqeyyoid aaocidu!

pue aueus

JaxJewW aseesdu!

Seibe}e19S

"SoAtpedsied peoig

pue suoissiwpe

uado—suonpouny jeuonippe

Aq pesiwoijdwo2

Ss} ABaje.js

34} JO

UOneUaLUa|dwy] ‘p1Bajye.js

sue saiBaje.js

jeuOnONASUT

Asseaiun/e691105 Ained

369]/0D uepLsys

SONNEPIWIS

OY} UUM

SedudI0j310 SeUe|IWIS

UOIJINAISUT Ul

SOMUDIOIG

PUL SOIWWCPIWIS

:¢7 BIGeL

6b~

250

5.4. Out-of-Class Activities

5.4.1. Out-of-Class Activities at Sheridan

5.4.1.1. Orientation to the College

According to the Educational Processes Model, students should be

purposefully oriented to the institution and its expectations. Given Sheridan’‘s

presence in its communities and its understood functions associated with access

and vocational education, residents in the Halton and Peel regions have an

awareness of the college as a part of their community. In this subsection of the

chapter, I will examine the college’s communications with the community, with

applicants and with students, focusing on the college’s expectations of students.

Pre-enrolment programs include a Community Outreach program and on-

campus activities, both of which were the subject of new initiatives during my

research, initiatives that according to one of my participants “has been amazing”,

improving “student awareness, student satisfaction and where they are and their

sense of preparation” (S5).

The outreach program includes three elements. First, a Choices into

Action program provides a “guidance and career education program, beginning in

the elementary grades and continuing through secondary school.” Its purpose is

to help students acquire the skills necessary for success; it also introduces

Sheridan as the community alternative starting from the early grades.

Complementary to this program is a Teacher Advisory program that provides

specific workshops for high school faculty and a high school peer-mentoring

program. The third element of the program is a student recruiter program

where selected students receive a general education credit for their work in the

program.

The student recruiters are chosen by their program coordinators as

“stellar students” and are profiled to portray the culture of the program through

their “eyes and passions”. The goal of the program is to target the best-qualified


251

students to match the college’s approximately 90 programs, and these student

recruiters are assigned to a series of recruitment programs from October through

April. These activities include working on the recruitment hotline, visiting high

school classrooms and leading tours and information sessions at the college.

The college calendar invites prospective applicants to phone to arrange a tour in

the fall.

Student recruiters are also assigned to College Day activities. College Day

is organized by the Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of

Ontario (ACAATO) where recruitment officers from each college, including the

agricultural colleges and the Michener Institute, set up displays around the

province. Typically thousands of high school students will attend these one-day

events. The student recruiters also participate in the college’s open houses, and

they call applicants who receive an offer of admission.

The college holds a series of Open Houses in the spring for all applicants

and their parents. Typically, the School of Technology will welcome over 1000

applicants at their one-day event. According to one study participant, the

purpose of this day is to “help them to make a decision... they learn about the

place and meet the people.” According to this participant, “that’s making a huge

difference” (S5). Another participant shared the values that are emphasized:

“One of the things we really emphasize here is the friendly atmosphere here. There is a very good relationship between the professors, instructors and the students and we really try to attend to their needs. Anytime they want to, they can come to our office and talk to us” (S4).

Layered over these activities, the college implements a standard set of

communications with applicants starting with an acknowledgement of their

application received through the Ontario Colleges Application Service (OCAS). In

the first letter, applicants are introduced to the college’s Online Academic

Services Information System (OASIS), a “web-based portal that allows

applicants, students and faculty more convenient, easy and secured access to

selected College services and information. ” All applicants receive a network


252

account and password, and in this way, the applicant can keep him/herself

informed about the application’s progress.

The next letters, sent in May for the September start, provide information

about admissions requirements. For example, the letter to applicants to the

Systems Analyst program instructs students about the pre-admissions tests and

the additional fees required because the program is mobile. An enclosed “Pre-

Admission Fact Sheet” provides information about testing along with sample

questions. A follow-up letter states how program selection is accomplished and

gives information about next steps: “Fee and timetable information will be

forwarded to applicants who have accepted our offer of admission.”

Offers of admission are either firm or conditional and stipulate timelines

for acceptance. A Welcome to Sheridan brochure is enclosed in the offer letter;

it reinforces the college’s instructional positioning:

“When you enrol in a DELTA3 program, you benefit from an innovative and student-centred learning experience, rich in dynamic course content and practical applications.... We are a Wired Campus! ...DELTA3 classrooms have furniture designed to facilitate collaborative and team-based learning.”

Those who accept an offer receive a fees mailing in June. This fairly thick

package includes information about fees and financial aid; the advantages and

responsibilities associated with mobile computing; elective course selection

responsibilities and parking. Once fees have been received, or arrangements

have been made to defer fees until financial aid is received, the student is

registered. They then receive yet another mailing with instructions about how to

access a timetable and, if the student is in a mobile program, a complete

package on mobile computing, including a sample contract and information

about the mobile training/orientation sessions. It also promotes the Tech Tutor

Program as a way to become involved in the college community.

Thus begins a staged orientation process that includes orientation to the

mobile environment, an Orientation Day and school and program orientation


253

activities. Once registered, students in mobile computing programs can schedule

their “very complete orientation to the laptop environment and the expectations

associated with it.” The clarity of these expectations is established in the college

Calendar:

“Because of a shift to activity-based learning, you will not want to skip classes. In fact, you will need to make sure that you have done the required reading and homework before class starts so you can benefit from the current activity” (Ca/enaar, p. 9).

This orientation includes a four-hour workshop on the “care and feeding of your

laptop” and must be completed before classes begin.

An Orientation Day is scheduled in the week before classes begin. In

reality, this day is half-a-day including a school-based welcome and culminating

in a free barbeque. New students have the opportunity to take a tour; attend to

student cards, parking passes, library cards and lockers; and/or attend a specific

activity designed for different groups. At the August 2002 Orientation, the

following workshops were offered:

How to be a Successful Student “Quick tips on effective learning skills and available resources”

Living on a Student Budget ‘...Strategies to make your money last”

Co-op Information Session

Parents Information Session

“Learn about the supports and services available at Sheridan. Have your concerns and questions addressed.”

Disability Services

Mature Students

“_..meet others who may share your concerns and learn approaches to success.”

This day also marks the beginning of the school and program orientations.

Students in the electronics programs are introduced to the Electronics Lab where


254

“we sit down and discuss specific questions that they have about the program, the co-op, the textbooks, the kind of academic help they can receive from the school. They talk about continuing and going to university and what type of jobs they can look for when they finish” (S4).

School and program orientation has two purposes. One participant from

the School of Computing and Information Management noted that

“the purpose is to re-sell the program. This is accomplished by the dean and the coordinators who meet with all classes and set out expectations while re-affirming the students’ choice of program” (S2).

The dean and associate dean in the School of Technology fulfill a similar role,

visiting all first year classes, introducing themselves and emphasizing “homework

and behaviour” expectations.

These expectations emphasize study obligations outside the classroom.

One faculty shared his approach. He puts all the course texts on the table,

declaring “by the end of the term, you will have read ‘that’. Yet, this same

teacher, who takes time in his course to introduce principles of time

management, is troubled about matching expectations:

“Our expectations don’t necessarily match. Eventually the successful

students start to ‘get it’. The disconnect is more pronounced today. A lot of factors account for that. First, the financial situation—students are paying 1/3 of the load. The clientele doesn’t always have a lot of parental support. A lot of students live on their own, some with families resulting in a lot of students need to have a job. So, there’s something that will conflict with schoolwork right off the top” (S3).

The computing programs have introduced a first term course called the

Learning Experience; its learning outcomes address time management, learning

styles and preferences and study skills. The school has also prepared an

orientation FAQ which is posted on the school’s website and which is referenced

in the class visits and faculty follow-up communications.

The electronics programs address expectations within the context of

professionalism, seeking to achieve the same objectives. In the first week of

classes, the program coordinator speaks with all new students about the


255

college’s role in preparing them for jobs. The message is intended to be both

motivational and realistic. Here’s how one participant summarized the message:

“We are going to train you and prepare you for tomorrow which is going into industry. You are going to be in College for a short period of time...We are going to prepare you for professional jobs and therefore we are going to expect very highly of you. You are going to have to act as a professional person... You have to abide by the rules and regulations of the college. And if you have any difficulties, we will be more than happy to help you with them, but your assignments, your submissions have to be timely... You have to act as a very mature student” (S4).

This approach seems consistent with professionalism. “We (the full-time

faculty) are all registered professional engineers, and therefore we know the

expectations of industry and that’s what we convey to those students.” Another

noted how he emphasizes focus and discipline, especially with first year students

who are “worse” (S7).

College rules and regulations are provided in the Student Handbook, the

most relevant section being the Charter of Student Rights and Responsibilities.

Of note is the reference to the student as a member of the college community

and what that means with respect to expectations:

“Implicit in the community’s recognition of the rights of the individual is an obligation on the part of the individual to accept community

responsibility... As part of the democratic tradition, members of the community should be free to act upon social issues affecting Sheridan...”

The Handbook also provides information about academic standing and

graduation requirements, noting that “Students are responsible for ensuring that

they have met the graduation requirements of their programs” (Student

Handbook, p. 29). However, the efficacy of the handbook is in question. One

faculty member, speaking from experience, cited the policy that you cannot

graduate without a certain percentage and bets that half the students and many

faculty are not aware of this policy. He also contends that students “throw their

student handbook in the garbage and it doesn’t do any good to ask them to use

it” (S7).


256

Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Nor is there agreement about

the current orientation, which could be characterized as diffused and in-progress.

One senior academic administrator admitted that the college needed to do a

better job, especially in communicating consistent expectations (S2). Another

contends that “people are giving more and more of their time to this function”

and that he has seen improvement in “student awareness and their sense of

preparation for the college experience” (S5). In the next subsection, I describe

the out-of-class contribution to this experience.

5.4.1.2 _Out-of-Class Interactions

Sheridan is a commuter college replete with all the challenges of involving

students who simply come to class and go home. Although there are now

residences on both campuses, the on-campus population is very small (300

students.) Also, as one senior administrator noted, the college is producing

much better timetables in the sense that there is little free time between classes.

However, each campus has a student centre that features restaurants, pubs and

entertainment; these are the social centres of each campus. The Sheridan

Student Union (SSU) manages the student centre and plays a role in shaping the

nature of out-of-class student-to-student interactions and facilitating student

involvement in the college community:

“The SSU offers opportunities for employment and is always looking for dynamic and committed students to serve on College committees, run events, or act as class representatives... Being a part of the student government is a terrific opportunity to learn new and marketable skills and get the most out of the Sheridan experience” (Ca/enaar p. 12).

The Student Services department provides oversight support to the SSU.

It also manages the athletics program, including a number of varsity sports and

intramural opportunities based on student interest and participation. These

kinds of activities experience waves of popularity at Sheridan. For example,


257

during my research stage, varsity basketball was drawing 500 people to home

games; five years ago, a good turnout was 100.

The college budget allocations for student services have been steadily

reduced over the past five years. Today, 70% of its $4.5M budget is derived

from direct levies on students. Five years ago the budget was $6.2M and the

levy 40%. All of athletics and health services are financed through student

ancillary fees, which are “the highest in the college system”. High fees do not

necessarily translate to high participation. The estimate is that about 20% of

students participate in out-of-class activities, including voting in student

government elections.

Instead, the community seems to be created through opportunities for

student interaction that derive from program and school activities. General

education electives afford the most obvious opportunity for students to interact

with students in different programs across the campus. Both their form and

function support an expansive element of the student experience. Courses

“increase awareness of community interests, values and cultural diversity”

(Calendar, p. 141). Elective blocks are populated with students from different

programs and different terms.

As well, the mobile computing initiative was cited as a strong community

builder. One participant from the computing programs noted that instead of

students hanging-out in the computer labs (which no longer exist), they use the

various places in the college where they can plug-in. According to this

participant, “this informal association is alive and well” although students tend to

work within the structures that are set up in class; e.g. group projects, and

established associations (S2). A participant from the electronics program noted:

“Out of class, I don’t have any control over them, but usually I see them in the hallways and corridors. Their laptops are open. Perhaps they are discussing courses together, or maybe they are playing games” (S4).


258

Another participant from the Davis Campus, which has a much more

diverse student population, is impressed with how the mobile has forced

interaction across cultural groups:

“They're friends. They help each other. That's a new thing and definitely a way that the peer thing is different than it used to be” (S7).

The electronics program also provides the locus of traditional student

interaction in its dedicated lab.

“During the labs. They work in groups of 2. And in the lab, when they are doing projects, different groups interact with one another... Those groups which finish their projects sit down with other groups which are having difficulty and help them out. We encourage this practice. It’s really good for those who help others. They learn a lot more” (S4).

Faculty-student interaction occurs in the labs as well. Faculty are

scheduled for their 2-hour sessions, yet students ask questions of “whatever

professor is in the lab, regardless of whose class it is.” One professor explained

this interaction:

“We have an open lab which can be a bit of a social area. I tend to get asked a lot of questions, not only about with my course but a lot of

things” (S7).

Under their collective agreement, all faculty are required to post three

office hours each week and are expected to be available to support students.

The student course evaluation questions whether “the instructor is available

outside of class time to answer questions and to give advice.” The number of

part-time faculty was cited as a concern with respect to this availability, for they

tend to “do their class and then leave”.

Although “nothing is required” of faculty beyond these minimums, faculty

do volunteer for activities such as Open Houses, program information sessions

and other college events. One participant suggested that these are an

expectation, noting that they are “more around recruitment than associating with

students” (S1). Although not widespread, some senior students in the School of

Computing and Information Management work with faculty on research projects.


259

Starting in the Fall of 2002, the college’s Student Services department introduced

the Contact program where fifteen employees from across the college

(executive, administrators, faculty and support staff) each took six new students

and helped them “connect in their transition to a new environment.” This pilot

project attempts to involve the entire community in a structured set of informal

interactions to improve retention. (Contact 2002-2003. Internal document.)

Although students participate in formal ways and interact with faculty as

stakeholder representatives on committees such as EPPR, College Council,

Advisory Committees, Deans Councils, few participants could cite concrete

instances of faculty and student interaction. Faculty at the Davis Campus

referenced hallway interchanges, staying after class—“just chatting with

students.” Yet, in my experience, faculty and student interaction beyond the

classroom is a real feature of the Sheridan learning experience. Based on my

experience at the college, I agree with one of my participants who expressed this

conceptually:

“I’m convinced that the reason our students come to us— and they don’t need to; there are courses out there—they have to have someone up in front of them. They have to have the human interaction. They have to know my name” (S7).

Another stated that his overall interaction with students “is the best part

of the job.” Again, without reference to anything formal, he knows how much

this interaction has meant to students:

“At the convocation; it was just amazing. It was not quite a rock concert but it had its moments. You could feel the affection—teachers for their students; students gratitude to the teachers. There were cheering sections. I heard people calling my name out... The Governor Generals medal winner gave a speech that was all about the human connection, the availability of the faculty member, informal discussion, meeting people in the hall, talking about this and that... person to person, caring people; that’s what made Sheridan College to her... To me that’s the important

stuff” (S3).

As with student-to-student interaction, the mobile computing project has

altered the nature of out-of-class interaction with faculty. One participant


260

suggested that “early on, mobile computing lessened interaction between

students and faculty although it did increase student-to-student interaction.”

Now “students interact with faculty via e-mail, and they expect answers” (S2).

One administrator told me about students complaining because faculty do not

return e-mail on the weekend. The implication is that many do.

5.4.1.3 Student Advisement

The Educational Processes Model calls for proactive, intrusive academic

advisement. Given its origins within elective or choice-based (as opposed to

programmatic) higher education, the model promotes advisement for course

selection towards academic completion and for support. At Sheridan (and at

DeVry), because courses are prescribed within a program of study, course

selection advisement is dedicated to irregular students—those who are not

following the program of study. This responsibility rests with the program

coordinator whose advisement role includes:

“Advanced standing and course exemption decisions

Advice to program applicants Career counseling for students Provide references for students and graduates Facilitate prior learning assessment

Provide advice to students” (Categories and Time Ranges Considered for Program/Subject Coordinator Roles)

One coordinator explained the nature of this advisement role:

“In the first 3 weeks of the semester there’s quite a lot of this kind of advisement. Then it wanes and at the end of the semester, we see a few people... Most of the questions are about graduation requirements. Students in their 3" year who realize they are missing courses from their first year... After two years, they come back and they want to know what to do. And sometimes the course has been cancelled and I have to come up with an alternative course” (S3).


261

This coordinator/advisor role moves into sometimes difficult collegial

issues. One administrator shared his perception of how coordinators and their

faculty colleagues handle student complaints:

“They don’t get involved in complaints against a teacher although because they are the first contact, they do hear these problems... If the teacher is within their department, they try to talk it out. Wherever possible they don’t escalate it to my level, but keep it collegial as long as possible” (S6).

An even more contentious issue is related to the resources available for

academic advisement:

“In the old days, we used to have a separate Academic Advisor and a coordinator who was in charge of only the curriculum. After the right- sizing, or whatever you want to call it, they integrated the coordinators role with the academic advising role. That’s where the two steps come from—one for the curriculum, one for dealing with the students” (S6).

While not applauding these changes, a coordinator offers an opinion about the

reality of the current situation:

“We used to have a person in charge of academic help. That was all of his job. But then that position was eliminated. Now it’s up to the coordinator to advise the student if they have any academic questions or difficulties or challenges which is an additional task on the shoulders of the coordinator. We don’t get paid for it, but we have to do it as a part of our job so that we keep the program healthy” (S3).

Another resource-based issue on the horizon is the movement away from

the current locked-in cohort model where all students in a class receive the same

timetable. Senior administration is promoting more choice and flexibility for

students, recognizing that there is “no means to advise students about choice

other than what faculty coordinators and others are able to do” (S1). One

participant also suggested that the college would have to adopt more aggressive

advisement strategies to reduce default rates.

Advisement is a topic with a singular financial theme. Budget reductions

have impacted other kinds of interventions. Recently the AIMS program

(Academic Improvement and Monitoring System) was cancelled. Billed as a

“learning success program” it had as many as 450 participants at the two


262

campuses. The program provided one-on-one advisement where a counselor

would develop study goals and an action plan to access tutors, study skills

workshops and on-line services. As part of the monitoring, faculty would provide

input about each AIMS student's academic progress.

The rationale for discontinuing the program seems to rely on students’

ability to access their own information through OASIS and Academic Services and

on faculty who identify and recommend one of the college's services. According

to the Student Handbook, these include career planning, tutoring, peer

mentoring and counseling where

“professional counselors will work with you on a confidential basis to help you achieve your academic and personal goals. Consultation is available to any student seeking advice on academic or non-academic issues” (p. 69).

Students can also receive financial counseling about scholarships, bursaries and

financial aid, and there is an orientation for international students.

While these services are available, the college relies on students to self-

identify. The study participants recognize the consequence of this passive

approach to advisement:

“Those students who are having trouble are referenced to student tutors who are paid.... This intervention depends on the weaker students identifying him/herself. Unless the weaker student comes to us and asks for help, we don’t know who they are.... We used to (identify weaker students at academic progress meetings) but because of lack of manpower and not having the academic person to follow every student through, it just doesn’t take place unless a specific professor feels that

someone is doing extremely bad and they come and inform the coordinator” (S3).

Another faculty member links first year attrition to “students not being

aware of what’s going on”, noting that the service people are just too busy to

intervene and provide the advisement and help that students need (S7). In the

next section, I will describe DeVry’s processes, which are in this respect in

contrast to Sheridan’s.


263

5.4.2. Out-of-Class Activities at DeVry

5.4.2.1. Orientation to DeVry

Prospective students are introduced to DeVry through its aggressive

media advertising, which at one time was considered a novelty and is today a

fundamental element of DeVry’s business model:

“To build their empire, Mr. Keller and Mr. Taylor broke with conventional wisdom and created what is now seen as a model for for-profit education. They zeroed in on a specific segment of the population—adults who were not likely to attend traditional four-year colleges.... To find students, Mr. Keller and Mr. Taylor advertised in individual markets on television and radio—a novelty at first” (Borrego, 2001, p. A25).

While the branding and campaign messages have changed over the years,

the goal of this direct advertising is to prompt individuals to phone, write, e-mail

or visita DeVry campus. These leads are in turn, ‘worked’ by an Admissions

Advisor. In addition, a cadre of DeVry educational advisors, supported by a high

school outreach communications program, visits high schools, providing career

development workshops to both seniors and juniors. These workshops result in

a number of comment cards where interested students provide their names and

addresses. The educational advisors then follow-up, often meeting students and

their parents in their homes.

Whether on campus, or in the field, the advisors’ role is to recruit

students. Listed among the essential duties and responsibilities in the advisor

position description are associated activities, including:

a “Conducts personal interviews to qualify candidates and to explain DeVry’s academic programs and advises on what they need to do in order to meet DeVry’s admissions requirements.

a Maintains full knowledge of DeVry’s curriculum so as to be able to fully explain all course offerings and to select a program which best fits

each student’s needs and aspirations. a Effectively addresses students’ concerns to ensure that all prospects

receive the full DeVry story and are aware of their career opportunities.

a Carefully assesses all prospective students to ensure that they have the student potential, traits, characteristics, and financial wherewithal


264

to stay-the-course and remain enrolled until graduation” (Admissions Advisors and Educational Advisors Position Description).

Like many aspects of the University, DeVry’s recruitment messages and

processes are standardized. President Ron Taylor presents one purpose for this

standardization:

“At DeVry we have very comprehensive marketing, communications and admissions recruitment programs to assure that people understand that DeVry is an alternative and that the information that they have about DeVry is accurate” (Fosse, 2001, p. 18).

A second purpose is to ensure that all advisors present the consistent and

correct information, an important purpose when advisors’ compensation is either

directly or indirectly related to the number of students they enrol. In the recent

self-study for the NCA, the University explains the “highly structured, carefully

managed recruitment process that places special emphasis on ensuring the

consistency and accuracy of the recruiting message.” The report goes on to

explain how the organizational structure ensures the integrity of the recruitment

process:

“Continued reliance on a division of accountability between Admissions, Marketing, Academics and Career Services is a deliberate and beneficial arrangement. The dynamic tension between these functional areas creates a balance that is positive for our students and the larger organization. One of its consequences is that marketing publications accurately portray who we are and what we offer. All advertising and marketing messages must also be approved by senior management. In

addition, because there are individual state regulations governing marketing and because not all programs are offered in all states, the DeVry Inc. State Licensing department must also approve all marketing

messages.

While prospective students are free to consult all information relevant to

their choice of study at DeVry University, the organization assumes responsibility for strict control of the messages delivered by its admissions representatives. For many years, this has provided integrity and efficiency in the admissions process” (VCA Self-Study, p. 197).


265

The recruitment process initiates a staged introduction to DeVry

characterized by subtle and motivational messages. By referencing standards,

expectations and behaviors, the institution challenges recruits to be successful

applicants, implying rewards for those who are. During their first visit to a

campus, all recruits fill out a Profile and Interest Evaluation (PIE), a tool that

advisors use to counsel program choice. The following statement on the PIE

sets important expectations while offering an opportunity for success to those

who may not have been academically successful:

“... our approach for evaluating students is quite different from that of most educational institutions and primarily influenced by the following: We have an excellent reputation—Many companies employ our graduates,

and we want the type of students that will result in the type of graduates these companies are looking for. We want students who will graduate— We believe interest, desire and motivation often make the difference between graduating and dropping out” (Profile and Interest Evaluation

[PIE], p. 1).

All recruits receive a personal interview. Again the ego-boosting approach

is an important element of the message:

“DeVry offers deserving students (and their families) a number of very special benefits designed to help students reach their career goals and succeed... These benefits will be presented to you in an interview today ... and to describe how our institutes are preparing people to enter those careers. You'll also see this first hand when I give you a tour of the institute” (Profile and Interest Evaluation).

During the interview, the advisor describes the size and breadth of the

DeVry University system, its career placement record, its programs and the

nature of the teaching and learning with an emphasis on applied and ‘hands-on’

learning. These interviews last at least an hour, the final portion focusing on

program choice. A successful interview leads to an application or enrolment

when students sign an enrolment agreement that provides “information on the

student services offered as part of your program as well as academic

requirements and your financial obligations.” The enrolment agreement also

includes the attendance and dismissal policies.


266

All applicants receive a college calendar (university catalogue) that

describes student obligations in detail. References to tuition and financial

obligations seem to dominate. In addition, the calendar presents the rules about

developmental studies, about transcripts and previous postsecondary

attendance, about make-up work, examination schedules, make-up exams, and

calculators in examinations. The rules of satisfactory academic progress are

documented, as are the Rules and Enrolment Conditions:

“DeVry expects mature and responsible behaviour from students and strives to create and maintain an environment of social, moral and intellectual excellence. DeVry reserves the right to dismiss students whose work or conduct is not satisfactory” (Calendar, p. 193-194).

The Attendance Policy is also described and rationalized and includes a

statement about tardiness.

Advisors also have accountability to ensure that their applicants complete

their testing, submit their admissions documentation and make arrangements to

pay their tuition. In meeting with Student Finance advisors, students receive an

orientation about financial aid and/or other ways to finance their education. A

new student coordinator also provides information about housing and part-time

employment and supports the advisors in fulfilling their registration

accountabilities. Not only does this attention provide on-going support and a

type of orientation, it also gives the advisor opportunities to re-sell the education

decision until classes begin. Often the advisor builds a special bond with a new

student. One dean explained how this relationship has been used after classes

begin:

“If we have a first term student who is delinquent, we get in touch with the rep who has a good relationship with the student” (D1).

Special events supplement what DeVry calls ‘stitching-in’, including New

Student Seminars which are “held at the institutes and a number of off-campus

sites throughout the country, (they) help incoming students prepare for

registration and acquaint their families with DeVry and its services...” (Calendar).


267

In addition, new students are invited to Tech Fairs and other campus activities as

part of an orientation.

More conventional orientation activities conducted by Academics and

Student Services are scheduled just before classes begin. The Columbus campus

has a very formalized program that includes a representative from every

department providing information about “study skills, more day-to-day living

kinds of things, help facilities, like ARC, tutoring” (D6). Students receive a

packet of handouts and the Dean of Academic Affairs speaks about the library,

chain of command and about the attendance policy “so they cannot say they

don’t know about that” (D8).

As one participant characterized it: “It’s the whole ball game, what is

student life like on the DeVry Columbus campus” (D8). One faculty member

commented that it is “well orchestrated” (D6). Another questions its

effectiveness:

“It’s an overwhelming amount of information that they are getting from all sorts of people and by about noon or so, heads are rolling... I don’t consider that a very promising way to do an orientation” (D4).

While another commented on the efficacy of orientation day:

“I don’t know. I think it’s better than not talking to these students because it’s the only place that our students are ever together. And this is a function of the scheduling and the cohort groups. These kids aren't going back to a dorm when they can have residence hall meetings to get

this kind of information” (D8).

At Calgary, given that many new students are young and have never been

to Calgary, they receive an orientation to the city, including restaurants,

transportation and bike routes. One participant described many new students:

“they don’t know anything; they are scared” (D3).

Orientation Day is also seen as a transition or hand-off from the

recruitment message to the student expectations message. While the

Educational Processes model extols a consistent message about expectations and

student ‘fit’, my participants were divided about whether DeVry achieves this


268

consistency. One shared her experience teaching first term students “who would

question realities to promises” (D3), a statement reflective of a statement in the

NCA Self-study about the academics-recruitment relationship which is “seen as a

source of friction at some campuses, with perceptions that some recruiters failed

to emphasize the rigor of DeVry programs and clarify the limits on credit transfer

and scheduling options” (Se/f-Study, p. 48).

Another participant talked about “the good job that the recruitment

people have done in bringing high school students on campus, in sort of a pre-

orientation to the campus” (D5). Yet another is clear about the advisors’ role:

“If the reps can present this program as a technical program, I’m pretty satisfied. In terms of the level of what’s going to be asked of them, I think until students get here and get into it, it’s pretty hard to prepare

them” (D4).

On the first day of classes, students get a program orientation. The deans

and/or associate deans, sometimes with faculty teams, visit classes and talk

about “what the expectations are” and about administrative details:

“They talk about the program and again they talk about administrative things like dropping a class, adding a class, proficiency testing, switching to part-time from full-time, the implications of financial aid” (D8).

Students are also reminded of the kind of help that is available, and the

Student Handbook is referenced, specifically the sections on the Student Code of

Conduct and Academic Integrity although across the system different elements

receive different focus. In Toronto, the focus of program orientation is on study

skills and being a successful student. During my research, the focus in Calgary

was on academic integrity; the dean’s message was relayed as:

“We're all on the same side; we want you to graduate. We have standards. Cheating we don’t condone. If you cheat, it means you can’t

hack it” (D1).

Faculty make their expectations clear right from the beginning, focusing

on attendance, study habits and time management. As one participant noted,

“We try to hit them pretty quick with that (expectations). Because being


269

accountable and turning things in on time is important” (D5). Another opined

that first year students are pretty well-prepared, but their problems are related

to the higher expectations of college versus high school. He emphasizes

“learning the discipline of being responsible to themselves, making sure they

show up for class” and notes that most teachers “who teach these first term

courses, recognize this problem and write their expectations (about lateness,

attendance, etc.) right into their syllabus” (D6).

Another talked about faculty members’ role being to make “them better

students”. Citing the obstacles that many DeVry students must overcome,

including working 25 hours a week and not receiving support from their families,

he goes on to state:

“We believe that if students get the right attitude their academic performance will be fine.... They are bright enough, the question is can they get organized, can they get motivated and so forth. And that’s where we are coming from as teachers. Maybe we can help in that

process by re-orienting them: What is engineering, what is

technology..."(D4).

Two strategies are used with first year students. First, the curriculum

contains a first term course dedicated to student success, study skills, critical

thinking and research skills and time management. The electronics program in

Columbus was introducing a new version of this course, built more around

technical content rather than general education content. When I visited the

campus, the opinion was that the course showed “some potential for increasing

retention and generating student enthusiasm” (D6).

Second, faculty who teach first term students participate in a series of

meetings. These meetings share best practices, identify students at risk and

reinforce the consistency of faculty messages and practices: “You have to go

class, you have to do your homework, you have to read the book.” This

consistency is important. One participant shared the challenge of balancing

standards and expectations with motivation and retention goals:


270

“The expectations are in some ways fairly consistent in the early terms, but we’ve had some problems with early term teachers in tough courses... They lower their expectations. They make it a little easier for their students and then when the students get into upper level courses where the expectations are higher. It becomes a culture shock for them. I’m just not sure where that line is” (D6).

And clearly some students may be inclined to take short cuts. As already

noted, DeVry is thorough in communicating and implementing its policies on

academic integrity. As part of clarifying their expectations, many faculty make a

special point about academic integrity in their courses. One shared overall

strategies:

“We've tried to crack down lately on integrity and honesty. That seems to have been a problem in the past. And with internet and e-mail, it’s easy for students to trade work and just change a few things...We’ve had to decrease the weight of labs and depend more on tests. That's the only

way you can find out who is really learning it” (D5).

Another shared her personal approach and message:

“T tell my students that it’s very important to me. Yes, I will turn you in if you cheat in my class. ... I have been at these advisory boards, and I

know that if I let you cheat your way through my class that when you go out and get a job and you can’t do normalization, that employer is not going to think that you cheated your way through DeVry, that employer is going to think that DeVry doesn’t have a decent curriculum. And since placement drives admissions at DeVry, that means that in 5 years, I don’t have a job” (D7).

5.4.2.2 Out of Class Interactions

Like Sheridan, DeVry is a commuter college. Regularly scheduled students

attend classes following either a morning or afternoon timetable, often with no

spare classes. Furthermore, the campus footprint is utilitarian; space is

dedicated to classrooms, labs and offices with a student commons that serves as

both a cafeteria and social area. Yet, the university recognizes the value of

responsive student services:


271

“Campuses provide proactive services and activities appropriate to commuter students and working adults... Campus Student Services departments offer programs that seek to build well-rounded students and support their learning activities.... Undergraduate campuses offer a wide range of activities and organizations in which students can participate.”

These activities and organizations are “closely linked to the professional

aspirations of graduates” (Se/-Study). The Calgary campus, for example, hosts

the largest chapter of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

(I.E.E.E.) in Canada and a Robotics Club, which competes in national

competitions. The Toronto campus has an IEEE chapter and a Canadian

Information Process Society (CIPS) chapter, and business students have formed

their own non-affiliated association. Other activities align with traditional

postsecondary functions: a grad committee; a student activity club, which

organizes pub nights, clubs and intra-mural athletics and ski trips; fundraisers;

and program field trips. At Columbus, the student services department tries to

do “at least one activity a week” (D8). However, relatively few students are able

to participate. As one participant noted:

“Many of our students have families or jobs. They are here for classes

and then they leave. We've tried things but they haven't panned out. The student association has been disbanded for lack of interest. We've tried a speakers club and a debating club.... They tend to come to events

when they are spontaneous and faculty-led” (D1).

Another noted the differences between DeVry and a traditional college or

university:

“We're not like a lot of schools where they have teams and extracurricular activities.... Most of the students do work. They don’t have that much interaction out of the school, but they do form really close bonds because they go from semester to semester.... Most of it is just hanging around, doing homework together down in the lower commons” (D5).

At the heart of the student community is the cohort model explained by a

Columbus participant:


272

“I think that because of the cohort nature of our programs, there’s not a lot of intermingling, except in the Gen Ed courses, so students have a tendency to get hitched-up with peers fairly soon” (D8).

Another described his perception of the cohort communities:

“They live together. It’s a tough curriculum. They help each other— sometimes they carry it too far.... They want to survive together. They form friendships; they help each other get through” (D5).

The bonds are strong. In Calgary, for instance, which recruits students

throughout the Western provinces, students meet in their housing; some have

remained roommates for ten years and longer. A Columbus participant explained

how, even when students interrupt for a term and are subsequently specially

scheduled, the cohort bonds remain intact:

“Even if someone interrupts for a term, because the programs attract the same kind of people, they return to a comfortable place where he sees his buddies. They may be playing dungeons and dragons together even though he’s out of sequence with his electronics courses. What that student will probably do is elect to take Gen Ed courses with his cohort buddies if he can work it into his schedule any way” (D8).

A Calgary participant picks up the same theme, noting that peer

interaction is strong across programs. Students meet in the labs on weekends

where informal tutoring is pervasive. In Toronto, this kind of senior student

support is promoted and encouraged.

A second community-forming impetus was also referenced. DeVry hires

students to work in the Academic Resource Centre (Student Resource Centre in

Toronto) and to serve as Faculty Assistants, working in labs and classrooms to

support individualized instruction. One faculty member shared his views on the

FA program:

“That was one of the things when I first came here, I just loved it. It was just marvelous to see the students who are FAs. First of all they were extremely helpful. But turning that responsibility over to young people— Boy! It’s leadership and it’s peer—peer to peer. It’s not just that they tutor; it’s not just that they sign off on a lab. It’s somebody that the student can talk to in a way that they can’t with me. The FA will give


273

them insight into the peculiarities of the faculty members. I just think there are all sorts of good things about that program beyond the specific content of getting help” (D6).

The FA and student tutoring programs afford an important opportunity for

faculty-student interaction as well. At Calgary faculty are required to post four

office hours a week and encouraged to schedule one of them in the ARC.

Furthermore, the expectation is that faculty are to be visible and approachable.

As one administrator expressed it: “The students are our customer. We have an

expectation of faculty to be here for their customers” (D1). Another echoed this

sentiment: “We want students to feel that if they have a problem, they can go to

a faculty member” (D4). And this need not be the obvious faculty member. In

Calgary, for instance:

“We encourage students to ask other faculty. It‘s not an expression of disapproval of your instructor. Sometimes you need to hear it from other people. No one will feel it is criticism..... Faculty are comfortable with this” (D1).

Faculty polices reference student interaction as one of the accountabilities

against which faculty are reviewed. The student feedback form also seeks input

on faculty’s practices with respect to informing students of scheduled office

hours and “being available during those times.” Faculty interact with students in

various ways. Some lead student activity groups and clubs. Some hang-out with

students in the Commons. (One Toronto faculty plays chess and/or ping-pong

with his students every day.) Some even party with their students.

But certainly the most productive interaction is in the labs “where a lot of

the most informal conversation” takes place. As one participant noted, “a lot of

it (interaction with students), happens in the labs. We have so many lab hours

and the faculty are fairly visible there” (D6). Another concurred: “Labs are

where most of this interaction takes place. Even if I’m in a class, a student from

another class has full access to me” (D5).

25 My Toronto reviewer was dubious about this comment. Campus policy is to begin any enquiries with the course teacher.


274

While everyone was clear that faculty were expected to interact with their

students, I did discover irregular practices. Calgary requires faculty to post four

office hours, while the expectation at Columbus is two. While complimentary of

junior faculty who get involved with their students, one Columbus participant

was Critical of the attitude of some senior faculty, noting that

“Once you become a senior faculty member, you are at a level where even if that accountability is low, it doesn’t do much and there isn’t a lot of recourse.... If they put in their two hours and students don’t come to them during those two hours, then tough” (D8).

5.4.2.3 Student Advisement

Advisement at DeVry is broader than academic advisement and includes

roles across the campus addressing the needs of a targeted student group to

promote student success, motivation and retention. As already noted, recruiters

are called ‘advisors’ and the personal interview provides an “overview of career

choices’ and an in-depth look at our type of career preparation, career services,

tuition and financial aid” (P7E).

Faculty policies call on faculty to be pro-active and to “respond positively

and promptly to reasonable requests for ... academic advising and initiate

academic advising or referral for students who need it” (Canadian Faculty Policies

Handbook, p. 5). The student instructional feedback queries whether faculty

have “motivated me to complete my studies at DeVry University.” One

participant in Calgary shared the story about a faculty member who called a

student at home to discover that the student was feeling very discouraged.

Ultimately, that student graduated. This is not an uncommon story at DeVry

whose culture celebrates students who have overcome adversity and the role

that DeVry faculty and staff have played in supporting that student.

At both Columbus and Calgary, the program chairs are academic advisors.

At Calgary, they teach one course, and spend the rest of their time dealing with

student issues and providing academic advising. This advisement includes

Procedural! Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 5: Findings

275

program selection/career advice—“they want to make sure they are in the right

program; what kind of jobs can I expect, what salaries?” (D3). Advisement also

addresses course selection, attendance and academic suspensions, and “what

do I do now?” questions. As one participant, who is an academic advisor,

explained the role:

“Being the academic advisor means being a ‘friend-in-need’. The Columbus program is modeled after the Atlanta program. Because the curriculum is prescribed, the notion of academic advisement is different— and there’s no hook. So our model is softer: future, time-management”

(D4).

That said, the large number of irregular students are advised about course

selection. Even though students have access to the DeVry Student Online

System (DSOS) where they can do their own scheduling, according to one

participant, “they don’t even try, because they know they can make an

appointment” and get help. In Columbus the program assistants advise

irregularly scheduled students about course selection.

“They know their curriculum backwards and forwards and work only in one program... They are very savvy about students and faculty and will

match students to faculty” (D8).

They also work with students to make sure they have the right sequence of

courses. At Toronto, student advisors in ‘Student Central’ are expected to fulfill

this same service.

In Calgary “all advice is in the context of what’s happening to the

individual, what’s happening in their life” (D3). Situations described are

diverse—from the good student who wants to increase his course load, to the

student on probation, to the student who cannot manage the workload or cannot

afford next term’s tuition. One advisor confided that she doesn’t see the

personal stuff as separate, sharing stories about students whose spouse is going

through cancer, whose child has broken a leg, whose husband has run off with

her child. This advisor keeps files on each student. She uses the Becoming A


276

Master Student Guide (Ellis) to give students a strategy “when they are at wits

end” but also uses her position:

“If I sense a problem, I say OK, tell me what’s happening. And then I use whatever it takes. I get for them. We adjust the workload, arrange

special tutoring—as I said, whatever it takes” (D3).

Along with another chair, they advise 667 students.

While the organization across the campuses may be different, the

resource allocation to advisement is consistent. At Columbus, which is a much

larger campus than Calgary, each program has a program assistant “who

functions as the liaison between the student and that program. It might be she

handles special scheduling, drops, adds. She also kind of nurtures the students

in that capacity” (D8). In addition, a chair is assigned to each class:

“When I am advising a group, I go in there twice in the early part of the term. I tell them who I am, why I’m there... I'm your ombudsman.... In the 4" or 5‘ week, I ask the faculty who needs advising. I contact each of these students by e-mail and ask them to come in. The rate of return is something less than 50%. I don’t chase them down” (D4).

Typically the meeting for students who do show is about goals. This advisor

pushes the value of a college education and explores issues of image and self-

confidence.

A large part of the advisor function relates to attendance tracking and

follow-up. DeVry takes formal student attendance in each class using electronic

swipe devices in each classroom and lab that are linked to the student database.

Attendance default lists are run twice a week; staff develop reports that are

distributed to the chair, program assistant or student advisor. If a student is

absent for three consecutive days, the program assistant will make phone calls.

One participant characterized their follow-up: “They act like mother hens—you

get in here, I want to talk to you” (D8). By policy, students are dismissed if they

miss five consecutive days. DeVry’s approach is straightforward: “You can't do

well unless you’re here. It’s not a correspondence course” (D5).


277

One Calgary participant shared the campus’ stance on this element of

DeVry’s educational processes while referencing traditional post-secondary

education.

“Some students don’t understand these expectations. They want DeVry to be more like a university where attendance shouldn't be required. Why do I have to attend if I feel comfortable with the material? They don’t understand that whole government side.... If you want a DeVry degree, then you have to follow the rules. And we are not going to jeopardize our license”° because you don’t want to follow the rules. I say to them, ‘we don’t want you here if you can’t attend—and if you do attend, you'll find that your marks are up by a full letter grade. You were told when you came that attendance is a requirement. If you don’t want to attend then go to the U of C’ (University of Calgary)” (D3).

Again, the approach to attendance is structured. Sanctions are

progressive; the goal is to help students change their behaviours:

“The first time I see a student, we write up the contract, we have our little talk—I’m fairly blasé about it. But if they come back and it looks like it’s habitual, then we start to do something a little stronger” (D6).

The advisors also track students who are on probation—i.e. those who

have not achieved the 2.0 CGPA. Typically they will be dismissed at the end of

term with the right of appeal. Here’s how an advisor describes this intervention

process:

“Typically, they will be dismissed; they appeal and the appeal is granted with conditions: 90% attendance. See the Chair at the mid-way point. They use a Progress Form. The student must go to his/her faculty and get a signature with the grade. With a completed form, the student and the Chair talk about a game plan. Unfortunately a lot of students, once they get to that point, it’s very hard to bring them back. Attrition is our challenge at all times. A lot of times, by the time they see you, it is too late, it’s just too late” (D5).

26 The reference to license is, in fact, related to eligibility for financial aid. As noted in the literature, in many jurisdictions, students in private institutions are held to a more stringent active participation policy than students attending public institutions. This is the case in Ontario.


278

I questioned a senior administrator about this investment in academic

advisement. How do you know it’s working? I asked. The answer is that

retention is linked to good advisement:

“I think we have good advisement. We don’t see a lot of drops in the first couple of terms. Our drops happen third through sixth” (D8).

Other services fall into the advisement category. The Student Finance

Department provides information and counseling about student financial aid,

alternate loan programs and financial management, especially as it relates to

accounts in arrears. In fact, “financial advising is a required event for all new

and resuming students (Se/FStudy. p. 82). In Ontario all students are counseled

about their loan repayment obligations as part of the college’s loan default

program.

DeVry graduates each receive six-months of career placement assistance

that includes one-on-one counseling related to job search skills, resume

preparation, interview techniques and other related, individualized topics. The

Career Services department also provides student counseling and support related

to part-time employment.

5.4.3. Cross-Site Comparison of Out-of-Class Activities

As described in this section, both Sheridan and DeVry have recruitment

programs that introduce their benefits and expectations through a progressive

set of planned activities to address awareness, information, application,

registration and orientation. Within these programs, both institutions support a

high school outreach program. Both promote and advertise to reach a defined

market, and both have a structured admissions process with rules and timelines

that culminates in students registering and starting classes.

Orientation activities are very similar at each institution, including both an

institutional orientation and a program orientation. Student Handbooks,

calendars and large group meetings, including classes, are primary


279

communications tools where codified sets of expectations are presented to new

students. Both institutions share the same problems with respect to student

preparedness and ability to cope with the expectations of postsecondary

education. Both Sheridan and DeVry have developed support mechanisms to

address these needs, including specific courses for first term students.

Both Sheridan and DeVry are commuter colleges, challenged to establish

meaningful communities, yet both have developed activities where students

interact with each other and with their faculty. This faculty interaction is an

important feature of both institutions. And, because of the similar nature of the

instructional processes, the labs are the locus of much of this interaction.

Because the curriculum model is similar at both institutions, academic

advisement is more focused on the irregular student. And both institutions have

adopted a broader view of advisement and support including peer tutoring,

career services and financial aid advisement.

However, as with curriculum and instructional processes, there are

important differences within the similarities. These provide even more insight

into the differences between public and for-profit institutions. They are

presented in the following section and then displayed in summary form in Table

26: Similarities and Differences in Out-of-Class Activities.

4.3.1 Differences within Similar Out-of-Class Activities

Recruitment Program: At Sheridan, the institutional goal is to enrol students

who best fit the program, relying on college and program profile and reputation,

activities, communications, and staff, including the student recruiters, to attract a

large pool of students and then to select those who will be the most successful.

While academic records, tests, interviews and other selection practices play

important roles, a significant part of this selection relies on the student to self-


280

select and de-select based on solid information about program expectations”’.

Yet individual goals do not always align with institutional goals. The college

attracts students who have their own reasons to enrol, consistent with the

functions of a community college (Dennison, 1995A). Consequently, the student

population in a given program is likely to be more heterogeneous with respect to

goals.

On the other hand, DeVry’s recruitment program targets a specific market

through aggressive direct advertising and high school outreach programs. This

market is then ‘sold’ a DeVry education featuring career success. Considerable

resources are directed at convincing each ‘lead’ that DeVry is the right

postsecondary choice for them. DeVry continuously sells its benefits, beginning

with a personal interview which is, in fact, a sales presentation. On-going

contact with each applicant is sustained through the management of advisor

accountabilities and institutional activities leading to registration and the first day

of classes. As a result, although the demographics of the class are diverse,

student goals are relatively homogeneous. No one enrolls at DeVry to find

oneself!

Admissions Process: Sheridan relies on a series of admissions letters that specify

deadlines and responsibilities and its OASIS system to keep each applicant up-to-

date about an application. Students are eliminated from this process by missing

a deadline, not fulfilling a responsibility or not making the cut-line. These

enrolment management metrics are well understood and part of the competitive

environment in which students compete for places and the college competes for

the ‘best’ students.

DeVry’s admissions process is ‘sales-closing’ wrapped in customer service

values. Each applicant is handled by someone whose compensation is directly or

27 As a program coordinator at Sheridan in the 1980’s, I would host information sessions that emphasized student expectations in terms of workload, time commitment, and the difficulty of the curriculum. My goal was to have applicants who could not see themselves in the described teaching and learning environment de-select themselves.


281

indirectly linked to that applicant starting classes. Students who miss an

admissions testing date are phoned; if they need tutorials—and many do, their

confidence being jow—tutorials are arranged. If they introduce second thoughts,

they are re-sold. The message is personalized and consistent: You can be

successful, and DeVry is the college that is the best fit for you.

After each class, the metrics are reviewed against standards and budgets.

These metrics include lead conversion, testing rates and grade-out percentages,

the effectiveness of financial counseling (measured by how many students make

financial arrangements), documentation processes, registration and start rates.

Student Expectations: From the beginning of the admissions process through to

graduation, Sheridan students are given more responsibilities and more choices.

As members of the community they have rights and responsibilities consistent

with democratic traditions and are free to “act upon social issues affecting

Sheridan.” They are expected to be aware of their academic progress against

the program of study, to act in a professional manner, to attend classes and

participate in their learning. And they must be proactive. If they are in

academic difficulties they must seek out academic assistance.

DeVry’s expectations are more prescriptive and more punitive, at least in

their presentation. They focus on behaviours and rules, including rules and

sanctions associated with attendance, financial obligations, and academic

integrity. In reality, the institution’s resources and energies are directed at

assisting students to live up to these expectations. Considerable resources go

into intervening to motivate and retain students.

Community Building: Sheridan students have a much wider range of choices and

more opportunities to interact with students across the college through general

education courses, participation on committees and other stakeholder activities,

athletics, and Student Union activities. Many of these activities are student-

funded and participation rates are relatively low. The college is engaged in


282

projects to increase community building; the mobile computing initiative is

perceived as a strong community builder, including both students and faculty.

DeVry’s community is built around the classrooms, labs and career-related

activities. Student leadership is developed through representation and an

employee relationship with the institution. Also, faculty policies and expectations

are more explicit with respect to student-faculty interaction.

Academic Advisement: Sheridan’s support of academic advisement has been

reduced over the last number of years. Intervention is informal. Students must

take responsibility and proactively find and receive support. DeVry, on the other

hand, allocates considerable resources to a holistic approach to academic

advisement, including interventions associated with academic progress and

attendance. In addition, more resources are dedicated to financial advisement

related to default and to career placement services.


Table 26: Similarities and Differences in Out-of-Class Activities presented on the

next page.


sBuipuly :¢

JaydeyD Jopes

20.6eq-UON S,oueUC

Ul AWSIAAIG

|2INpsD01d

‘PedJNOSeJ-|J9M PU

INSI|OY SI

JUBWASIAPY ‘dAOe-O1d

aq JsNW

SjUapN}sS ‘peonpes

Used SAPY

SeduNOsaJ JUSWAaSIADY

‘Dlwapere UeU}

Japeciq

S| JUdWAaSIApe

‘jUapnys seine!

3U} UO

Pasndoj S!

JUsWASIApe IiWEpedy

‘suonepedxe

Aynoey Jnoge

31jdxe sow

sue sald}Od

"ajly AUNWWOd

JO sunjeay

JueOdw!

ue SI

UOIDeJaqU! JUapNys-AQINDe-

“diysuoiejas saho|dwe

ue yBnoiy}

pedojenap s!

diysuepes} Juapnys

‘pun -Jjas

Adu ‘asau}

Jo swOS

‘saniuNyoddo pue

sadioyd jo

abuei Japim

& sAey

S]JUSPNIS

“Somunyoddo

Burpying AqlunwWWwod

pe}!wI| UUM

Seba]/Od JayNwWWOD

se YO,

*SUONepDadXe B59} JOOW

Sjuapnys Buldjay

0} peyOAsp

sie seoinose.

a|Gesepisuoy “sauUeW

aAiUNd

‘aAQdiuosaid

aJOW PB

U! paquesaid

sue suonepedxg

squ6u oneIDOWSp

pue saniiqisuodses

ai0w aAey

s}uspNIs

"SasINOD SSadNNs

JUSspN}s BABY

SUOHNPISU! UJO

‘4e9;9 spew

sie suonepedxe

juapnys ‘peseq-wei6oid

pue JBUOAN

SU! YO

S! UOHEWUSHO

*S}NSei pue

S20IAJBS SAOIGW!

AJSNONUQUOD

0} peMa!Acs

DIP SBJOI

UES

“SSdIAISS PSZI|eENpIAIpu!

UUM

paplAoid JawWO}SNd

e S!

Jued|dde ydeR

"sjuapnys seq,

2U} JH

0} ssed01d

SAQedwod

e jo

ped

Se Pa]asS-ap

JO payeulwja

ae sjuedi|ddy

“paseq-ssuljowily

pue -Sajns

aie sassadoid

suoissiwpy

“snosuabowoy Ajenjejes

ae

sje yueapnys

“AY, 3yGu ayy

si Alpe yeUI

JUSUBas JeyxJEW

SIU} BDUIAUOD

0} SeNbIUyde}

sages Ses

‘JexJew IyIDeds

e 0}

SJe Ie)

‘snosuaboleyey JEYUMBWOS

aq Aew

sjeob squeayddy

‘sajyoid quapnys

[NySSedons YW,

seq OYM

S}JUBPNIS SPIES

*sweiBoid yoeeiyno

jooyds uBbiy

apnpu

pue seiBeye.js

Bune yew

asn swes6oid

Juawnioes SAissaiHOld

Aysi9aiun/aba}}0D AiAeg

aHo|joD UePLDUS

SONNETS

94} UIYWIM

SaouaIa4JIG SONHE|IWIS

SOIANY SSP]D-JO-}NO

Ul SEOUBIBYIG PUL

SAALEIWIS :97

B1qGeL

£87

284

5.5. Assessment and Continuous Improvement

5.5.1. Assessment and Continuous Improvement at Sheridan

According to the Educational Process Model, best practices institutions

profile their students, assess student learning and continuously review their

educational process to improve their impact. While individual program and

faculty development has always been a feature of Sheridan, the college’s current

approach to continuous improvement relies on an increased use of data and a

new commitment as described with passion by one of my participants:

“If you want quality education, you have to constantly take a look at what you are doing and constantly re-thinking it and constantly making it current. A program quality review system should do that all the time. But to do that well requires resourcing; it requires a commitment in the organization to make it happen” (S5).

Another participant linked this initiative to both an increased access to

data and governance:

“A lot of it is confidence level... What we said to the Board was that for all these academic decisions, there are data sets that exist, that can be consulted, that can shed light on. And so if you know all of these things, and we come to you and say here’s our enrolment plan, you should be able to approve it, confident that we've asked all the right questions and

looked at all the right data” (S1).

In this section of the chapter, I describe Sheridan’s educational processes as

they relate to assessment and continuous improvement.

5.5.1.1. Developing Student Profiles

The Ontario Colleges Applications Service (OCAS) provides extensive data

about who applies and who registers in Sheridan programs relative to program

choice across the province. It uses this data in several ways: First, the OCAS

Market Share Analysis Report provides information about program demand


285

across the province; it is used as a reference point about program mix in the

context of local community demand. The college used this data in developing

the current Davis Campus initiative, modifying the program mix at that campus

to attract students who were leaving the community to attend another college.

The Vice President Academic, in her presentation to the Board of Governors,

referenced this as “trends in the applicant pool” (Jnterna/ Presentation).

Second, data from the OCAS Admissions Reports are used as a check

against the academic profiles that programs develop and around which

admissions requirements are established. Commenting on this use, one

participant from the computing programs noted that the demographic profile is

presented by Academic Services and is used to assess marketing and to identify

opportunities. As an example, he shared that “there has been a fall-off in the

number of secondary school students coming into the program... and we have

more mature students which allows the faculty to use their experience in class”

(S2).

The third use of the OCAS data is directly related to the second and

introduces the kind of actions that are initiated at the school and program level

to improve recruitment and retention. A participant from the electronics

program, responding to this line of questioning, told me about the importance of

math in the incoming student profile and the actions in place to improve

enrolment, including “some math remedial courses where they relate math

problems to electronics programs.” Students are either identified at the

admissions stage where they are required to take this course as a condition of

acceptance or in first term when they will be re-scheduled to a remedial course

(S4).

There seems to be a matter-of-factness about enrolment realities. While

the ideal academic profile is important, data about the profile of the starting

class determines program actions. A senior administrator noted that they use

the demographic profile of incoming students to identify language problems

“which is typical of the Davis Campus.” He goes on to explain program actions:


286

“We start to look at things that we can put in place to improve the success rate of the students. We look at all the demographics. We know we are going to be living with that. What we try to do is to adjust our curriculum and support services to support things which are good or bad” (S2).

In addition to the data provided by Academic Services through OCAS, the

college has also initiated a more qualitative approach to profiling incoming

students. Both a recruitment and retention initiative, the program identifies

current ‘stellar students’ who assist the college in developing “culture profiles”

based on their response to the following questions (Recruitment, Internal

Presentation):

a Why Sheridan? (wants, needs and desires /what is your program all about?)

a What is your program culture (clique) like? (personality types/passions who would want to take this program?)

og Expectations of the program (structure/courses, workload, placement)

Although this program is in the early development stage, it is perceived

positively. The college will have another tool to assess program applicants and

applicants will have a better understanding of the program experience. As

described in the previous section, this information is useful for applicants to self-

select their program choice.

5.5.1.2 Assessing Student Development and Learning

Perhaps the biggest change at Sheridan over the last four years is the

systematic measurement of student outcomes. While employment statistics

have always been a key measure in program review and college promotion, the

introduction of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in 1999 brought

comparability to the exercise that allowed faculty and administrators to assess

program outcomes relative to other programs in the college and to similar

programs across the province. Three KPIs—graduate employment, graduate


287

satisfaction and employer satisfaction—are collected by a third party using

telephone survey methodology. These indirect measures of student learning are

published in the college calendar and on the college’s website. They are also

referenced in various decision-making contexts, including overall enrolment

management and program review.

The current calendar cites 90% graduate employment and 92% employer

satisfaction (Calendar, p. 11), impressive numbers that speak to program

success. And certainly these measures matter:

“Our success is knowing whether we've met the learning outcomes of the program is partly a measure of the graduates’ satisfaction and the employers’ satisfaction with their employees” (S2).

The graduate satisfaction KPIs provide information about graduates’

satisfaction with their generic skills development, a direct link to both the

program outcomes and personal development skills. Table 27 displays

Sheridan’s graduate satisfaction KPIs as presented in the 2003-2004 College

Calendar.

Table 27: Sheridan's Graduate Satisfaction KPIs

Very Satisfied | Satisfied % | Total Satisfied % %

Teamwork 36 54 90 Oral Communications 27 60 87

Problem Solving 25 63 88

Organization and Planning 28 59 87 Critical Thinking 23 64 87

Time Management 26 59 85 Responsible 29 60 89

Comprehension 22 67 89

Adaptable 21 64 85 Preparation for Job 30 52 82

Market


288

Another indirect measure is graduate salary information. The college

publishes selected annual salaries by program, including maximum and average

salaries.

Coordinators are responsible for tracking graduates’ career progression.

Although, not as scientific nor developed as the KPIs, this indirect measure of

student development folds into the KPI data, providing another element about

program outcomes. Here’s how one participant explained these measures:

“The KPIs is a very good indicator because they not only interview the students to see how they were satisfied with the program, but also it shows after they graduate and work how successful they are. And they measure success and especially industry has been quite great for electronics.... I also get e-mails from former students who are successful. Some are 6-7 years out with jobs across Canada and North America” (S4).

Yet another indirect measure is the success of the co-op program and

input from co-op employers. In its publications the college boasts about its

relationship with over 3400 co-op employers and cites three measures of co-op

outcomes: improved placement (18% higher), higher starting salaries

($3,000/year more) and less debt at graduation (30% less) (Calendar, p. 9).

Input from co-op employers is another indirect measure of student development:

“Also the co-op students. We have always had praise for the electronics students. We hardly ever get any complaints about them. These show us that we are on the right track” (S4).

Direct measures of program learning outcomes are more difficult to derive

and to implement. Some programs at Sheridan, although not the ones that I

studied, have external exams. Students in the computing programs participate

in external competitions, providing a limited direct measure relative to students

at other institutions. The dean, in a publication, notes “I am particularly proud

of the success of our students in external competitions.” The brochure cites a

1999 team’s use of java; it placed in the top 25% of over 100 university teams

(SCIM Brochure).


289

One participant introduced the challenge of direct measures of program

outcomes with a question:

“How do you put in place regulations and processes that are clear to students at an early enough stage that technically you can pass courses but not pass the program? It’s much easier to do this when there are external exams”

She notes program promotion meetings as “the opportunity to assess the

students’ program learning outcomes, including generic skills” and goes on to

suggest that the final semester could become the project semester, referencing

her experience at another college, and concluding with a guess: “25% is a guess

at how many Sheridan programs do this” (S1).

Both the programs that I studied have a form of this capstone experience.

Here’s how one participant described the final term project:

“We don’t have comprehensive exams. We do have a final project. It is pretty free form and does not tie directly back to the program outcomes that are prescribed, but we have a panel of faculty who review these

projects” (S3).

Another participant from the computing programs agrees:

“In our 3-year programs there is a consolidation-type project course where they do research and a project with an advisor. We do not do that in the 2-year programs. I’m not so sure it actually measures the learning outcomes of the program; it tends to get the students to consolidate their view of the learning outcomes of the program” (S2).

The electronics programs take another tact, this one more consistent with

the overall model that measures student learning in individual courses. The

program has introduced an Electronics Troubleshooting course that serves a very

specific role associated with program outcomes:

“... students get a very difficult individual project. On purpose. It’s meant

to push them and to make sure that they have the ability to graduate. They take something they have never seen before, figure out how it works and how to fix it. What is the concept, analysis, etc. This is the course that establishes the standard. Students don’t seem happy with it, but it’s good for them” (S7).


290

The electronics solution is consistent with the college’s course-based

model. Even in the computer programs where the curriculum includes a

graduating students’ project and where they measure students ability to make a

presentation (‘We therefore know that they know what they are talking about”

(S2), the direct measurement of student learning is within courses. One

participant described the model:

“it (the evaluation of student learning) is all based on evaluation of what we've determined we are going to measure within a class or a course... We measure learning outcomes by the tests in class; we don’t have a way of knowing other than a passing grade” (S2).

Measuring and reporting overall student development in a consistent and

accountable manner is difficult in this model. Instead, participants tended to

reference their perceptions of growth. For example, a faculty member was real

clear that he sees development:

“... almost every single individual develops through that sequence of semesters, particularly in and out of co-op. Those are very formative. Students might be child-like in their first 3 terms, then they get a co-op and they realize that it counts. Everything counts, actually and they put Sheridan into a much better perspective than they did before. They finally realize, as we do, that what we do here is all artificial. We might try and make it sound like it’s ‘business-like’. But it’s not. It’s all fake. And there are limits to what we can teach them in an institutional setting”

(S3).

Yet the size of the college compromises this view. This same participant talked

about a student he had in first term but did not see again and therefore cannot

comment on her development.

The reference to attitude was also a consistent theme, a proxy for student

development and something that prompted anecdotes from faculty, in particular.

One participant told me about a graduating student with a “prickly personality”

who he and colleagues had discussed in first year and counseled through her

program. As he noted, the curriculum has some attitudinal learnings, “but not

that kind of stuff. And you deal with it. We’re here to help” (S3). Another


291

returned to attitude and career success as evidence of growth. He cites two

recent graduates who were hired by a large telecommunications company.

“They've been promoted and they've been there not even a year. They are doing senior things, almost management things. It’s got a lot to do with their attitude. These guys have strong ability to teach themselves. They are already so far away from the curriculum that I can’t say it was the curriculum that did it. But it helped.... I’m not surprised that these guys have done well. But, I think the way that they learn is the most important thing. That's what they got out of the college. That’s what got them into the position they have now. It’s not what they learned as their methods and their approach and the way they did things. I know what they were like when they started their first year and I know what they’re doing now. And there was something in between” (S7).

This is an apt summary of the responses to this area of the Educational

Processes Model. For the most part, the college relies on indirect measures and

faculty perceptions to substantiate overall student learning and development.

Grades in individual courses provide the direct measures. Which is not to say

that participants did not identify issues and concerns with this approach. One

shared a recent experience working on curriculum with another college and using

DACUM charts to articulate evidence of learning outcomes. The experience

made him question current practice:

“It is an interesting process because it is making us think about the curriculum in a whole different way and it will open the doors to how do we measure what they have learned... This has been a problem with our post-graduate programs. We get complaints from students every year who have had experience and yet we give them a low grace. ... It’s really tough to say what it is we are measuring. It’s quite objective in many cases” (S2).

Another participant answered my question about measuring student

development with “No. Consciously, I don’t think so” (S4), supporting a colleague

who questioned whether many faculty even considered the question, citing a

growing alienation on the part of faculty who have limited their role—* give me

my courses, give me my timetable; I'll do my job. The psychological contract

has changed...” (S3). This observation was further developed by another


292

participant who linked the college’s approach to measuring student learning with

an abiding characteristic of diverse public institutions:

“I don’t think there’s a collective will here. In my experience at Sheridan, there’s never been a collective will. We've had individual champions of many things, but they’ve not either been around here long enough or they never used the processes to build the collective will for certain things to happen... It really takes a champion who is willing to drive it home and has the skills to make that happen as an effective leader. We've had incidences where people have started these things but never really

followed-through with them” (S5).

Yet, the college demonstrates this collective will and leadership in its

continuous improvement processes, which I will describe in the next section.

5.4.1.3 Continuous Improvement

Continuous improvement is part of the college’s strategic positioning, a

key component in its justification to become a polytechnic. The president, in his

paper about transforming the college cites the “well established internal

academic review process” and a commitment to rigorous self-assessment

through any transition stage. He specifically cites continuous improvement of

curriculum:

“Sheridan has also firmly established sophisticated and comprehensive internal peer review processes for the development and enhancement of programs and curricula” ( 7ransformation Becoming Sheridan Polytechnic. p. 2).

Also, the KPIs and their linkage to funding have introduced both the

measures and the impetus to review and improve college processes that impact

student satisfaction, completion and the graduate KPIs (employment, graduate

satisfaction and employer satisfaction.)

As already described, the college’s curriculum is based on provincial

program standards. Program advisory committees constantly review the

relevance and currency of the curriculum. In addition the EPPR, which one

participant labeled the “course police for the institution” (S6), reviews and


293

comments on new courses or course modifications, ensuring consistency in

quality, delivery and implementation. While its introduction represented a

cultural change for the college, at least in this participant’s view, that change has

happened:

“It took a couple of years for people to adopt to it but once it became mandatory and without that process, you cannot even get a block code. You have to put some meat into the implementation” (S6).

Faculty are responsible for writing these courses and are expected to

undertake professional development activities to ensure currency. This

expectation is encoded in the policy on Currency of Faculty Knowledge and

implemented by the associate deans who meet with each faculty member on an

annual basis to review their Annual Professional Learning and Development Plan

(PLDP). One of the participants explained this annual process:

‘... we meet formally once a year to develop a professional development plan. It includes goals for the coming year, what are all the things they are trying to do in the classroom differently. When we meet in the following year, we look back and look forward... “You cannot really do too much if they don’t do the professional development... This is a new process and we have not yet figured out the disciplinary actions—although there will be a pattern of disinterest” (S6).

A faculty participant viewed the process as his opportunity to be

recognized for his contribution and “in the sense that there’s a process, it’s very

good.” He admitted that he “blows his own horn,” communicating directly with

his dean once every six months about his professional development:

‘... sometimes just recognition from my colleagues, or the dean or associate dean or within the college, I think that at this particular time, that means more to me. I think they know that I’m doing a good job in the classroom. What I want them to know is that I’m doing more. I’m doing research. I’m trying to improve my course, my department and the

overall standard” (S7).

Continuous improvement of instruction depends on input from students as

well as KPI datasets and college review practices. As already described, the

college’s Student Feedback Policy ensures that “feedback will be gathered from


294

students in all programs on a regular basis” and that this data will be “discussed

by the professor and his/her supervisor.” Furthermore, the expectation is that

this discussion will impact the faculty member’s professional development and

learning plan (PDLP). The laptop environment has introduced a new immediacy

to this feedback and follow-up. One participant recounted how a dean, after

hearing a student concern, went into the class and administered a course

evaluation. He is able to get the summary within a day and then discuss that

input with the faculty member. From this participant's perspective

“It has been enormously successful in sitting down with faculty and saying this is what the students said. They get the positive and the negative from the free-form answers. It’s powerful because the students see a change within two weeks... The students receive a summary of the findings as well” (S2).

Input from course evaluations is supplemented by KPI datasets about

student satisfaction, which are “seen to be rich with information” (S1). These

questionnaires are administered annually, asking students about their level of

satisfaction with all aspects of the college including instructional practices. One

participant shared an example of how these KPIs are used. The previous year’s

KPIs revealed that students did not believe that faculty were available outside of

class. This year, the school has put an extra emphasis on informing students

when faculty are available; all faculty office hours are posted in a more

accessible location (S2). Dean’s Forums also provide an opportunity for student

representatives to meet with the school dean and share perceptions about

instructional effectiveness.

The college also uses the Resolving Academic Complaints Process to

identify and resolve complaints, defined as “expressions of dissatisfaction,

discomfort, concern or complaint that relate to the teaching and learning

experiences at Sheridan, including those in classrooms, labs, studios, or planned

out-of-class activities.” Grading and evaluation appeals are not included in the

policy. The associate deans have the responsibility to facilitate a resolution in

those circumstances where the student and the faculty member cannot agree.


295

The policy and its due processes are set out in the Student Handbook,

comprising 10 pages of progressive actions. One administrator commented on it

implementation and its opportunity costs:

“It has become a challenge. Administrivia takes a lot of your time. There goes the time in enforcing the quality control and enforcing classroom management, making class visits and whatnot” (S6).

As with curriculum, the quality of instruction is dependent on faculty

performance. In addition to their annual professional development and learning

plans, full-time faculty are expected to participate in a performance coaching

process with a colleague on a semi-annual basis. The “emphasis is on classroom

performance and observation” (faculty Performance Review). One participant

shared his experience sitting in on a colleague’s lecture in his program after

which he gave suggestions about how to improve delivery of the course. He

notes that “it doesn’t happen that often... but it’s starting with the part-time

faculty” (S4). In addition, once every five years,

“... a faculty member and academic manager (will) engage in a summative evaluation of the faculty member’s overall performance.... This process considers all aspects of a professor’s role with an emphasis on classroom work involving an announced classroom observation cycle including pre- class discussion and post-class discussion. Unannounced classroom observation may also follow this. A discussion on student feedback is also part of this process” (Faculty Performance Review).

Commenting on the fact that this is a relatively new process, one

administrator anticipates “patterns of disinterest” among senior faculty and that

they have “not yet figured out the disciplinary actions” (S6). This same

participant anticipates some external forces that will motivate faculty

development initiatives:

“We are also hoping that the institution when it changes its image— whether it is a polytechnic, ITEL, or whatever—that it will automatically create a situation. OK people have to have a masters degree, or these qualifications. If you don’t do it in the next two years, so you are going to have problems” (S6).


296

While these forms of on-going continuous improvement evolve, the

college has also introduced a new Program Review Policy.

“Program review is an organized process of collecting and disseminating information to assist the Board, the administrators and faculty in making judgements about the effectiveness and quality of academic programs. Sheridan is committed to reviewing its programs regularly to ensure quality and effectiveness. It is, therefore, the policy of Sheridan College that diploma, post diploma and applied degree programs will conduct an annual self-assessment and comprehensive formal program review every three to five years.”

The policy’s objectives are to assist college staff with the improvement of

academic programs, to provide assurance that program quality protocols are in

place and to assess “past and recent innovations or changes.” The principles

and guidelines set forth the notion of an annual academic planning cycle within

which the program faculty and administration will conduct “a self evaluation of

the program to make adjustments in response to various factors such as industry

needs and student and faculty feedback.” Also cited is a formal quality review

conducted every four years, which “provides a high degree of rigour, including

data collection, trends analysis, feedback from stakeholder groups associated

with the program, and includes an external program evaluation committee

representing other institutions, industry and related accrediting associations.”

Another internal document provides more details about the annual self-

assessments. Academic Services, mandated to build an institutional research

group, provides a set of information including KPI results, grade distributions,

course evaluation results and enrolment data. School and program information

is also an expectation and includes PAC meeting records, focus group results,

classroom shadowing summaries, notes from Dean’s Forum meetings. Based on

this data, the program team writes a program review summary report,

identifying the program “strengths, successes, areas for improvement, future

directions, timelines, monitoring activities, and indicators of success with

appropriate timelines for improvements.”


297

These are new policies and practices; the Board of Governors only

approved the Program Review Policy in April, 2002. It has not yet been

implemented, except in a pilot. However, the college seems ready for this

review model. One participant noted that “every program is now going to go

through a review. We had a review, like 10 years ago. We never had anymore”

(S4). Another sees it as a way to build program teams:

“We've not had a system here that causes people in programs to really come together. ..What we’ve now put in place is something that will cause program teams to come together and talk about the program experience. Every May, every program will be caused to do a program report card” (S5).

Another sees the annual self-assessment as “part of a department’s role. And

they do it consciously and unconsciously” (S6).

This new program review model also aligns with an emerging direction for

the college’s governance. With the enactment of the Ontario Colleges of Applied

Arts and Technology Act, 2002, on March 18, 2003, college boards will have the

authority to approve programs. With this increased authority comes a greater

need to ensure that the college’s program mix decisions are “part of integrated

planning”. College management must provide evidence to the board that the

curriculum delivery plan is affordable and connected to other college plans

including marketing, fundraising and enrolment management (Jnternal Board

Presentation). This program review methodology has been designed to feed into

internal governance.

“All the report cards for a School will be reviewed by the School leadership team, looking for commonality which get folded in to the School’s academic goals. There’s nothing fancy about this system. The only

difference is that we're going to make it happened. It’s been talked about in many organizations, Georgian College, in particular, and never really

happened” (S5).

Some participants expressed concern about the resourcing required to

implement program review:


298

“I think it will be a good move if the resources are put in. Because everything costs time and money. If you want the faculty members to dedicate and put their hearts into this whole process, they have to have time. The challenge is giving them that time... You cannot just give deadlines to people and make things happen if you don’t give them the resources” (S6).

Another is clear that the continuous improvement that is manifested in

program review aligns with the college culture. He provides a fitting, concluding

observation about educational processes at Sheridan:

“If you talk to individuals, you hear in them all the time, a determination to do a good job. You talk to people around Sheridan, whether it’s from the VPA or the President down to part-time faculty, you'll find many, many, many people very conscientious about their role and job... and I think that’s the place where quality happens—individuals wanting to do the best they can do and wanting to do it with pride.... When those students walk across (at graduation), you want people to feel proud and good about their contribution to those people’s lives. I think you see a lot of that in people around here” (S5).

5.5.2. Assessment and Continuous Improvement at DeVry

5.5.2.1. Developing Student Profiles

The profile of DeVry students is integral to the university's business model

and directly related to both marketing and educational processes. While it is

constantly up-dated as the university expands, the profile remains consistent

with President Ron Taylor’s notion of the two demographic drivers of the

business—a higher percentage of high school students choosing to pursue a

postsecondary education because of improved economic prospects and more

adult learners returning to school either to change jobs or to advance in their

present career. The university's current strategic plan positions its growth

strategy in the context of these two drivers and the competitive environment:

“The for-profit, post-secondary education sector has developed significantly in the last decade to educate a rapidly growing number of students drawn to career-oriented higher education because it provides


299

entry into the new knowledge-based economy. Traditional higher education has proven less prepared, both organizationally and ideologically, to attract this new, non-traditional student segment. There has been virtually no physical growth or new-campus construction in the U.S. in the last 25 years, and traditional pedagogical paradigms still dominate at mainstream universities” (DeVry University Strategic Plan

2003—2007, p. 14).

Company data also reveal the particular segments attracted to a DeVry

education. In its recent accreditation self-study, the university notes that it

“serves a varied population of undergraduate and graduate students that is

diverse in age, gender, race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status...” In the

same document, it heralds its success with minority students:

“DeVry campuses have traditionally served higher proportions of first generation and minority students than most other institutions in the United States...”

The document cites Black Issues in Higher Education. “Statistics such as

the following apply to the U.S. campuses:

a First in the number of baccalaureate degrees awarded to minority students in CIS (Computer Information Systems).

a First in the number of baccalaureate degrees awarded to African- Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanics in CIS.

a First in the number of baccalaureate degrees awarded to African- Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanics in Engineering-related

technologies” (VCA Self-Study p. 114).

The DeVry student profile has changed over the last decade. Students

are more diverse and younger; more women are attending DeVry. The change

in student demographics is provided in Table 28: DeVry Undergraduate Student

Profile 2001 and 1992.


300

Table 28: DeVry Undergraduate Student Profile 2001 and 1992

Undergraduate Enrolments

2001 1992 Total Students 48,700 25,158

Full time 79% 77% Part time 21% 23%

African Americans 23% 25%

Native Americans 1% 1%

Asians 14% 6% Hispanics 15% 11%

Caucasian 43% 56% Non-resident 2% 1%

Aliens

Women 27% 22%

Men 73% 78%

Undergraduate Students: Age

2001 1992

24 and under 56% 60%

25—29 19% 20%

30—39 17% 17%

40—49 6% 3%

50+ 1% ---

Unreported 1% ---

The student profile is well understood at DeVry. In a recent interview, the

senior vice-president in charge of corporate communications revealed the current

thrust:

“These days we’re focusing more on attracting not just racial minorities, but economically disadvantaged students. We're really interested in continuing our tradition of attracting students who are the first in their


301

family to go to college, because that really affects not just the student, but also everyone around them” (Lundy, 2002)

As well, enrolment advisors are trained to understand the profile and how

a DeVry education benefits this targeted market. Before each admissions

interview, the prospective applicant completes a Profile and Interest Evaluation

(PIE), in which the individual describes him/herself against the targeted profile.

The advisor uses this self-profile to match DeVry’s features and benefits to the

individual’s fit against the profile. When researching new locations, the company

matches the demographics of commuter neighborhoods against this well-

understood and targeted student profile.

Students’ academic preparation is a second component of the DeVry

student profile. While all applicants must have a high school diploma, standards

across North America are not the same, leading to two admissions practices to

ensure that only those able to benefit are offered admissions. First, and as

described above, the enrolment advisors are tasked with qualifying students who

best fit the DeVry success profile. Recent changes in the compensation plan

introduce bonuses based on retention and completion, a component designed to

promote improved screening practices. On the campuses, there is a sense that

admissions advisors “have a fairly good idea of their local school districts and the

level of rigour in those various school districts” (D8).

Second, all applicants must write computerized placement tests in

reading, writing, arithmetic and algebra or provide equivalent results from

standardized tests (SATs or ACTs.) Results bands in each test place students in

one of four categories: quality, standard, developmental and outplaced.

Applicants have two opportunities to write the admissions tests. Since their

introduction in 1996, these bands have been up-graded. In its Se/f-Study, the

university explains its approach to admissions standards:

“DeVry University’s admissions standards seek to balance the efficacy of

higher entering verbal and math scores against the risk of rejecting

candidates who are capable of succeeding in our programs with the help

of Developmental Studies courses... “


302

DeVry’s institutional research office tracks these academic profiles—

developmental, standard and quality students—as they progress through the

curriculum. Campus practices are reviewed against the achievements of

students in each profile, the goal being to improve student success.

Developmental students are the focus of attention as described by this

participant at Columbus:

‘We keep a really close look, or eye on the number of developmental

students—what schools they come from, how do they succeed. We keep

a lot of data on developmental because they are our least successful group of people. And so any data that we can collect that will help us

help them better, we do” (D8).

Student profiles are also well used in analyzing attrition, with a particular

focus on the impact of killer courses. Here’s how another participant

characterized this analysis:

“When we are looking at attrition and killer courses, that’s when you really break it down. We break it down by course, by instructor, by everything. And then we go after it. What’s going on here? And then we try to figure out, is it male? Is it female? ... Generally we try to look at that sort of thing. We’re a statistical, we have folks that give us statistics” (D5).

Campuses receive their data from central administration, which develops

and distributes student profiles by campus on a term basis and in the context of

student attrition and completion. These reports include all fields extant in the

DeVry Student Master database; their structure is results-oriented, focusing on

student success by profile. For example, there is a report that breaks down the

characteristics of developmental students in a given cohort who have

successfully completed 5 terms. One participant who admitted that he “does not

crunch the numbers”, nevertheless opined:

“I think we are getting close to a profile of incoming students. We know the environment they come from, how they gather information, their persistence. I also think there are a lot of misconceptions. The expertise of these students in a software environment is extraordinary” (D4).


303

When using the student profiles, campus practice focuses on the DeVry

experience. One participant confided that he does not put a lot of value on the

profile of incoming students. From his perspective, it is based on past

experience. Instead,

“we should focus on motivation. Help them when they are flagging.... If I had a class with a large proportion of developmental students, I would expect the teacher to tailor his instruction accordingly but not to lower the bar” (D1).

Another aspect of profiling at the campus level is consistent with the

scope and sequence process described in section 5.3.2.2. The profiling of

classes begins during the first term.

“By second term, there’s an academic profile of every class. All the faculty meet. The Dean runs the meeting and together we will answer the question: What is happening in terms of what the students have learned, their skill sets. We'll know that this is a strong group, this is a weak group. I was able to cover this. I was unable to cover that.... We do this for every cohort. It covers how the students learn best—and gives the faculty ideas about methodologies” (D3).

5.5.2.2 Assessing Student Development and Learning

Like Sheridan, DeVry references indirect measures to account for its

impact on students. And the most important indirect measure, because of its

linkage to the university’s mission and marketing, is graduate employment.

DeVry’s measures of career placement are defined in policy and strictly enforced,

a proxy for the institution’s integrity in the marketplace. First, the definition of

employed is consistently applied across the system: graduates must be employed

in full-time, program-related positions. Second, all placement results must be

achieved within 26-weeks of graduation. Third, all interaction among graduates,

employers and DeVry throughout the placement process is documented. Finally,

the results are published three times a year to capture the composite results of


304

the last three classes’ statistics. These results are published by campus and by

program and are distributed to all applicants.”

Completion rates, term attrition, input from alumni and employers gained

through both surveys and on-going interaction constitute additional indirect

measures of student outcomes. While this plethora of data is available and

referenced, advisory committee input is viewed as the most important indirect

measure of student outcomes, for it provides context that faculty need. Here’s

how one participant characterized this interaction:

‘,.. meetings with the advisory boards are just as important. These are comprised of employers of our graduates. We invite them to beat us up, and we come out of them feeling beaten up.... They tell us that our students need better teamwork, better communication and that our students need better research skills. And our students need to better understand how they fit in business” (D7).

Student satisfaction is yet another indirect measure. Each year all

campuses administer the Noel Levitz Student Satisfaction Inventory that provides

input about 13 areas related to instructional effectiveness, student services and

campus life. These data are supplemented by course evaluations that are

administered each term in at least two of every faculty members’ classes,

The DeVry Assessment Program is the institutional framework that

compiles direct measures of student learning. The program is relatively new

although writing assessment has been in place since the early 1990s.

Anticipating accreditation requirements and in preparation for its 2002

accreditation visit, the university initiated the program in 1999 to directly

measure student learning outcomes and to build a ‘culture of assessment’. This

program was commended in the recent NCA Report and constitutes an important

distinguisher between the two institutions. Here’s how DeVry describes its

overall approach to assessment:

8 In Ontario, DeVry must also post its OSAP-based employment KPIs. Administered by a third party through telephone surveys, these placement results are similar to the public colleges’ KPIs—although not the same. As a result, in Ontario, DeVry publishes two sets of employment

statistics.


305

“DeVry is committed to outcomes assessment as an integral component of the Plan-Do-Check-Act continuous improvement cycle.... A key aspect of the program is the use of the Senior Project and general education capstone courses to assess student competencies resulting from our

programs, including specialized and general abilities. ... Improvements have also been targeted as a result of indirect measures, including student satisfaction surveys (Noel-Levitz), alumni surveys, employer surveys concerning our graduates, Program Advisory Committee inputs, and retention analysis and course-grade analysis as part of the annual Program and General Education Reviews on every campus...” (Se/f Study

Report).

The assessment program has also been described as a means of

“demonstrating accountability to stakeholders—students employers and society”

and of “validating that a DVU education contributes to student growth” (Internal

presentation—Faculty and Academic Leaders Assembly). Starting with explicit

statements of program learning outcomes, the program collects and analyzes

data of student performance against program expectations and the standards

imbedded in the curriculum guides. Here’s a succinct summary of the program

as described in the Se/f-Stuady.

“The assessment program focuses on Senior Project and general education capstone... courses providing the best direct measures of student learning outcomes. Ratings emphasize qualitative comments in addition to qualified measures of student performance. Drawing on appropriate sample of students across programs and delivery formats, a panel of program faculty, general education faculty, administrators and in some cases, employers assess students’ knowledge and skills as demonstrated in their integrative capstone projects each term. Ratings are collected via a Web-based tool that provides...feedback of results.... Data and comments gathered from the project ratings are aggregated centrally and analyzed both at the campus and the system level.”

The resulting information is used to document, explain and improve

student performance. This activity is campus-based and evoked different

perceptions from my participants. One Columbus participant commented on the

campus’s learning curve, noting, “this process has been painful, but we have

come away with a lot better understanding of the curriculum and what feeds into


306

these capstone courses” (D5). Another is convinced that the program has

improved the curriculum, citing an example of real results:

“We found some things that were wrong in Gen Ed/English 110, especially related to grammar. So we implemented a grammar diagnostic test when they begin. If they don’t pass it, they are supposed to go to a minimum of 6 sessions with a professional tutor and then retake the diagnostic. If they fail a second time, they don’t pass ENG110” (D8).

A colleague agrees. He told me about upgrading the caliber of senior

projects and the impact on the curriculum:

“We've focused on trying to upgrade the projects. We don’t want them just to be an operator... We've learned that they need more analysis and project management so we're changing the curriculum, actually putting in an elective in project management” (D5).

A Calgary participant shared his perceptions about implementation; in his

view, not all faculty know how to assess the program through the senior project

assessment. “I personally don’t place a lot of confidence in the results at this

time” he stated. However, he agrees, “if trends emerge we may understand that

there’s a problem. However it won't tell us what the problem is: curriculum,

instructor, teaching method” (D1). Yet the Calgary campus can also claim real

change based on the assessment program. Here’s how one example of

curriculum change was described:

“We determined that students needed to keep their portfolio up. So now we require students to start a portfolio in first term and for two purposes, so that students will see the value of their work from first term and to see the cross-curricular implications. Also, when they hit 8" term, they have their work and are not scrambling around to find it. It’s used in a job interview process” (D3).

Participants from both campuses view the assessment program as a

positive initiative, resulting in more in-class speaking opportunities, more

research projects (D4), an increased focus on general education outcomes (D3)

and student learning (D2). A Calgary participant characterized his take on the

fundamental questions in play:


307

“Have they learned how to learn? That is, have they done something beyond the curriculum’? (D2)

And a Columbus participant presented the same kinds of questions:

“We are doing a lot of assessment where we are looking at capstone courses. And we are really trying to analyze are the students learning what they are supposed to? What areas are they weak in? What can we do to get this rating up higher so they are more successful?” (D5)

In policy faculty are expected to participate in outcomes assessment and

the Teaching Excellence Course introduces assessment techniques. Each

campus has an Assessment Committee charged with implementing the DeVry

Assessment Program. At Columbus and at other campuses, the committee “has

taken real ownership, has promoted it (assessment), believes in it” (D8). In the

three campuses I studied and know, assessment is being linked to the well-

established scope and sequence activities described in section 5.2.2. In Toronto,

the sequence leader is “responsible for planning and executing the assessment

of student outcomes at the sequence level” and for “establishing a sequence

assessment plan which details how these outcomes will be measured, when and

by whom” (Internal presentation.) A Columbus participant shared an example of

this linkage:

“One of our assessment processes has been to question what we need to do in the supporting sequences if in our assessment we find that they are still not or are not meeting ... skills. For instance, if students’ oral presentation skills are inferior, then we need to find out from the Gen Ed department what exactly they are supposed to do. Maybe what we are

looking for isn’t something that we’ve taught them” (D7).

And a Calgary participant summed up his perception of the process and its

benefits:

‘_..the formal assessments are used to adjust the coursework within the scope and sequence. That is, if students are not as strong in an area as

they should be, the curriculum is adjusted to address this conclusion. ...more students will pass and more will be successful.... What we do, we do to ensure that more students are successful” (D2)


308

Yet even as they described the assessment program, participants

understood that student development is not measured. One summarized a

general view with his comment:

“I don’t think we have a good beginning reference point... we just sort of feel that the finish point is a reasonable outcome... There are lots of anecdotes but little data about the transformation” (D4).

Another concurred: “There’s no particular measure of that (student

development). Most of it is anecdotal. You see students who come in who are

fairly immature, and you see them...when they graduate” (D6).

While this limitation is recognized, I encountered very little criticism about

the assessment program. One participant wished for more interaction with her

colleagues, suggesting that each sequence have a capstone course. Or even

better,

“I would dearly love to see a continuing project all the way through the systems/database curriculum... it would be tremendously valuable to our students and might require lots of coordination between faculty members.”

However, she concedes that it would be very difficult to coordinate faculty time

because of different schedules. She was concerned that interaction is restricted

to those who teach in a sequence and lamented that “we are segmenting

ourselves” (D7).

DeVry’s assessment program has been well resourced. One financial

analyst, commenting on the university's growth prospects, identified the

assessment program as a limit to growth and a reason not to invest in DeVry.

The following quote is perhaps a fitting conclusion to this section, which has

described a sound and successful educational process that nevertheless has

prompted criticism in the investment community:

“DeVry’s commitment to student results is a major constraint to its ability to grow. The development of new campuses and curriculum and the personnel to administer them is an intensive and time consuming process.” (Derman & Becher, 2001, p. 27).


309

5.5.2.3 Continuous Improvement

Institutional improvement is one of DeVry’s institutional values,

rationalized in the context of its competitive position, reputation and the quality

of its programs and services:

“Reviewing and improving curricula, academic operations, teaching, and academic support services are critical for maintaining an educational leadership position in rapidly evolving academic fields” (Jnterna/

documeng.

This value is also fundamental to business strategy as expressed in the

university's strategic plan:

“DeVry University will achieve its Quality, Growth and Profitability objectives by successfully implementing the following five elements of its business strategy.... Developing new processes and capabilities to better serve student and better manage our business... Better utilizing educational channel capacity, particularly DeVry University Online and DVUC...Continuing to develop new sites and delivery methods...” (DeVry University Strategic Plan 2003-2007).

While continuous improvement is imbedded in the university's business

and academic values and strategies, it is also a requirement of accreditation.

The fourth of the North Central Association’s (NCA) five criteria for accreditation

is to continue and to strengthen. The NCA is explicit in its expectations in this

regard. Accredited institutions must evidence

“structured assessment processes that are continuous, that involve a variety of institutional constituencies, and that provide meaningful and useful information to the planning processes as well as to students, faculty and administration” (NCA Handbook of Accreditation, 1997).

As already described, DeVry imbeds review and development into its

curriculum processes through policies, feedback mechanisms and management

practices at the corporate and campus level. The program director has

responsibility for the continuous improvement of the program of study and the

curriculum guides while local management and faculty ensure that faculty


310

possess the required technical competencies to review and to implement the

curriculum.

In faculty policy, each full-time faculty is expected to take a term

professional development leave once every five years and must participate in at

least six days of professional development a year. These professional

expectations are explicit:

“Take responsibility for preparing, implementing and revising as needed, a professional development plan which includes a minimum of six days per year devoted to continuing improvement of teaching effectiveness, maintaining currency of subject matter expertise, and/or appropriate inclusion of technology in the classroom and lab” (Canadian Faculty Policies Handbook).

Each campus allocates two percent of faculty salaries to support faculty

professional development. As well, each campus has a faculty development

committee charged with organizing group activities and making

recommendations about sabbatical applications and professional development

proposals, including courses, seminars, conferences and travel. At Columbus,

this committee has constituted itself as a faculty technology committee, charged

with “learning and resource activities” to improve faculty members’ technical

skills (D8).

In addition, faculty often participate in system-wide activities, providing

and building on their own technical and pedagogical expertise. One participant

shared his experience in this large group review and development process:

“As a corporation, we are always asked to come to home office or to have a phone call where we are talking about the curriculum, about the course, where we talk about—with other folks in the system. What do we need to improve this curriculum? When we roll-out a new course, we teach it about two or three times, then we go back and we say: How did this work? Did we cover what we wanted to cover? What do we need to do to change it? That's when we get input across the system. It’s kind of like a ‘put-up or shut-up’. Give me your comments now because once this final curriculum guide comes out, that’s the gospel, this is what you're supposed to follow. So that process has been important. Once the course is out there, we tweak it—that’s the role of the sequence committee. And then we make recommendations to the dean who gets


311

these back to Sharon (the program director)... The curriculum is always changing. There are new tools. The market forces us to change” (D5).

Instructional review and improvement is also a two-level process at

DeVry—and for good business reasons:

“Operational decisions are made at the corporate, campus, center and online levels, depending on the potential impact of the decision.... The decision-making processes in place are broad and widely participative, particularly in the collection of needed information and research behind a

decision, the potential impact of that decision, and planning for resources to implement the decision” (Se/f-Study, p. 181).

As an example and consistent with the strategic plan, corporate

headquarters will introduce new educational processes designed to improve

business goals. For example, in the fall term/2002, the corporate Dean of

Faculty Development issued an implementation plan for hybrid delivery whereby

students enrolled in evening/weekend accelerated programs would attend

classes once a week and complete the remaining weekly coursework on-line in

an asynchronous learning model. The paper outlines the rollout plan and the

timelines to train over 450 faculty in this new methodology over the course of a

term (Internal communication.)

These system-wide instructional initiatives are occasional, however.

Instead, campus deans, associate deans and chairs manage faculty in a

continuous review and improvement of instruction at the campus level. These

processes have been described in a previous section. They are also described to

students, an assurance that instructional effectiveness matters:

“Student evaluations of faculty are conducted each semester and academic management visits each faculty member in class. This feedback contributes to the continuous improvement of the quality of instruction’ (Student Handbook, Toronto, p. 31)

Faculty receive on-going feedback from their students, their peers and

their deans about instructional effectiveness. In faculty policies, each faculty

member is to receive a class observation at least once a year although this

frequency may be increased, and these visits may be unannounced. Student


312

evaluation forms are administered in at least two classes a term. The results are

compiled in a report that is discussed with the faculty member and referenced in

the annual performance review. Faculty are expected to maintain and submit a

portfolio, the key document in this review. The portfolio includes syllabi, lesson

plans, homework and lab assignments, exams, evidence of professional

development and any other material that supports the faculty member's

contribution to the campus and to his or her accountabilities: instruction, student

interaction, administration and campus service and professional development.

How effective are these practices? Administrators are committed to their

role. One told me about keeping notes all year about faculty and student issues.

At the end of the year, he has comments that show the breadth of what the

faculty is doing. He uses a multi-faceted approach to review on a day-to-day

basis, and the annual review focuses on the positive without ignoring negative

things. For him

“the primary training is in one’s own discipline. ...They’‘ll be encouraged to

develop as a teacher... through on-going coaching. It’s a constant reminder that we’re here to help. We have a niche and we're here to help them” (D1)

This role and approach appears to be consistent across the system,

depending on the size of academic management and the division of

responsibilities. In Toronto, program deans fulfill a similar, inclusive role while in

Columbus, chairs and deans have defined roles:

“The dean’‘s role is more of a global kind of thing where she works with the program director. She’s also working with the faculty in evaluation. She’s not as involved in the classroom as a Chair is. It’s more of a policy, evaluation of faculty” (D5).

Faculty are expected to “do what they are supposed to do” (D1), and

these expectations are codified in faculty policy. Self-regulation is a consistent

theme in Calgary. One participant explained how he reviews his faculty

evaluations each term. “Then I build strategies to bring down the 3 highest

scores and to capitalize on the 3 lowest” (D2). Another who has taught at other


313

postsecondary institutions in Alberta expressed pride about the atmosphere that

supports faculty improvement:

“The schools that were most cohesive in terms of the staff tended to be very successful in terms of how the school ran and the atmosphere.... We have a very good climate. It’s been built for a long time. It was here when I got here and it’s continued to grow. Everyone promotes that kind of climate” (D3).

Also the assessment program has positively impacted faculty’s continuous

improvement practices. A Columbus participant shared how she uses

assessment practices to review her instructional effectiveness:

“The projects help me because I know that I’ve covered exactly this...and this... If they can give me exactly those things, then OK they know that. If they can give me more than that, that shows me a maturity level—that shows me that I’ve given them not just facts but skills. That they can take those skills...and go find some things out on their own. The projects are just a real vital part of that assessment because they tell me so much” (D7).

In addition to these on-going curriculum and instructional review

methodologies, each year, each program at each campus has a formal program

review. Attended by the program director and the campus’ regional vice-

president, the review examines multiple dimensions of the program’s activities

and outcomes, including student demand and enrolment, placement and starting

salaries, student attrition and killer courses, results from program assessment,

student and faculty input about curriculum, instruction, equipment and general

administration of the program. At the conclusion of the review, which may take

two days, the program dean and the program director develop an action plan to

address deficiencies. This action plan is formally presented to the campus

president to achieve support for the direction and resources specified in the

program review action plan. At the next program review, the action plan is the

first agenda item. Its implementation is assessed for both completeness and

effectiveness. One participant summed up the experience:


314

“That’s a pretty intense day. We do a lot of work to get that thing ready and then we set our goals for the next year. That certainly is a tool that we use to improve the curriculum” (D5).

DeVry’s accreditation with the North Central Association of Schools and

Colleges constitutes a final aspect of its continuous improvement processes.

Starting in 2000, the entire DeVry University system undertook an institutional

self-study that reviewed all aspects of its operations, including educational

processes. Relevant references from the self-study, which was completed in

2002, have been used throughout these findings. Here’s how this aspect of

DeVry’s continuous improvement processes was described in the Self-Study:

“As a system of campuses, DeVry Institutes organized its self-study as a campus-based process guided by a system-wide Steering Committee composed of 12 functional-area representatives from the campuses, supported by central-office functional staff.... On each campus, a Self- Study Committee and an Assessment Committee were established to respond to the issues posed by the Steering Committee and to provide feedback to it.

“The Steering Committee worked through meetings, conference calls, and e-mail to process feedback from the campuses and provide them with

analyses and follow-up requests. The Steering Committee was also supported in its activities by central office support staff and by senior managers in the functional areas of the DeVry Inc. organization. Feedback was also gathered through periodic contacts with the DeVry National Advisory Board” (p. 18).

5.5.3. Cross-Site Comparison of Assessment and Continuous Improvement Processes

Both Sheridan and DeVry use quantitative data about student

demographics and academic preparedness to profile their incoming students.

These data inform their marketing (programs, place, price and promotion) and

their educational practices. Both institutions also build qualitative profiles of

incoming students to improve recruitment and retention.


315

Graduate employment data and associated input are the most important

indirect measures of student learning at both institutions, and both publish key

performance indicators (KPIs) to demonstrate accountability. Both institutions

also administer questionnaires to measure student and graduate satisfaction.

Both Sheridan and DeVry assess student learning relative to program

outcomes. And while each institution is confident and proud of its impact on

student development and learning, neither uses a post-test/pre-test methodology

to substantiate this claim. Instead student achievement is cited in terms of

graduate success and claimed through anecdotal evidence.

Continuous improvement processes are both strategic and profiled at both

Sheridan and DeVry. Faculty’s practices and professionalism are reviewed, and

the administration is responsive to student input and complaints. Both

institutions have intensive program review methodologies that connect to both

academic and institutional decision-making. Yet, as with other aspects of the

Educational Processes Model, there are important differences that will be

described next. A summary table concludes this section of the chapter.

5.5.3.1. Differences within Similar Assessment and Continuous Improvement

Processes

Student Profiles: As part of the Ontario college system, Sheridan is provided

with extensive competitive information. Not only can the college describe the

demographic and academic make-up of those applying and enrolling at Sheridan,

but also it can access this same information about other Ontario colleges’

programs. Yet, the college’s enrolment management function is relatively

under-developed. All the initiatives are ‘new’—the use of data to provide the

Board with confidence about the enrolment plan, the enrolment management

metrics, the program culture profiles and their use in recruitment.

At DeVry, on the other hand, student profiles are integral to the

recruitment program, and the university's enrolment management is well


316

developed, well resourced and sophisticated—as one would expect from a $600M

(U.S.) corporation dedicated to growth and profitability. In the U.S. the profile is

well understood relative to other postsecondary institutions and comparative

data is published and celebrated. This is not the case in Ontario. As a private

career college, DeVry is not part of the Ontario Application Service and cannot

access information from it, except that information deemed public. Within the

Private Career College sector, competitive information is closely guarded and

neither the Ministry, which regulates the sector, nor the Ontario Association of

Career Colleges, which represents the sector, provides any cross-sector

information about student demand. Consequently, DeVry College of Technology

has less competitive information than do any of the public colleges. It relies on

learnings gained through its media campaigns, a more expensive, less scientific

way to achieve limited market intelligence.

Improving Retention: Sheridan is just learning to use its student profiles and the

KPI data to impact educational processes and to improve student satisfaction

and retention. One of my participants labeled the college “a place called perfect”

(S1), to signify the extent of changes taking place and the optimism that these

changes will have a positive impact on the college and its students.

DeVry, on the other hand, has extensive experience and data that is

imbued in the institution's retention strategies. These include adjusting

admissions requirements to optimize enrolment; tracking student cohorts by

academic profile and building retention initiatives aimed at these specific profiles;

and building cohort profiles that are part of the well established scope and

sequence process.

Indirect Measures of Student Learning: The Ontario colleges’ key performance

indicators (KPIs) are accountability measures that Sheridan features in its

publications and that are comparable across the Ontario college system. The

KPIs provide important information to individuals researching postsecondary


317

choices in Ontario. The college supplements information about graduate

employment, employer and graduate satisfaction with data about the

effectiveness of the co-op experience. Furthermore, the graduate satisfaction

KPI links graduates’ perceptions of their college experiences to their generic skills

outcomes, a direct link to program standards and to their college experience.

Sheridan's graduate are most satisfied with how the college prepared them to

participate as members of a team and to take responsibility, goals that are

expressed in the Academic Plan. Student satisfaction KPIs are also comparative

across Ontario.

As part of the regulatory requirements, DeVry also publishes KPIs in

Ontario, but they are not the same as those in the public colleges, leading to

possible confusion in the marketplace.”” DeVry’s student satisfaction outcomes

are not published but are used as a baseline to measure student perceptions of

the campus environment annually. Comparability is relative to previous years, to

other campuses and to other U.S. four-year private institutions.

Direct Measures of Student Learning: While some Sheridan programs have a

capstone experience that consolidates student learning, program outcomes are

directly measured through traditional course-based evaluation. This model

assumes that courses in composite cover the program learning outcomes.

However, as described in Chapter 5.2, this may not always be the case.

Furthermore, some participants question whether these traditional course-based

direct measures are objective enough. Yet, Sheridan is confident that student

learning and development is taking place, and the college relies on the success

of its students to substantiate this claim.

?° DeVry's graduate employment KPIs are posted on the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities website. However, these are different KPIs than the public colleges’ graduate employment KPIs. DeVry also publishes graduate employment rates that display the placement rate by program over the last three graduating classes and as prescribed by DeVry policy. These rates are different again than the posted KPIs.


318

To satisfy U.S. accreditation requirements, DeVry has established a well-

resourced assessment program to collect direct measures of student

achievement of the program learning outcomes. This program has been

successfully implemented and commended in the recent accreditation report.

Furthermore, the results of this assessment are being used in campuses and

across the university to improve curriculum and instructional practices, especially

as they relate to the sequencing of courses.

Faculty Reviews: Sheridan faculty are expected to undertake professional

development activities to ensure curriculum currency and effectiveness. Each

year the faculty member develops a faculty development plan that is discussed

with an associate dean. Faculty receive feedback from student evaluations and

KPI data and are advised of complaints. The onus is on the faculty member to

take this information and to use it to improve. Once every five years, faculty are

subject to a summative evaluation although this is a new policy, as yet untested.

While DeVry has the same general expectations of its faculty, it is both

more prescriptive and more resourced in the area of faculty development and

review. All faculty are expected to engage in at least six days of professional

development a year and this requirement is one of several that they are judged

against in their annual performance review. Both salary and advancement

through the ranks are based on this review. Faculty receive feedback from their

students through course evaluations and from their supervisor through class

observations. Specific follow-up activities are documented in their annual

review. Many development activities, especially those related to instruction are

internal—either system or campus. In Ontario, DeVry faculty, even though they

teach in the same areas, are not part of any provincial educational consortia.

Instead, they join professional organizations.

Program Review: Sheridan’s program review process includes an annual seif-

assessment based on data sets leading to recommendations included in the


319

school’s academic planning. In addition, each program will undergo a formal

quality review once every four years and will include an external program

evaluation committee. This is a new policy following the requirements of the

Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board’s standards for applied

degrees and anticipating internal review mechanisms required with the

enactment of the Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Act, 2002. A

concern is that the college will not be able to adequately resource these

continuous review mechanisms.

DeVry’s commitment to continuous improvement is a requirement of its

accreditation with the North Central Association of Schools and Colleges. In

addition to a prescribed institutional self-study conducted at least once every ten

years, the university conducts a formal program review of each program at each

campus each year. Its external reviewers are internal to the company and

include the program director as well as the campus’s Regional Vice-President.

Action plans are written, negotiated and followed-up, consistent with an overall

Plan-Do-Check-Act continuous improvement cycle. DeVry allocates considerable

resources to its continuous improvement.


Table 29: Similarities and Differences in Assessment and Continuous

Improvement Processes presented on the next page.


sBulpuly :¢ Jaydey5

JOSS 30169Q-UON

S,011eqUO Ul

AsJaAiq [2INpa20d

“aoueuaAob pue

Burjew-uoisisep 0}

pexul| aie

Sassad0id JusWweAdIdWwI

SNOonuIqUOD

“PaDINOSAd |[M

SI MAIAdY

"squediomed jeuseyxe/jeusequ!

apnjoul pue

jenuue se

smalAas WeIBOId

‘uonowojd pue

Auejes ped

s}nseu pue

saydiiosaid ase

sjeoB ‘Ayjenuue

pamaiaes aie

Aqnoe4

‘sde3A JNO}

AlaAe BDU

MalAad Ayjenb

jeuuoy e

pue Juawssasse

-}j9S |eNnuUUe

Ue SEpNpU!

MaelAdI WeIBOId

‘AdyOd paquewe|dwi-uou

‘Mau e

S! SIU}

‘sde9A SAY

AIBAS BDU

PeMalAas aie

AyNDe4

“Sjuapnys 0}

sseuanisuodse. BuroB-uo

si se

syJuUaUOdWOD Ady

ale MaiAes

WesGoid pue

Ande} ‘anjea

JeinjND e

si JUaWAaACIdW

SNONUQUCD

‘wa}sAS 3u}

ssouoe UOIMUysU!

pue wNyndiund

pepedu

Ajeanisod sey

jeu} weiBboid

Jusussesse SBWODINO

psDinose-|jam e

sey AlAeq

"|ejopdeue SJOW

S| JUsWUdOJaAap

JUapN}s JO

BoUaPIAS ‘SeWOdNO

wWesBo'd 0}

pexul| ave

Bujues] Juapnjs

jo sounseaw

Pag

“SUOHNINSU! "S*f)

0} SAPIS4

pue wajshs

AlAaq 3}

UIYyyM sAeedWwod

aie ejep

uopersies Juapnys

s,AuAeq

‘SIGH SLVVWD

SU} URY)

QUaJEYIP S12

JOS

2691/03 480125

S}LALd S,OUEUO

U! SId>)

"s[eOb Diweapede

S,aba|jOd ay}

pue spepueys

JEIDUIAOd 0}

peyul] S!

Yep UONDeJsHesS

ayenpeiH “do-od

jo ssausampaye

du} JNoge

eyep yyM

pejusweajddns aue

e}ep saesedwod

jeimuiAoid-sso15

“‘Buluses| Juapnys

Jo sainseow

popu! se

UODeyses

JUapN}s pue

ajenpe.6 ‘uawAojdwe

ajyenpel5

"S]UdU||O1Ua 9ZIWWAdO

0} ssadons

JUEpNys $y9e13

Ayyiqedes yoieases

jPUOIINIASU! PaedojaAsp-Al|ng

y ‘UONUa}e1

pue Juawjinsoe1

SAo/dw! 0}

pasn aue

eye

“weiBoid Juawj|o1ua

pedojeasp -|JAM

e Sey

JOA ‘UONEWWOJUI

SAQedWwoo

OLIEJUO 0}

ssadde aAey

JOU se0qg

‘pedojeAspsapun Si

quawebeueW JUsWOJUA

‘eyep SAIjIEdWOo

SPIM-WajsAS OLIEJUC

O} SSB0De

SEH

“ssoupajedaid Diuapece

pue eyep

a1YydesBowsp

uO paseg

ase Sajjoid

JuapN}sS

Asuaaiun /2691109

Aiaed 269]/0D

uepLsys

SOINEPIUNS

9Yy} UNM

SedUudIByIG SONLeTIUIS

S9SS9I01d JUSUIBAOIdWI

SNONUIWUOD puke

JUSLUSSASSY JO

SODUDIOYIG PUL

SOIPUEPIWIS 67

BIGeL

0ze

321

CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1. The Research Questions Revisited

This study began with simplistic questions prompted by my own

observations and experience in Ontario’s non-degree sector:

Why do individuals choose to spend as much as four times the amount in tuition to attend a private career college?

Are there differences in the educational experience that warrants this investment?

Through the development of a conceptual framework, I added substance

and structure to this pondering. The number of for-profit colleges is one

measure of the systematic diversity in Ontario’s non-degree postsecondary

sector. Along with an overview of for-profit education, the literature review

describes the function, governance and administrative practices in for-profit

colleges, comparing them to those in public colleges. The conclusion is that for-

profit colleges are different; control does matter. The purpose of the study was

to explore whether these differences are manifested in different educational

experiences. Specifically, my objectives were to describe the educational

processes in a for-profit and public college, to identify any differences and to

explain these differences. Thus the fundamental research questions explored in

this study:

Are educational processes different in a for-profit college?

How, or in what ways are they different?

Structured by an educational processes model derived from best practices

literature, the comparative case study research describes and analyzes

educational processes in two best practices colleges in Ontario—Sheridan College

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 6: Analysis and Conclusions

322

and DeVry College of Technology. The findings are conclusive: Educational

processes are different in the two case studies. However, two questions remain

unanswered:

Can the differences in educational processes be explained by the control of these institutions (public vs. for-profit)?

Do the differences between public and for-profit control result in procedural diversity and real choice for Ontario’s postsecondary learners?

In this concluding chapter, I explore these two questions, starting with an

intermediate question:

Do the different educational processes at DeVry and Sheridan result in real procedural diversity?

Using what Merriam (1998) describes as a third level of analysis, I

synthesize the differences between the two institutions in the context of the

student experience.

6.2. Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector

6.2.1. Procedural Diversity at the Case Study Sites

Are the differences in procedural diversity minimal as Birnbaum

characterizes them? Or are they substantive, representing market differentiation

as one might expect in a diversifying sector? At the first level, the cross-site

comparisons support Birnbaum; educational processes are remarkably similar at

the two institutions. However, at the second level of analysis, Dill’s and

Teixeira’s (2000) contention is more apt, for the analysis identifies a significant

number of differences within the similarities. And what do these findings mean

to the student experience? To explore this question, I synthesized the

differences in educational processes that relate directly to the student experience

at the two institutions. From this analysis, it would appear that DeVry and

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘s Non-Degree Sector Chapter 6: Analysis and Conclusions

323

Sheridan represent real choice. If you choose to study at DeVry, your

experience will be different than if you enrol at Sheridan.

DeVry’s educational processes are designed to attract, motivate, satisfy

and retain targeted ‘clients’ whose goals are relatively homogeneous and whose

needs are well defined. These goals and needs are communicated back to

students as prescriptive expectations and standards, and campus resources are

organized to support students as they meet these expectations. While the level

of the curriculum is tied to growth and profit, the standards, along with rigorous

management practices, ensure a consistent level of quality across the DeVry

system and appear to be higher than those at Sheridan. Advisement is holistic,

yet student communications seems more transactional or consumer-like, mined

for information that is used to review faculty and to improve practices and

services and ultimately to increase enrolment.

Sheridan students, on the other hand, are less served, and more is

expected of them. They enrol through a self-selective and competitive process

designed to get the best ‘fitting’ students, yet their goals and needs are more

diverse than DeVry students’. Once enrolled, they must be pro-active to obtain

individualized support and advisement. They have a wider range of choices and

opportunities, some of which they fund directly. Sheridan students have more

responsibilities and democratic rights and as stakeholders play a defined role in

policy development and review, participating in school and college committees

including Program Advisory Committees and the Board of Governors. Their input

directly impacts the college’s reputation through KPIs and other indirect

measures, which in turn affects the college’s funding.

The remaining differences, while not descriptive of the student

experience, explain the institutional or contextual differences that impact the

student experience and provide insight about how and why the educational

experiences are different at the two case study sites. Through my analysis of

these findings, four themes emerged. These themes cut across the four

categories of the educational processes model and are consistent with the

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector Chapter 6: Analysis and Conclusions

324

literature about policy in an expanding jurisdiction and about for-profit colleges.

These themes are faculty and administrative roles and responsibilities,

resourcing, accountability framework and responsiveness. In the remainder of

this section, I develop these themes, concluding with a summary of the

differences in educational processes at the two case study sites.

6.2.1.1. Differences in Faculty and Administrative Roles and Responsibilities

DeVry faculty are more managed than are Sheridan faculty. Policies are

more explicit, and annual reviews include prescriptive goals and determine salary

increases and promotion opportunities. DeVry faculty prepare their syllabi

based on system-wide course guidelines. Their role and expertise is to deliver

this prescribed curriculum using interactive, innovative and student-centred

methodologies that balance student retention and the rigour of the curriculum.

The collegial experience is focused on sharing best practices and on the

mechanics of the hand-offs within the curriculum. These experiences are

realized through meetings, scope and sequence committee activities, mentoring

and coaching, and program reviews where student success-——as measured by

retention and placement—is always the focus.

More is expected of Sheridan faculty. Their responsibilities are less

prescribed and monitored. They are less managed in a less standardized

environment and consequently have more flexibility in determining the level of

the curriculum, their instructional strategies and their professional development.

As a result, the quality of the curriculum and instruction are dependent on their

professionalism and skills. Collegial activities are traditional: course outlines are

reviewed by peers; program teams review student progress based on course

grades; faculty lead program development and participate in annual program

reviews that feed into school goal setting and budget development.


325

6.2.1.2. Differences in Resourcing

DeVry follows its business model. Resources are allocated to achieve

results—growth, quality and profit. Growth in new student enrolment is

achieved through aggressive and well-resourced advertising campaigns and

recruitment strategies. DeVry campuses are organized to direct more resources

at curriculum and instructional management, student advisement and

individualized services leading to improved retention. Campus management is

encouraged to develop specific proposals to improve student satisfaction and

retention; if the increase in revenue surpasses the marginal investment, then

resources are available to support such initiatives. Accreditation and regulatory

requirements are a resourcing priority. And, consistent with business practices, a

robust data infrastructure measures results and signals areas for improved

performance and profit.

Sheridan, on the other hand, is struggling to resource its new practices

and innovations. Advisement resources have been reduced; more student

services are directly funded by the student body; and participants shared their

concerns about being able to resource the management and implementation of

sophisticated enrolment management, improved student feedback mechanisms

and program review. To increase private funding sources, some of the college’s

programs, including the computing programs I studied, have adopted non-

regulated tuition fees. As well the college has embarked on applied research,

fund-raising and corporate training, all activities intended to increase its access

to private funding.

6.2.1.3. Differences in the Accountability Framework

DeVry/Toronto’s accountability framework is different than Sheridan’s and

decidedly intra-DeVry. While DeVry fulfills its accountabilities to the Ontario

public through a regulatory and legislative framework that includes the Private


326

Career Colleges Act and regulations and student aid performance requirements,

the educational processes are most influenced by its accreditation with the North

Central Association. These accreditation requirements have led to its investment

in outcomes assessment that has positively impacted curriculum and instruction

across the system. DeVry/Toronto publishes key performance indicators on

default rates, graduation rates and employment rates; the last two are different

than those in the public colleges. And they are but a subset of the direct and

indirect measures that DeVry uses to satisfy regulators, accreditors and

legislators and its publics across North America, including the Security Exchange

Commission. While Sheridan’s student satisfaction KPIs are compared to other

Ontario colleges, DeVry’s student satisfaction is comparable to other DeVry

campuses’ and to other U.S. four-year institutions. Likewise, DeVry’s program

review methodology and comparative enrolment measures are internal and

measured against internal goals.

Sheridan, on the other hand, is part of Ontario’s public college system and

its accountability framework is intra-sector. Its communications with its

stakeholders is much more transparent, much more ‘public’ and comparable

within Ontario's community college system. Program standards, course outlines,

KPIs and other indirect measures of student outcomes are all available and

accessible on the college’s website.

6.2.1.4. Differences in Responsiveness

DeVry’s responsiveness demonstrates a balance between the requisites of

a standardized system and local needs. Campus educational processes are

responsive to employers through local advisory committees whose input is fed

into a national curriculum model. Unlike Sheridan, there are no program

standards. So while each course has course terminal objectives (CTO’s) and

standards of application, campuses can emphasize specific CTO’s within courses

and introduce campus electives into a program. These actions, which must be


327

approved by the program director, allow individual campuses to respond to

employer demands. (And in the case of DeVry in Ontario, allows courses from

degree programs to be sequenced to create diploma programs.)

Responsiveness to student needs is similar. DeVry’s responsiveness to

students is planned and implemented at both a system and campus level.

Individual campuses respond to the needs of their student body within a

standardized set of policies, practices and processes. At a the system level,

responsiveness is associated with increasing enrolments, as illustrated by the

introduction of developmental studies, a program for students who could not

meet the standard admissions requirements. Other examples of system-wide

initiatives include the introduction of on-line courses and the on-campus/on-line

delivery model although these last innovations have not been introduced in

Ontario because of regulatory constraints.

As a publicly traded corporation, DeVry must also respond to the

marketplace as measured by its share price. Although not yet a sophisticated

sector, this market measure is nevertheless impacted by analysts’ views and the

actions of other education companies. The connection between ‘marketwatch’

and the responsiveness of publicly traded education companies is an area that

warrants further investigation.

Sheridan’s educational processes appear to be more directly responsive to

the needs of the community as represented by Program Advisory Committees

that have a diverse and wide membership and whose members participate in

program development and program leadership. Its processes also reflect the

college’s responsiveness to Ontario's changing environment. The introduction of

laptop computing, new policies and practices that align with the Postsecondary

Education Quality Assessment Board’s standards for applied degree programs

and actions designed to improve its Key Performance Indicators all attest to this

responsiveness.

Throughout my research, I was struck by the number of new elements

being introduced to the college’s policies, practices and structures, albeit with a


328

companion concern about the resources to implement them. (One of the study’s

participants labeled Sheridan a “place called perfect” alluding to this environment

of expectations without management.) To illustrate this phenomenon is the

focus on evaluation strategies, the one area of policy that is more prescriptive

than DeVry’s. The college is working to align evaluation strategies with the

laptop environment, thereby improving student satisfaction as measured by the

KPIs and the number of student complaints related to evaluation. A second

example reinforces this focus on student satisfaction. Recently, and after I had

concluded my research, the president announced an organizational change

designed “to bring our services to students together as a division.” Here is an

excerpt from the president’s e-mail to the community:

“As you are aware, we have undertaken many initiatives over the course of the past several years to effectively improve our communications with and services to students. Good progress has been made. Pulling together the three divisions whose primary responsibility is to provide service and information to students will further assist us in ensuring our efforts are integrated and synchronized.”

The college’s new recruitment initiative is a third example of

responsiveness. It is designed to improve the ‘fit’ between students and

program expectations, resulting in improved enrolment management, retention

and student satisfaction.

6.2.1.5. Procedural Diversity at DeVry and Sheridan: What’s Different?

Not only is the student experience different, but also four themes run

through the findings, explaining how and why educational processes are different

at the two case study sites. These differences are summarized in Table 30:

Procedural Diversity in the Case Study Sites.


SUOISN|DUOD pue

sissjeuy :9 Jayde

Jopes va1feg-UON

$,0lU2]UO Ul

AISIaAIG JeINps204d

*SUOIJEAOUU! S$}!

BQuNOSAI 0}

Bulpunj syeaud

ssaoze Jsnw

abajo

au

“SOURUOLad SAOIdWI

0} Sesue

sjeubis pue

sjjnsey Saunseew

ainjonjseyul eyep

ysnqol v7

‘Auoiid Buldunose

e ale

sjuswauINbe

AJoje;nBa1 pue

uoneypesoy

"JEpow SSOUISNG

BU} UJIM

JUAaISISUOD ‘JYOd

pue Ayjenb

‘UIMOIB SATIUDE

O} Pa}edo}/e

Bie Sedunosay

Bulounosay

"QDUPLUBAOH jOOUDS

ue UONeSIUIWpe

weiGoid

ul ayedioyed

0} paeypedxe

sie Aynoe4

"USIJEUOISSajOid pue

asipedxe 4194}

UO JULIJa1

BIOW S|

BDdUaLedxe JUSpPNIs

3y} JO

Ayyenb auy

‘Ayinoey uepSsUsS

JO paypedxe

Ss} B10;

‘Sedusledxe pebeuew

pue |ei63]|09

YyJOq JO

SNdOJ 9U}

S| SIu}

pue ‘Nobu

pue uonueyes

Hulouejeq ‘ydee}

0} S|

BjO4 s,AqINDe4

"poudxe sow ae

Ssaidijod ‘paBeuew

aiow aie

Aqynoe4 sejoy

ulWpy/Aynoe4

“‘Bulpunjy pue

uogeynda Sebaljod

ayy spedw!

STgy YyYBnoiy

jndu! Juapnys

“S4SP[OYaE}S Se

SOUBLUBAOB Ul

ayediomed ued

sjuapNys

"S901049 JO

aBuel JapIM

e aAey

Asay} ‘SJuspnys

UepLIeUS JO

paypedxe Ss}

B10;

“JEUOPePSUL.Q SIOW

S12 SUONEOIUNWWOD

"UBPHOYS ze

uey} JayBbiy

aq 0}

seadde pue

waysAs OU}

SSOIOR JUSISISUOD

pUe }ONdxXe

sue SpuepUue}sS

"SUaI|9, PeyeGuey

uleyes pue

AysNes ‘azeAQOW

peuye 0}

peubisap sie

sassacoid jeuojeonpy

aodualedxy Juepnjs

uepiays

Aiava

saouslajjig Asy

sazisg Apnjs

oSe9 3y}

ul AyISIOAIG

JeANPDIO1d 'O€

DIGEL

6¢E

SUOISN|DUOD pueR

sisAjeuy :9

JaydeuD Jopes

2eJ6eq-UON S,OLe{UD

Ul AISJaAIg

|eINPID01d

"JUSWUOIIAUS SANNEd

WO OUEIUO

Burbueyd e

0} sssuanisuodsay

pue UONPAOUU!

Aq pezuepejeyo

aie sassadoid

jeuoneonpy

‘diyssequaw sayIwwos

AuosiApy weiboid

BSISAIP BJOW

U! pajUasaidas

se AUNWLUOD

‘uoneBNsaau! Jay

UN SJUEM

yey} Bove

ue S|

SJeyJeW AjNbe

0} ssouaaisuodsay

*SJUBWJOJUS pasesioul

syo6ie} pue

JueuIWwOp SI!

SsSsueAIsuodsel JPA9]

WAISAS ‘JeAR]

SNdwed pue

Wa}sAs e

YjoOd je

pejusWwedu! pue

peuuejd s!

UOMeAOUUT

‘SOUNOLNS apIm-wWeaISAS

UILYIM SJUEpNys

pue

9U} JO

SPIBU BY

OF SAISUOdSaU

AjPSIIP BOW |

SJeAO|dWAa jed0]

UJOG 0}

BAISUOdSeI a4e

SasNdwe> ssauanisuodseay

“Saba]}09 Gnd

sy} Aq

peusijqnd esouy

‘waysAs 36a]/09 |

UeY} JUdJAYIP

sue STqy

UOMeNpesB pue

Juawaceld D1GNd

9y} Ssoude

ajqesedwiod slow

pue aIGQNd

SJOW YONW

Bje SUOMEDIUNWLWOD

APIGeqUNODOYy "YJOMSWELY

Ayyiqequnosoe OLejUuO-xe

pue AiAsg-e.4uI

yIomawes-{ ‘OUEJUC-UI-Spew

SI yIOMaWe

AqI}IGeJUNODIe BULL

ue Aq

peduenyul Jsow

ase sassadoid

jeuoneonpy Ayigequnoooy

uepHays

Aiaog

soouslayig Ae

Oee

panunuoo o¢

aqeL

331

6.2.2. Linking Differences in Educational Processes to Function, Governance and Administration

The third purpose or objective of the research is to determine the extent

to which any differences can be explained by institutional control (public versus

for-profit-ness). To develop a position on this objective, I juxtaposed the

findings summarized in Table 30 against the literature findings about the

function, governance and administration of for-profit colleges. Summaries of this

literature were presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5 in Chapter 2. I then linked the

findings to a particular control characteristic (or characteristics), using arrows to

depict the linkage. For example, the finding about explicit standards in FPCs can

be partially explained by a characteristic of FPC governance, specifically

accreditation demands:

Findings FPC Literature about Control

Standards are explicit and consistent Accreditation is the means to across the system and appear to be ————-_—----— establish third-party assurance of higher than Sheridan’s. quality; it imposes restrictions on

activities.

Linking the differences in educational processes to the function,

governance and administration of for-profit colleges is consistent with the

analysis depicted in the conceptual framework presented in Figure 4. This

analysis or linkage is presented in the following table, Table 31: Matching

Differences to FPC Functions, Governance and Administration.


SUOISN}DUO) pue

sisAjeuy :9

Ja}deuD JOSS

30169Q-UON $,0112]UD

Ul AIsIaAI

[2INPeD04d

uonesIUIUpy

“BUI WOQO

a3 UO

aaUelad AABaY

© UJIM

SaOD3NO pue

Sad1AJaS BU]

JO sqoadse

je Jo

JueWanseaw pue

UoNpadsu! aso|D

"SODIAIOS PAReASIUIWIpE

JO UOREZI|e.QUa2

YBnoiUy pauleb

ale sapuapiye

‘TOU BSea19U!

Ue s3S09

a2Npe 0}

peubisap ase

seonoed yeBpng

*sjeo6 ssauisnq

uo pasnad

s! diysiapea]

“JeysewW By}

07 aAIsuodsa.

aq 0}

paziueBio sue

Sdd4

‘JAWOISND Se

JUapNys ay}

sabpajmouyde 3eyy

BuO S| B4NqIND

SUL

SIUBUIBANS)

suonepadxe uoqeypeose

Aq paullwteyep

si AndeJ

Jo ajOy

"WsLinauesde.qua

Aq pezueyeseys

pue uo-spuey

slow s!

diysiapee7}

diusjaumo Jo

sunjeu UO

JUspUadap si

aunjon.As Bupjew-uoIspeq

sdanew Alelonpy

Jaujo pue

dn-syew pieog

03 Bululeyied

sain aBueyoxe

Aqunoas uy

Ajdwiod sog4

pepe.y-Ajolqnd

*SOINANDe UO

SUONDIISed sasodwy

“Aqjenb Jo

soueinsse Ayied-psiuy

ysijqeysa 0}

suea

au} Ss!

UOReYpaDoV

"SDUEJSISSE |EISUBUL

JUBPN|S 0}

SSa20e BABY

JEU} SDd4

40J aunjon.ys

aplAoud squaWesinbes

sDUeWUOJad

(DV 9Dd)

SHBWINSUOD PeEI0/d

07 WING

Sf JUaUIUOJIAUS

AIOJeINBey

uogoun4

WsLINsueide.juea pue

sAQow-qyod Aq

payeanon

(sepoo soueieedde

pue ssaip

‘souepuaje) aulidisip

aiow Aq

pazuayeseys JueWwUOdAUa

BUlWedt

aouejsisse Ysiees

gol eziseydwis

sesives quapnis

“QIqIXey s4e

SqueWWeuInbau suoissiupe

‘ayoOYs aie

sweiBold

Ajealjap wesBoid

ajqisseoce pue

ajqixey

uonesedaid |euOQeD0A

*S]UaW|OlUa pasee.oul

$39612} pue

JUeUIWOP S| ssauaAisucdsai

[aA] WaIsAs

‘[aAa] sndwieo

pue waysds

e jog

Je peyuawajdw!

pue pauued

si uoneAouUT

7 pue

Ainad-equ! ue

Aq pasuanyul

ysow ae

sessedoid jeuonesnpz

“SOANIOLYS SPIM-LUSISAS

UILQIM squapnys

pue suaAojdwa

jes] yjOg

03 aAlsuodsal

ae sasndwes

ssausAlsuodsay

‘sabaljoo aqnd au

Aq

paysiignd asou3

ueuj Juseyip

ase sTgy

UoRenpesb pue

yUawsre|d

‘yuomeawed Ayiqeyunoose

oLejUQ-xe JOMOUIEY

Auiqequnoz.y

y

rN

‘aoueWOped

aAojdwit

0} seale

sjeuBis pue

sqyinsaJ sesnseaw

aunjongseyui eyep

isnqol

‘AquoLid Bulssnosas

e ase

squaWwasinbas AojejnBes

pue uoneypeioy

"JEPOW SSeUISN

B47 UAIM

JUS}SISUOD

4oud

pue Ayjenb

‘yywo6 saaiyoe

0} payedoije

ase sadinosay

Buronoseay

‘seouatiedxe peBeuew

pue jei6ajjod

yjog Jo

sn20y au

SI SI

“Inobu pue

uoQueyes Buruejeq

“yoe9} 03

Ss! ajou

s,Aqnoey sajoy

"yoydxe a10wW

ase sapijod

‘pabeuew esow

oie Anosey

ulwpy/Aqinoe4

"JRUONORSUL.A SOW

aie suOMeDUNWIWO?

\

“UepHaYS ye UeYQ

JeYBIY aq

0} padde

pue wajshs

ayy ssoude

JUs;sISUOD pue

WoI|dxa sue

spuepuels

Squalo, peyeb1e3

uleyes aousEdbg

+M\_

he

Asnes ‘ayeanow

“pene

0) paubisap

aie sassaooid

jeuogeonpy quapnys

UOL1SIUILIPY PUL

SDULLIDAOD ‘SuoHDUNY

Dd4 0}

SOOUSIOyIG BuiydyeW

= TE AIGeL

cee

333

As a result of these linkages, I was able to group the differences in

educational processes by one or more of the control characteristics—function,

governance and administration. (Or, another way to think about it, I reversed

the direction of the arrows.) The next step was to develop summary statements

about how differences in function, governance and administrative practices

explained the differences in educational processes at DeVry. Not surprisingly,

these summaries are consistent with the literature about FPCs:

Function: Motivated by profit and entrepreneurism, FPCs’ function is more

targeted than that of public colleges’ and more focused on results, placement

being a primary one. Function explains the following differences:

1. Educational processes are designed to attract, motivate, satisfy and retain

targeted clients.

Explicit and high standards define the nature of the learning environment

and the expectations of students and faculty.

Resources are allocated to achieve growth, quality and profit, consistent

with the business model.

Innovation and responsiveness are dominated by system-level initiatives

designed to increase enrolment.

Governance: FPC governance emphasizes compliance and regulations to assure

access to student aid and to address the sector's heritage of low quality and

dubious reputation. Consequently

1. Regulation and accreditation are a resourcing priority.

2. Leadership is more hands-on, resulting in faculty being more managed,

and academic leaders being closer to faculty and staff performance.

3. In a branch plant such as DeVry/Toronto, the accountability framework is

likely to be more defined by corporate standards than those of the

jurisdiction.


334

Administration: FPC administrative practices explain the focus on the student as

client or customer and local responsiveness within the strictures of a

standardized system. FPC administration also explains:

1. Resources are allocated to achieve growth, quality and profit within the

business model.

2. A robust infrastructure measures results and signals areas for

improvement.

Two findings do not seem to be explained by references in the literature.

The first is associated with the nature of communications with students, what I

have characterized as more transactional communications. This tone and stance

is established at enrolment and continues through the students’ studies. As

customers, students are purchasing a service; as a service provider, the FPC is

assuring that the conditions of the contract are understood; hence the number of

agreements and sign-offs that characterize these transactions. The use of data

mining is also consistent with this transactional relationship. The college probes

to discover students’ perceptions of faculty, curriculum, delivery and services.

Responsive to college practices and their perception of value, students behave as

they would with any service provider. FPC students are not stakeholders; they

are customers who expect quality, service and the deliverables and outcomes

they purchased.

Second, the findings highlight the dominance of system over local, both in

the intra-university accountability framework in which DeVry campuses operate

and in the approach to responsiveness. This is not to say that campuses are not

responsive, but it does highlight the importance of a fit between the system and

the jurisdiction. An FPC standardized business model is likely to be more

effective in some jurisdictions than others, depending on local state and

provincial policies.


335

6.2.3. The Impact of Competition

The study’s design introduced two insights about diversity within Ontario’s

competitive non-degree sector environment. First a for-profit institution’s

educational processes were described and then analyzed in comparison to those

of a public institution. The study’s problem statement addresses whether for-

profit institutions contribute to procedural diversity in Ontario’s non-degree

sector.

Second, although certainly not planned at the outset, the final selection

of the two case studies afforded a particular picture of the competitive

marketplace and whether public and for-profit colleges are converging or

differentiating in this environment. Each of these two questions is addressed in

this subsection of the chapter.

6.2.3.1. Answering the Problem Statement

What does this analysis of the findings tell us about for-profit colleges’

contribution to procedural diversity in Ontario's privatizing non-degree sector?

Answering this question is a somewhat speculative undertaking, given the

qualitative nature of the study. Yin (1989) advises case study researchers to

develop a series of simple propositions in this kind of grounded theory building.

Following this advice, I present the following conclusions, developed through an

iterative writing process that aligns all the findings and analyses with these

conclusions:

1. Educational processes in for-profit institutions do represent choice for

postsecondary participants.

2. Educational processes in FPCs are market-responsive and are planned and

implemented to increase postsecondary participation and student

satisfaction.


336

3. Standardized educational processes must ‘fit’ in a policy framework to

achieve their designed benefits for both students and the FPC.

These conclusions answer the problem statement, the second frame of

the study’s conceptual framework and complete the research. The fully

developed framework is presented as Figure 6: The Study’s Complete Conceptual

Framework.

Figure 6: The Study’s Complete Conceptual Framework

1* Frame: The Theoretical Franework >,

Best Practices Literature Institutional Diversity _ Educational Processes Categories ‘ Procedural Diversity

Curriculum Diversity of Contra). ——W—WT————-- Public Colleges

In-dass For-Profit Colleges Out-of-dass Continuous improvement

CAAT Description Qross-Site Comparison

> Literature Pe Similarities on Review:

“nas Diff = Clientele Served

3” Frame: Purposes of Study: Are EP’s different at a FPC? How? Why? b Frame: Problem Statement: Do FPCs contribute 0 procedural di ity in Ontario’s

\ non degree sector? ——________—_ /


337

6.2.3.2. Comparing Public and For-Profit Colleges

The selection of case studies representing two colleges differentiating

themselves within the competitive non-degree sector provided an opportunity to

explore the convergence theory proposed in the literature. Are Sheridan and

DeVry becoming more alike or are they fundamentally different?

One of the arguments supporting the convergence theory is that

accreditation demands are similar for both public and for-profit colleges, thereby

forcing FPC practices to be more like those of traditional institutions. In Ontario,

without the accreditation component of the regulation, this convergent element

is not in play. Yet, as part of a U.S. regionally accredited university, DeVry

College’s policies and practices are clearly and significantly influenced by

accreditation demands. A paradox in Ontario is that DeVry is more ‘traditional’ in

the way that the term is used, than is Sheridan whose processes are not

influenced by accreditation demands.

A second argument supporting convergence is that public institutions must

be more competitive and more like the entrepreneurial, market-driven FPCs. The

findings suggest that competition is having these anticipated effects on Sheridan.

The college is demonstrating innovation, especially in its introduction of laptop

computing and its focus on student satisfaction. In addition, an entire

‘entrepreneurial’ division has been mandated with the task of increasing college

funding through fundraising, applied research and contract training. As the

findings reveal, in many ways Sheridan is demonstrating— and is able to

demonstrate—more responsiveness to its Ontario communities leading to a

second paradox: Sheridan is in fact more market-responsive than DeVry is

allowed to be in Ontario.


338

6.3. The Educational Process Model

A secondary purpose of the research was to develop and test an

educational processes model derived from the best practices literature as

described in Chapter 3. My overall conclusion is that the Educational Processes

Model (EP Model) proved to be the most important construct of my research

journey. In this section I support this contention in the context of two tests:

1. Could another researcher use the EP Model?

2. Does the EP Model have applications beyond the research?

First, the educational processes model anchored the study’s conceptual

framework as it focused the research on the purpose of the study and on the

unit of study—each institution’s educational policies, practices and structure. As

well, it provided pragmatic guidelines to construct the specific research

questions; these questions were re-formed to structure the document review and

to prepare the interview schedules. Furthermore, the EP Model formed the

organization of the study's database. These steps and processes are described

in Chapter 4 and are fundamental to the study’s reliability.

As well, the EP Model seems to have applications beyond the research.

The common characteristics identified in the model are themselves elements of

an overall institutional model designed to implement a particular mission. The

way that curriculum, in-class, out-of-class and continuous improvement

processes are implemented in a college should reflect the college’s mission,

should be consistent and should be intentional. The EP Model thus becomes a

construct for educational leaders to assess the policies, practices and structures

within their institutions. And although the model, as constructed, is not

evaluative, it has the basics of a very useful assessment tool. It is based on

learner-centred principles; it prompts pragmatic actions; it is comprehensive in

that it covers roles, structures, policies and tools. While the nature of the


assessment instrument is beyond the scope of this study, a prototype is

presented as Figure 7: Educational Processes Assessment Form.

339

Figure 7: Educational Processes Assessment Form

Educational Processes Assessment Form

scale where

| | 4 3 2 1

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree

1, Learning outcomes and standards are clearly articulated. 4 3 2 1

2. Curriculum is aimed at the right level for the student body. 4 3 2 1

3. Curriculum is coherent and connected. 4 3 2 1

4. Students are involved. 4 3 2 1

5. Different methods of instruction are used and aimed at the learning preferences and needs of the student body. 4 3 2 1

6. Instruction is individualized. 4 3 2 1

7. Student learning is assessed on an on-going basis

and students receive feedback. 4 3 2 1

8. Learning communities are established. 4 3 2 1

9. Students are oriented about expectations. 4 3 2 1

10. Students receive proactive, intrusive academic advising. 4 3 2 1

11. Students and faculty interact. 4 3 2 1

12. The institution builds profiles of incoming students

against which student learning is assessed. 4 3 2 1

13. Institutional assessment contributes to the continuous

improvement of educational processes. 4 3 2 1

Instructions: Provide your assessment of the following statements using a 4-point


340

This practical application of the EP Model is only one of several

implications arising from the study; these additional implications will be discussed

in the next section of the chapter.

6.4. Implications of the Research

6.4.1. Implications for Policy

Policy has certainly impacted Sheridan. Many of the college’s policies on

faculty and instruction align with the Postsecondary Education Quality

Assessment Board's standards for applied degree programs. Changes in

organization and practice address KPI results. These examples seem to indicate

that government policy can change institutional policy and practice when it aligns

with the will of the college community.

The findings also introduce other policy issues and implications that

represent opportunities for policy makers and ultimately for Ontario

postsecondary participants. These are presented as observations supported by

details taken from both the literature and the findings.

1. Post-secondary learners do not have consistent information about the nature of the educational experiences, limiting the efficacy of educational decision-making.

Post-secondary education suffers from information asymmetry; students

must make educational choice decisions based on limited information.

Increasingly, this information is packaged in marketing pieces designed to attract

students to an institution, rather than to provide consistent information leading

to informed choice. In Ontario, both the colleges of applied arts and technology

and the private career colleges must publish key performance indicators.

However, these are outcomes based, and as the findings show, are not

consistent across the non-degree sector. Furthermore, the two sub-sectors’

information-sharing practices are not linked in any way. The associations


341

(ACAATO and OACC) do not associate and advocacy and sector-based

promotional strategies are different. Admissions and common marketing

structures are different and decidedly biased towards the public institutions.

Ontario high schools implement a common public colleges’ application service

while the private career colleges continue to attract and enrol students through

diverse advertising and lead development activities.

Yet, as the research shows, for-profit colleges represent meaningful

procedural diversity and choice for Ontario learners. The Ministry of Training,

Colleges and Universities might examine information across the non-degree

sector in an effort to improve comparative information and to provide more

information about Ontario’ FPCs.

2. Competition is not impacting procedural diversity to the extent that it can or should.

Competition is manifested through the inherent function, governance and

administration of for-profit institutions and the market-oriented actions of public

institutions. As the research shows, these applications result in different

educational processes. Furthermore, three of the themes that explain the

different student experiences link directly to policy—resourcing, accountability

frameworks and responsiveness.

The question for the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities is

whether the policy framework is conducive to innovation and practices designed

to align with public policy values and priorities. My investigation is non-

conclusive about this question. Sheridan appears to be changing educational

processes to improve its recruitment and student satisfaction. Recent college

policy changes are clearly aligned with the quality standards introduced by the

Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board. And, the college is

increasing its access to private funding through non-regulated tuition policies,


342

direct user strategies and fundraising, applied research and contract training

activities.

However, the policy framework in place for the FPCs seems to stymie

innovation, and public policy values and priorities seem restricted to consumer

protection and legitimate access to student aid. Despite the inherent differences

that Ontario’s FPCs bring to the non-degree sector, policies are not in place to

encourage quality standards, innovative delivery using new modalities, or even

credit transfer across the sector, despite the evidence of and rationale for high

standards and responsive curriculum.

In my opinion, the Ministry should investigate the development of a non-

degree sector accountability framework that includes both the public and the for-

profit colleges. This is especially relevant to those large, non-Ontario-based

providers such as DeVry that have a standardized educational processes model.

Without a new framework, these providers are not able to provide benefits to

either Ontario learners or themselves.

6.4.2. Implications for Practice

As already stated, the Educational Processes Model provides a pragmatic

assessment tool for institutional leaders. As a former chief academic officer in

both a public and for-profit college, I see its application in policy development,

program and institutional review, faculty and curriculum development and

resourcing decisions.

Furthermore, the research provides insight into best practices at the two

case study institutions, suggesting specific practices that readers may consider

for their own institution. These are described with adequate background

information to account for the context. Take for instance the differences in

curriculum standards and how they relate to governance and administrative

practices in each sector. Sheridan’s program standards are consistent across

Ontario’s public college system and have been constructed with wide input from


343

employers, faculty, students and other stakeholders. They provide a structure

that Sheridan references in reviewing program outcomes and in updating course

outlines. These course outlines, when changed to a significant extent, are

reviewed and commented upon by the Educational Planning and Process Review

sub-committee of Academic Council.

DeVry, on the other hand, does not have program standards, relying

instead on a comprehensive set of curriculum guides that specify course

standards, including course terminal objectives and expectations related to

student evaluation. These course guides are the building blocks of programs of

study that are managed by a program director. Any changes in program

outcomes are reflected in changes in curriculum guides. Thus, DeVry separates

curriculum development from instructional delivery; specific administrative

practices reflect this fundamental difference in the two institutions.

The research findings are replete with other examples of best practices

that may have applications in other institutions.

6.5. Final Reflections

In the fall of 2002, I was guest-lecturing a M.Ed. class about diversity and

competition in Ontario’s postsecondary sector, attempting to make a point about

the inequitable policy framework in which Ontario’s private colleges operate. I

cited information asymmetry, as well as different policies about advertising,

student aid and delivery modalities, becoming increasingly passionate about a

comprehensive policy framework that would advantage Ontario’s postsecondary

students. A member of the class stopped me in mid-sentence with a question

that I still ponder: “Why”, she said, “should the government support private

colleges in any way?”

The question was asked ingenuously yet with an edge. This individual, a

teacher in the public college system, could not imagine why the government

should do anything that might disadvantage the public colleges in an increasingly


344

competitive marketplace. In her mind, despite evidence of the numbers and the

contribution of PCCs in Ontario, there is no place for private providers in Ontario.

The question has stayed with me. It represents bias, a lack of knowledge

and is even self-serving. All understandable and I fear indicative of the majority

of those in Ontario’s public-dominated higher education system, including the

bureaucrats in the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. And until four

years ago, I would include myself in this same group. Yet, as my career and this

thesis exposed me to the differences between public education and private for-

profit education, I began to understand the inherent strengths in each and to

imagine the benefits possible in a comprehensive postsecondary system that

includes both in ways more equal and that shares practices in ways more open.

And so, as I complete my thesis journey, I discover that I have not found

the grail, only a map. The quest has just begun.


345

REFERENCES

Alfred, Richard L. & Weissman, Julie. (1988). Public Image and the University. ERIC Digest. ED301145.

Altbach, Philip G. (1999). Comparative Perspectives on Private Higher Education. In Altbach, Philip G (Ed.), Private Prometheus: Private Higher Education and Development in the 21* Century (pp. 1-14). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

American Association of Cosmetology Schools. (1997). Proprietary Schools: Analysis of Comments Received from an Association of Schools. ERIC Document: ED413422.

Anisef, Paul, Paasche, J. Gottfried & Turrittin, Anton. (1980). Is the Die Cast? Educational Achievement and Work Destinations of Ontario Youth. Ministry of Colleges and Universities, Toronto, Ontario.

Appling, Richard N. (1993). Proprietary Schools and Their Students. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 4 (July/August 1993), 379-416.

Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario. (1999). A New Charter for Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. Toronto, Ontario.

Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario. (2000). The 2000 Environmental Scan for The Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario. Toronto, Ontario.

Association of Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario. (2001). The 2001 Environmental Scan for The Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology of Ontario. Toronto, Ontario.

Astin, Alexander, W. (1999). The American Freshman: National Norms for 1998.

Astin, Alexander, W. (1991). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and

Practice of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. New York: MacMillan

Publishing Company.

Baldridge, J.V. et.al. (1986). Alternative Models of Governance in Higher Education. In H. Peterson (Ed.), ASHE Reader in Organization and Governance in Higher Education (pp.11 — 27). Lexington, VA: Ginn Press.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘s Non-Degree Sector References

346

Barneston, Robert James. (1997). Marketing the University of Calgary to Frosh: A Motivational Typology of Student — College Choice. (M.A. Thesis, University of Calgary. 1997.) ED404930.

Ben-David, J. (1972). American Higher Education: Directions Old and New. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Birnbaum, Robert. (2000). Management Fads in Higher Education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Birnbaum, Robert. (1983). Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Boggs, George R. (1996). The Learning Paradigm. Community College Journal. Dec/Jan 1995-96, 24 — 27.

Borrego, Anne Marie. (2001, June 29). The Duo That Leads DeVry. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A25.

Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Carnegie Foundation.

Bragg, Debra D. (2001). Opportunities and Challenges for the New Vocationalism in American Community Colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, 115 (Fall 2001), 5—15.

Butlin, George. (1999). Determinants of postsecondary participation. Education Quarterly Review. Statistics Canada — Catalogue no. 81-003, 5, 3, 9 - 35.

Cabrera, Alberto F & La Nasa, Steven M. (2000). Understanding the College- Choice Process. New Directions For Institutional Research, 107 (Fall 2000), 5 — 22.

California State Postsecondary Education Commission. (1995). The Effectiveness of California’s Oversight of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education . ERIC Document ED403803.

Canadian Education Summit (2000). Conference Proceedings, October 11.

Toronto: National Post and Air Canada.

Canadian Education Summit (2003). Conference Proceedings, April 9, 2003. Toronto: National Post and Air Canada.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector References

347

Chaloux, Bruce N. (1995). State Oversight of the Proprietary Sector. New Directions for Community Colleges, 23, 3 (Fall 1995), 81i—92.

Cheng, Xing David & Levin, Bernard, H. (1995). Who Are the Students at Community Colleges and Proprietary Schools? New Directions for Community Colleges, 23, 3 (Fall 1995), 51 — 60.

Clowes, Darrel A. (1995). Community Colleges and Proprietary Schools: Conflict or Convergence. New Directions for Community Colleges, 23, 3 (Fall 1995), 5 — 15.

Cohen, David. (2001, March 9). The Worldwide Rise of Private Colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A47.

Collins, Ronald Graham. (1987). A Study of Academic Program Planning in an Ontario College of Applied Arts and Technology. Unpublished Doctor of Education Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto.

Collison, M.N. (1998, July 9). Proprietary Preference. Black Issues in Higher Education, 15, 10, 30 - 34.

Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. (1996). Economic Study of the Proprietary Sector of Postsecondary Education in California. Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. Sacramento.

Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation. (1999, February 9). Education Industry Quarterly Report Card.

Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation. (2001, May 14). Education & E-Learning Weekly.

Cress, Christine M. & Sax, Linda J. (1998). Campus Climate Issues to Consider for the Next Decade. New Directions For Institutional Research, 98 (Summer

1998) 65 — 80.

Davey, R.E. (1993). Program Decision-Making in a College of Applied Arts and Technology: Is it Rational or Anarchic? Unpublished master’s project, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada.

Davis, S. & Botkin, J. (1994). The Monster Under the Bed. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Dennison, John D. (1994). The Case for Democratic Governance in Canada’s Community Colleges. Interchange, 25/1, 25 — 37.


348

Dennison, John D. (1995A). Organization and Function in Postsecondary Education. In Dennison, John D. (Ed.), Challenge and Opportunity (pp.121-140). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Dennison, John D. (1995B). Community College Development in Canada since 1985. In Dennison, John D. (Ed.), Challenge and Opportunity (pp. 13-104). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Dennison, John D. (1995C). Introduction. In Dennison, John D. (Ed.), Challenge and Opportunity, (pp. 3-12). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Dennison, John D. (1995D). Values in the Canadian Community College: Conflict and Compromise. In Dennison, John D. (Ed.), Challenge and Opportunity (pp. 169 — 183). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Dennison, John D. (1995E). Accountability: Mission Impossible? In Dennison, John D. (Ed.), Challenge and Opportunity (pp. 220-242). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Dennison, John D. and Gallagher, Paul. (1986). Canada’s Community Colleges: A Critical Analysis. Vancouver, British Columbia: University of British Columbia Press.

Derman, David M. & Becher, Kate. (2001, October 15). DeVry Inc. (DV) Technology: Internet-e-learing. Goldman Sachs Global Equity Research.

Dill, David D. (1997). Higher education markets and public policy. Higher Education Policy, 10, 3/4, 167-185

Dill, David D. & Teixeira, Pedro. (2000). Program diversity in higher education: an economic perspective. Higher Education Policy, 13, 99-117.

Evaluation of Private Career Colleges. (1997). ERIC Document: ED413524.

Donald, Janet G. (1997) Improving the Environment for Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Donald, Janet G. (1995). Disciplinary Differences in Knowledge Validation. New Directions For Teaching and Learning, 64 (Winter 1995), 7-17.

Donald, Janet Gail. (1993). Professors’ and Students’ Conceptualization of the Learning Task in Introductory Physics Courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 8, 905 — 918.


349

Duffy, Jean Ann. (2000). The Relationship Between Critical Thinking Abilities, Dispositional Traits and the Career States of Part-time Adult Learners. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 48, 1 (Winter 2000), 24 — 29.

Education at a glance. (2000). Education Quarterly Review. Statistics Canada — Catalogue no. 81-000, 6, 4, 50 — 56.

Education Indicators in Canada. Report of the Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program 1999.

Education Resource Institute. (1997). Missed Opportunities: A New Look at Disadvantaged College Aspirants. 1997. ERIC Document: ED420357.

Eduventures.com. Inc. (2001). Markets and Opportunities 2001: Education Industry Revenues Top the $100 Billion Mark. Boston, MA.

Evaluation of Private Career Colleges. (1997). ERIC Document: ED41352.

Evans, Thomas. (2001). Going Global—Big Issues, Big Opportunities. In proceedings of the Canadian Education Summit, October 10, 2001 (pp. 25-34). Toronto: National Post and Air Canada.

Fosse, Lynn. (2001, May 29). Interview with Ronald L. Taylor. WSCR.com. Digmans Ferry, PA.

Frank, Jeffrey. (1996). After high school... Initial results of the School Leavers Follow-up Survey, 1995. Education Quarterly Review. Statistics Canada — Catalogue no. 81-003-XPB, 3, 4, 10 — 22.

Gallagher, Paul. (1990). Community Colleges in Canada: A Profile. Vancouver: Vancouver Community College Press.

Gallagher, Paul. (1995). Promise Fulfilled, Promise Pending. In Dennison, John D. (Ed.), Challenge and Opportunity (pp. 256-274). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Gardiner, Lion, F. (1994). Redesigning Higher Education: Producing Dramatic

Gains in Student Learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 7.

Geiger, Roger L. (1986). Private Sectors in Higher Education. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.

Gibbs, Paul and Knapp, Michael. (2002). Marketing Higher and Further Education. London: Kogan Page.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector References

350

Girondi, Rita A. & Galbraith, Michael W. (1993). Instructional Styles in Postsecondary Proprietary Schools: Assessment and Implications for Practice. Journal of Adult Education, 22, 1 (Fall 1993), 29-35.

Goedegebuure, Leo, Kaiser, Frans, Maassen, Peter & de Weert, Egbert (1993). Higher Education Policy in International Perspective: An Overview. In Goedegebuure, Leo, Kaiser, Frans, Maassen, Peter, Meek, Lynn, van Vught, Frans & de Weert, Egbert (Eds.) (1993). Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective, (pp. 1- ). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Government of Ontario. (1965, May 21). Statement in the Legislature: Introducing Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology in Ontario. Toronto, Ontario: Queen’s Publisher.

Government of Ontario. (1990). Private Career Colleges Act. Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990. Chapter P.26.

Government of Ontario. (1996). Excellence, Accessibility, Responsibility: Report of the Advisory Panel on Future Directions for Postsecondary Education.

December, 1996.

Government of Ontario. (1997). Performance Requirements for the Administration of the Ontario Student Assistance Program (OSAP) by Ontario Private Vocational Schools. Ministry of Education and Training. Version: 97.1- PVS-July 4, 1997.

Government of Ontario. (2001, January 4). Release of the 2000 Ontario Student Loan Default Rates and Announcement of New Default Reduction Measures. Memorandum from David Trick, Assistant Deputy Minister Postsecondary

Education Division. Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. Toronto, Ontario.

Government of Ontario. (2001, October 1). Students to benefit from more

choices and degrees. News Release. Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. Retrieved on July 7, 2003 from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/nr/01.10/nr1001.html

Government of Ontario. Private Vocational Schools Registry.

(www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/list/pvs.html)

Government of Ontario. Ontario Student Assistance Program (www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/general/private)


351

Green, Patricia J. & Stark, Joan S. (1988). Collaborative Roles in Improving Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. New Directions for Institutional Research, 57 ( Spring 1988), 7-21.

Grenier, Sylvie. (1995). Survey of private training schools in Canada, 1992. Educational Quarterly Review, 2, 3 (Fall 1995), 50-62.

Hawthorne, Elizabeth M. (1995). Proprietary Schools and Community Colleges: The Next Chapter. New Directions for Community Colleges, 23, 3 (Fall 1995), 93-98.

Hittman, Jon A. Changes in Mission, Governance, and Funding of Proprietary Postsecondary Institutions. New Directions for Community Colleges, 23, 3 (Fall 1995), 17-25.

Honick, Craig A. (1995). The Story Behind Proprietary Schools in the United States. New Directions for Community Colleges, 23, 3 (Fall 1995), 27-40.

Hook, Richard. (1991). Perceptions of Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Held by Ontario Secondary School Teachers, Students and Employers in Two Communities. Unpublished Doctor of Education Thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Huisman, Jeroen. (1998). Differentiation and Diversity in Higher Education Systems. In John C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. XIII (pp. 75-109). New York: Agathon Press.

Hyslop, Cheryl & Parsons, Michael H. (1995). Curriculum as a Path to Convergence. New Directions for Community Colleges, 23, 3 (Fall 1995), 41- 49.

Jackson, Nancy S. & Gaskell, Jane S. (1987). White Collar Vocationalism: The Rise of Commercial Education in Ontario and British Columbia, 1870 — 1920. Curriculum Inquiry, 17:2, 183- .

Jacoby, Barbara. (2000). Why Involve Commuter Students in Learning? New Directions For Higher Education, 109 (Spring 2000), 3-12.

James, Steve. (2002, May 6). For-profit colleges find education can pay

dividends. Reuters Company News. Retrieved on May 13, 2002 from http://biz.yahoo.com/r¢c/020606/bizfeature colleges 1.html.

JBL Associates, Inc. (2000). An Economic Impact Study: Private Career Colleges in the Province of Ontario. Prepared for Ontario Association of Career Colleges. Brantford, Ontario.


352

Johnstone, D. Bruce & Maloney, Patricia A. (1998). Enhancing the Productivity of Learning: Curricular Implications. New Directions for Higher Education, 103 (Fall 1998), 23-34.

Jones, Glen A. (1997). Higher Education in Ontario. In Jones, Glen A. (Ed.), Higher Education in Canada: Different Systems, Different Perspectives (pp 135- 157). New York: Garland.

Jones, Glen A. (1993). Higher Education Policy in Ontario. In Goedegebuure, Leo, Kaiser, Frans, Maassen, Peter, Meek, Lynn, van Vught, Frans & de Weert,

Egbert (Eds.), Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective (pp. 214-238). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Kartus, Lisa. (2000, February). By Degrees. University Business, 40 -60.

Katsinas, Stephan G. (1996). Preparing Leaders for Diverse Institutional Settings. New Directions for Community Colleges, 95 (Fall 1996), 15-25.

Keller, George. (1983). Academic Strategy. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Knowles, Janet (1995). A Matter of Survival: Emerging Entrepreneurship in Community Colleges in Canada. In Dennison, John D. (Ed.), Challenge and Opportunity, (pp 184-207). Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press.

Kuh, George D. & Vesper, Nick. (1997). A Comparison of Student Experiences with Good Practices in Undergraduate Education Between 1990 and 1994. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 1 (Fall 1997), 43-61.

Kutz, Skip. (1989, December). Privatizing Saskatchewan's Trade Schools. Our Schools/Our Selves, 50 — 56.

Lee, John, B. & Merisotis, Jamie P. (1990). Proprietary Schools: Programs, Policies and Prospects. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 5, 1990.

Levin, Henry M. & Koski, William S. (1998). Administrative Approaches to Educational Productivity. New Directions in Higher Education, 103 (Fall 1998), 9- 21.

Levin, John S. (1998). What's the Impediment?: Structural and Legal Constraints to Shared Governance in the Community College. Unpublished manuscript, Center for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Arizona.


353

Levin, John S. (1997). External Forces of Change and the Preservation of Accessibility in the Community College. Journal of Applied Research in the Community College, 4, 2, 137-146.

Levin, John (1995). The Challenge of Leadership. In Dennison, John D. (Ed.), Challenge and Opportunity, (pp. 105-120). Vancouver: UBC Press.

Levy, Daniel C. (1999). When Private Education Does Not Bring Organizational Diversity. In Altbach, Philip G (Ed.), Private Prometheus: Private Higher Education and Development in the 21* Century (pp. 15-39). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Lundquist, Robert. (1998). Quality Improvements of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: a comparison with developments in industrial settings. Teaching in Higher Education, 3, 1, 51-62.

Lundy, Dave. (2002, October 31). Not your grandfather’s DeVry. Chicago Sun- Times, p. .

Marginson, Simon. (1997). Imagining Ivy: Pitfalls in the Privatization of Higher Education in Australia. Comparative Education Review, 41, 4, 460-480.

Martin, J. and Samuels, J. (1998). For-profit colleges may be wave of the future. Boston Business Journal, 17, 48, p. 48.

McMillan, James H. & Schumacher, Sally. (1989). Research in Education: A conceptual introduction, Second Edition. Glenview and London: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Menges, Robert. (2000). Shortcomings of Research on Evaluating and Improving Teaching in Higher Education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 83 (Fall 2000), 5-11.

Merriam, Sharan B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Monroe, Charles. (1972). Profile of the American Community College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moore, Richard W. (1995). The Illusion of Convergence: Federal Student Aid Policy In Community Colleges and Proprietary Schools. New Directions for Community Colleges, 23, 3 (Fall 1995), 71-79.


354

Morley, Desmond. (2000). Don’t Confuse Diplomas with Degrees. Federation of New Brunswick Faculty Associations.

Morris, William V. (1993). Avoiding Community Colleges: Students Who Attend Proprietary Vocational Schools. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 17, 1 lan — Mar 1993), 21-28.

Morrison, James L. (2000, December 1). Correspondence to EdResource Lists.

National Association of Career Colleges. (1998A). Careers, Getting Skilled— Getting Ahead. Brantford, Ontario.

National Association of Career Colleges. (1998B). Who We Are. Brantford, Ontario.

National Association of Career Colleges. (2001). About N.A.C.C. http://www.nacc.ca/about.htm

National Center for Education Statistics. (1999). Students at Private, For-Profit Institutions. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Washington. D.C.

Newman, Frank & Couturier, Lara K. (2001). The New Competitive Arena. Change, September/October 2001, 11 -17.

O’Banion, Terry. (1996). A Learning College for the 21 Century. Community College Journal, Dec/Jan 1995-96, 18 - 23.

O’Banion, Terry. (1999). Launching a Learning-Centered College. League for Innovation in the Community College.

Okun, Morris A., Ruehlman, Linda & Karoly, Paul. (1991). Application of Investment Theory to Predicting Part-Time Community College Intent and Institutional Persistence/Departure Behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 2, 212-220.

Ontario Association of Career Colleges (www.oacc.on.ca)

Ontario Association of Career Colleges. (1999). A Key Part of the Post Secondary Sector. Brantford, Ontairo.

Ontario Association of Career Colleges. (2001). About O.A.C.C. http://www.oacc.on.ca/oaccabout.htm


355

Ontario College Application Service. www.ocas.on.ca

Ontario Council of Regents. (1990). The College System—An Empirical Snapshot. Vision 2000 Background Papers. Ministry of Colleges and Universities, Toronto.

Peterson, Marvin W. & Augustine, Catherine H. (2000). Organizational Practices Enhancing the Influence of Student Assessment Information in Academic Decisions. Research in Higher Education, 41, 1, 21-52.

Plager, Laurie & Chen, Edward. (1999). Student debt from 1990-91 to 1995-96: An analysis of Canada Student Loans data. Education Quarterly Review. Statistics Canada — Catalogue no. 81-003, 5, 4, 10 - 35.

Prager, Carolyn. (1995). Ties That Bind: Default, Accreditation, and Articulation. New Directions for Community Colleges, 23, 3 (Fall 1995), 61-70.

Pusser, Brian & Doane, Dudley, J. (2001). Public Purpose and Private Enterprise: The Contemporary Organization of Postsecondary Education. Change, September/October 2001, 19-22.

Report of the Investing in Students Task Force. (2001). Portals and Pathways: A Review of Postsecondary Education in Ontario. Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca.

Robson, Colin. (1993). Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

Rewick, Jennifer. (2001, March 12) Off Campus: Private virtual universities challenge many of the assumptions long held by educators. Their own challenge: survival. Wall Street Journal, p. R10.

Ruch, Richard S. (2001). Higher Ed, Inc. The Rise of the For-Profit University. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ruch, Richard. (1999, February). For Profit. Application of the Corporate Model to Academic Enterprise. AAHE Bulletin, 3-6.

Saunders, Laura E. & Bauer, Karen W. (1998). Undergraduate Students Today:

Who Are They? New Directions for Institutional Research, 98 (Summer 1998), 7- 16.

Schuyler, Gwyer. (1999). A Historical and Contemporary View of the Community College Curriculum. New Directions for Community Colleges, 108 (Winter 1999), 3 -15.


356

Sessa, Danielle. (2001, March 12). Business Plan: A look at all the different ways companies hope to make money from online education. The Wall Street Journal, p. R8.

Sheridan, David Harold. (1998). An Analysis of Strategic Planning Practices at Ontario Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology. Unpublished Doctor of Education Thesis, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, Toronto.

Skolnik, Michael L. (1986). Diversity in Education: The Canadian Case. Handout. Unpublished manuscript, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto. A slightly condensed version of this paper appeared in Higher Education in Europe, 11, 2, 19-32.

Skolnik, Michael L. (1987). Role Conflicts of a Professor of Higher Education: An Autobiographical Case Study. In Share, Waris & Duhamel, Ronald (Eds.), Academic Futures: Prospects for Post-Secondary Education. Toronto: OISE

Press.

Skolnik, Michael L. (2000). Diversity and Differentiation in Postsecondary Education. Unpublished course notes/TPS1821. Department of Theory and Policy Studies, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto.

Smith, Charles, W. (2000). Market Values in American Higher Education. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

Sperling, John. (2000). Rebel with a Cause. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sperling, John & Tucker, Robert W. (1997). For-Profit Higher Education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Stanley, Gordon & Reynolds, Pat. (1994). The relationship between students’ level of school achievement, their preferences for future enrolment and their images of universities. Higher Education, 27, 85-93.

Strosnider, K. (1998, January 23). For-profit higher education sees booming

enrollments and revenues. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 4.

Sweet, Robert. (1991). Canadian Proprietary Correspondence Schools: Some Issues of Access and Technology. Journal of Distance Education, 6, 1 (Spring 1991), 42-63.


357

Sweet, Robert. (1993). A Profile of Vocational Training Schools. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 23-3, 36-63.

Sweet, Robert. (1996). Proprietary Schools in Canada. Education Quarterly Review. Statistics Canada — Catalogue no. 81-003-XPB, 3, 1, 31-42.

Thompson, Gordon. (2000). Unfulfilled Prophecy: The Evolution of Corporate Colleges. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 3 (May/June 2000), 322-341.

Traub, James. (2000, November 19). This Campus Is Being Simulated. The New York Times Magazine, pp. 88 — 93.

Trow, Martin. (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Education. Berkeley: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

United States House of Representatives. (1997A). Proprietary Schools. Millions Spent to Train Students for Oversupplied Occupations. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight. ERIC Document: ED408464.

United States House of Representatives. (1997B). Proprietary Schools. Poorer Student Outcomes at Schools That Rely More on Federal Student Aid. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources, Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. ERIC Document: ED408463.

Wahlgren, Eric. (2002, September 26). Investors Are Giving Colleges an A+. Business Week online. Retrieved on October 30, 2002 from http://yahoo.businessweek.com/bwdaily/.

Walsh, Mark. (1999, November 24). Ka-Ching! Business Cashing In on Learning. Education Week, p. 1.

Webb, Eugene J., Campbell, Donald T., Schwartz, Richard D. & Sechrest, Lee. (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. New York: Rand McNally.

Webb, Marion S. (1993). Influence of Demographic Factors on the Selection of a Private Business Career College. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 4,

1-2, 205-220.

Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Lanquage,

Unabridged, Second Edition. (1968). New York: The World Publishing Company.


358

Williams, Gareth. (1996). The Many Faces of Privatisation. Higher Education Management, 8, 3 (November 1996), 39-56.

Wilms, Welford W. (1987). Proprietary Schools: Strangers in their Own Land. Change, January/February 1987, 10 — 34.

Winston, Gordon C. (1999). For Profit Higher Education. Change,

January/February 1999, 13 —-19.

Winston, Gordon C. (1997). Why Can’t a College Be More Like a Firm? Change, September/October 1997, 32-38.

Wolverton, Mimi (1994). A New Alliance: Continuous Quality and Classroom Effectiveness. ERIC Digest. ED392368.

Woolcot, Harry F. (1985). On Ethnographic Intent. Educational Administration Quarterly, 21, 3, 187-203.

Yin, R.K. (1989). The Case Study Research: design, and methods, 2" Edition.

Newbury Park and London: Sage Publishing.

Yoo, Jung-sup. (2001). Sources and Information: Postsecondary Vocational Education. New Directions for Community Colleges, 115 ( Fall 2001), 101-108.

Young, Raymond, J. (1996). Legacy of the Post-WWII Growth Years for

Community College Leadership Programs. New Directions for Community Colleges, 95 (Fall 1996), 5-14.


359

PCC

Area

of Study

Charts

Appendix

A

Onta

rio

Regi

ster

ed PCCs

that are

OSAP

-eli

gibl

e, members

of OACC

and

with

either multiple

site

s or

a st

uden

t en

roll

ment

of over 100

stud

ents

.

Westervelt College

triOS College of | Information Technoloay

Trebas Institute

’ Travel Training Career Centre




Southwestern Medix

SoftTrain Institute

Regal Constellation College of Hosnitalitv


PrimeTech Institute

Liaison College

Kingston Leaning Centre

International Institute of

Travel

International Academy of

Design

Institute of Technical

Herzing College

Health Care Vocational

Centres

Durham Business & Computer College

DeVry Institute of | Technoloav

Creative Career Systems

Commercial Business | Caollede

CDI College of Business |_and Technoloav

Career Canada College

Canadian School of Investigation and Security

Academy of Learning v

Acco

unti

ng/

Bookkeeping Au

dio/Recording

Banking Ch

ildcare/ECE

Business Co

mputer

Computer

Anim

atio

n Computer

Desi

gn/

Draf

ting

Computer

Network Co

mputer

Pro-

grammer/Analyst

Computer

Repair

Appendix

A Pr

oced

ural

Di

vers

ity

in On

tari

o’s

Non-Degree Sector

360

Westervelt College

triOS College of | Tnfarmation Technology

Trebas Institute

Travel Training Career Centre




Southwestern Medix

SoftTrain Institute

Regal Constellation College of Hosnitalitv


PrimeTech Institute

Liaison College

Kingston Leaning Centre

International Institute of

Travel

International Academy of Desian

Institute of Technical

Herzing College

Health Care Vocational

Centres

Durham Business &

Computer College

DeVry Institute of

| Technoloay

Creative Career Systems

Commercial Business Collece

CDI College of Business

|_ and Technoloav

Career College Canada

Canadian School of Investiaation and Secuity

Appendix

A, co

ntin

ued

Academy of Learning Co

okin

g Dent

al Ca

re

Desktop Pu

blis

hing

Elec

tron

ics Fa

shio

n Design/

Merchandising Gr

aphi

c De

sign

Heal

th Care He

alth

Sc

ienc

es

Hosp

ital

ity La

w an

d Security

Massag

e Therapy

Para

lega

l Personal Su

ppor

t Worker Ph

armacy

Tech

/Ass

ista

nt Ra

dio/Television/

Film

/Mus

ic Sa

les/Marketing

Appendix

A Procedural

Dive

rsit

y in

Onta

rio’

s Non-

Degr

ee Sector

Vv Xipueddy

401D0S 9016aq-UON

S,OUeUO Ul

AsuaAIg |eINpe201d

‘Apnjs JO

ease 9Y}

Ul SWesBoId

eWOdIP sao

yeUY Swed

Bulj|dwes 94}

Ul SdDd

9} $3S!|

ADN3s JO

Ease YORE

JEU} SI NSO

SUL

(p0S =

8T XZX

bT) “3e8am/SINOY

YT YM SWS} YEOM-pT

OM] JBAO

PalsAljap WesHoid

SHa}|09 1edA-BU0

P 0}

JUB|EAINDE SI

SIU} JU

S! BJeuOI}eI

SUL

‘wesBoid ewojdip

e se

Ayjenb 0}

sinoy 00S

J8A0 9q

0} pey

weiBoud ay,

‘sweiBoid ewojdip

e se

swesBoid asauj

Jao

pip joouds

DU} JEU}

YOOUD 0}

(SYISqam e

SaAeY JOU

OP sjoouds

wos

‘AjBuISUdINS ‘aduNOSad

JBUIO JO)

SLSGEaM S,JOOYDS

YdeS 0}

JUBM UdU}

J "SUPUD

BU} PepN4JSUOD

UBY} PUL

PsjsI| JOOYDS

YDee peou

| ‘Apnys

JO sesie

pes] Suz

Jo

ydee ul

sweiBoud JayO

YDIUM SJOOUDS

S}S!] SYSGeM sy,

‘(EDUOSSEO"MMM)

SIISGeM\ DOVO

UO psjsi|

9sOUY sue

ApNys JO

Seoue DUL

“T No

:ABo|OpouTe-

- BulplaM wsino |

- AIA

- -

- pue

feAedL suonesiunw

7. -WOD3|21

- A

a\®

, -

A -

[elJ232199S

B % |

3 7

> el

sol oF

2 2

vo! S

° 2

” a

e [slags

$e

Zoo /2

|_| |3

5 B/S)

¢ q

Y |

a 3]

Gi X

- | sl gv

So|}ea |a

| 8

S| ow

YY 8lae|dsy &

a

4s /8l/aZiaislisiS

[MS [A

BIS E

IB

ees lag

| Zlag2yet

SB 2p

= ao

a Ss

ajoes ols

szeZe8loegqes

|< /3

ays) se)

a2 il ssal

sas O| v') 2)

= |

8 oO]

sl S|

2 Sa

S| oi

sia

lw |

EF! &

aelsglt2

oS

qd od

Be Cc

=

t 9

dF oc

Bes vz

=

a

&

@

ei =|

wo $o

xs al =

wv 7

8d

*

¥| OG VG

Os

| 214) 2a Os]

Sl al

S c

5}

Oo]

& a-| nao

fk oD

-m| M3

0

Hsase

| 4s

YBcl of

S93

co ce &!

8 YI

§ @|

¢ Se

|x S|

§ 8 2

5/8 gi og

2 5] #2

S| SHS 5]

8 By

2s S| 2

ef Sa| >8 8)

Bese a se &

Bins

A

4 S$

e)

ao G

WwW) =

~ O(n

f#ea <

t ovo

wn C

> oO;

<=; VY

Tole!

2 og

4 Go

p|

N —,

Oo; €

Mm Vv

wa o}og

ol oF

= se

Gg] 3] 2]

&

£

2Y@a

VF

Bl S| oa

@ “| OF

& =

©;

<= ad

of] S|

S|

oO] Oo}

@O QO

6) &

4 q

vo} od

so;

wv “|

Oo Qa

6]

© 0

S\BSEF

FUFL

A A

A A

LG

Zeal

3s YZGA

Sa Sri

rga0ojandlodoauodg «

penuquod

‘y xipueddy

T9E

@ Xipuaddy

4095 9016eq-UON

S,0J2]UO Ur

AsuaAiq |eInpe20ld

(TTO) guonN

su! 3U}

0} pajyeyUsuO

Sjuapnys ae

MOH

(OTO) essed

soy} YIM

ayelosse 0}

peBeinodua sjuapnjs

sue SAeM

JeUM U

(60) e;9eqpeaey

BuloB-uo ym

sjuapnys SPIAOId

0} ade\d

ul Sue

SadIpeud JeUM

(80) épessesse

Buluies) JUapn}s

si MOH

(ZO) éuonsnajsul

VZIJENPIAIPU! 0}

Bde|d Ul

Bue sadIOeId

Jey

(SO) épesn

G2 UONINYSU!

JO SPOUJEW

JUSJEWIP JEUM

(pO) éS@HIADe

SSe/D UI

S]UBPNJS SAIOAU!

0} pasn

aie saibajzeujs

jeuoONysul JeEUM

(Ge) éPePSUUOD

PUC JWSJBYOD

SI WIN|NDUND

ay} Jey}

Sunsusa 0}

sde;d ul

sue sadoeid Jey

(TO) ésquepnjs

0} paqejname

SaWOo NO

Hurwes

wesHoud

sie MOH

Board Policies and

Records

Program and/or Institutional Review

Academic Policy

Faculty Policies

Student Evaluation

Forms

Program Proposals

Placement Materials Advisory Committee Records Curriculum Materials Student Handbook Program Information New Student

Orientation Marketing to Applicants Materials Promotional Materials Calendar

:suogsend

PpaMmalAe aq

0} sjuawNnseq

C9E

d[NPoyosS MoiAcY

S}UouIND0g :q

Xipuoddy

q Xipuaddy

JopeS 30J6eq-UON

s,oLe]UC Ul

AISUSAIG |eINpa20!q

(LTO) éjusweancidut

SNONUIQUOD JO

}X9}JUOD 9U

Ul PAMaIAe

s9ssan0id jeuOeINps

aie MOH

(9TO) ésewoojzno

Bulusea] pue

JuUawdojeaap Juapnys

ssasse 0}

a0e|d ul

aue sedipeud

JeuM

(STO) épayn.jsuod

sjuepnys Burwoou!

Jo ayjyord

By} S$!

MOH

(PTO) éssejo-Jo-3no

pevEqU! Aynoey

pue sjuspnis

op sAem

jeUM U]

(€TO) éBuisiape

DIwWapere Jo

a4n}JeuU BU

SI JeUM

(ZTO) ésquapnys

se Wau}

JO payedxe

si JeuM

ynoge pewuojul

Sjuapnys aie

MOH

Board Policies and

Records

Program and/or

Institutional Review

Academic Policy

Faculty Policies

Student Evaluation

Forms

Program Proposals

Placement Materials

Advisory Committee Records Curriculum Materials Student Handbook Program Information New Student

Orientation Marketing to Applicants Materials Promotional Materials Calendar

:suOnsENhH

pamalned aq

0} sjuawins0q

e9€

z abed/g

xipuaddy

364

Appendix C: Documents List by Site

DeVry College/DeVry University

Public Documents

Academic Calendars (DeVry College of Technology, DeVry University) DeVry Inc. Annual Reports (2000, 2001, 2002)

DeVry University Institutional Self-Study Report for Comprehensive Evaluation by the Higher Learning Commission North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, August 2002 Marketing Materials (all media) Profile and Interest Evaluation (Recruitment Questionnaire)

Student Handbook (Toronto)

North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institutes of Higher Learning. Handbook of Accreditation. Chicago Illinois, 1997.

Selected Published Materials about DeVry

Austin, Liz. (2002). DeVry University tries to shake trade-school image. Associated Press Newswires. September 1, 2002.

Borrego, Anne Marie. (2001). The Duo That Leads DeVry. The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 29, 2001.

Fosse, Lynn. (2001). Interview with Mr. Ronald L. Taylor, President and Chief Operating Officer. WSCR.com., Digman’s Ferry. May 28, 2001.

Goldman Sachs. (2001). Initiated coverage with Market Outperformer rating. October 15, 2001.

Lundy, Dave. (2002). Not your grandfather’s DeVry. Chicago Sun-Times. October 31, 2002.

SunTrust Robinson Humphrey. (2002). DV: New Marketing Efforts Appear to be Rejuvenating Interest in Programs. September 24, 2002.

Internal Documents

Canadian Faculty Policy Handbook Course syllabus templates DeVry Calgary Outcomes Assessment Report DeVry CIS Assessment Program

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘s Non-Degree Sector Appendix C

365

DeVry Job Descriptions Program Director

Dean of Academic Affairs Program Dean

President DeVry University Library Model DeVry University Undergraduate Faculty Policy Manual (Draft) DeVry University Institutional Values Faculty College Day materials (Toronto)

Outcomes Assessment Report Templates The Driving Force of Assessment (presentation) Assessment... A Shared Commitment (Presentation) Noel Levitz Results

Faculty and Academic Leaders Assembly (Chicago) DeVry University (presentation) 2002 NCA Comprehensive Evaluation (presentation) Assessment (presentation)

Interoffice Memoranda CIS program rollout at DVUC Locations DeVry University Hybrid Courses New Faculty Training Course Refinements to the Undergraduate Outcomes Assessment Cycle

Personal correspondence Strategic Plan Technology in Education (TIE) Recommendations—2002 The Curriculum Guide: An Author’s and User’s Manual The Joy of Curriculum Guides/Faculty Institute Day Presentation

Sheridan College

Published Documents

Admissions Letters and Marketing to applicants materials Annual Reports (2002, 2001) Continuing Education and Corporate Training Calendars

Marketing Materials Program Calendars (postsecondary programs)

Program Proposals Student Handbook Transformation: Becoming Sheridan Polytechnic. Conceptual Proposal Submitted to the Ontario Ministry of Training, College and Universities, June 2001.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘s Non-Degree Sector Appendix C

366

Internal Documents Categories and Time Ranges Considered for Program/Subject Coordinator Roles

Course and Instructor Survey Course Outline/course outline template College Council Records

Educational Planning and Program Review Subcommittee Terms of Reference Faculty Collective Agreement Integrated Planning (presentation for Board of Governors) Peer Coaching Program (brochure) Personal correspondence Policy documents

Faculty Evaluation/Renewal Program Review

Student Feedback Criteria/Instruments Faculty Credentials Evidence of Academic/Professional Credentials Currency of Faculty Knowledge Curricular and Instructional Innovation

Teacher Education Principles and Standards for Course Evaluation (Educational Planning and Program Review Subcommittee of Academic Council) Program Outlines, maps

Program Quality Review and Evaluation at Sheridan College (Draft/April 26, 2002) Standards and Practices for PAC’s (Draft) Standards for Course Outlines Teacher Education Course Outlines Welcome to the World of Recruitment (presentation)

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Appendix C

367

Appendix D: Interview Schedules

Questionnaire for Administrators

1. How do you ensure that that the curriculum is aimed at the right level for the students in the program? (Q2)

And a related question: Are there preferred or recommended instructional methods? And how are these connected to the needs of the students? (Q6)

. How are students encouraged to associate with their peers? (Q10)

Please tell me about your new student orientation? What is the purpose of the orientation and what expectations of students are spelled out for them?

(Q11) (Q12)

What is the nature of academic advising for students in the program? (Q13)

In what ways do students and faculty interact out-of-class? Are these interactions an expectation of the faculty? (Q14)

How do you go about constructing a profile of your incoming students? And how is such a profile used? (Q16)

How do you assess student development and measure learning outcomes? Are there specific policies and practices that are in place to support this activity? (Q16)

How do you review and improve educational processes? (curriculum

development, instructional strategies, in and out-of class activities, assessment) (Q17)

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector Appendix D

368

Questionnaire for Faculty

Al How does the school/program ensure that the curriculum is aimed at the right level for the students? (Q2)

What different methods of instruction do you use? Which ones of these involve students in class activities? Are these prescribed or recommended by the school administration? ( Q3) (Q4)

How is instruction individualized in the program? (Q7)

In your opinion, how do your instructional methods address the needs of the students in the program? (Q6)

. In an over-all sense, how is student learning assessed in the program? (Q8)

. How do you and other instructors provide students with on-going feedback?

(Q9)

Please tell me about the processes and means by which students are informed of what the school expects of them (Q12)

How do you and the other instructors interact with students out-of-class?

(Q14)

What practices are in place to assess student development and measure learning outcomes? (Q16)

Procedural Diversity in Ontario‘’s Non-Degree Sector Appendix D

369

Appendix E: Informed Consent Letter

Date

To Participants in Public College/For-Profit Institutions Study

The purpose of this study is to describe educational processes at a public college and a

for-profit education provider and to determine the extent to which any differences might be explained within the context of the structural differences which attach to these two models of postsecondary education. The educational processes being studied are those associated with curriculum, the in-class environment, the out-of-class environment and assessment. The data is being collected for an Ed.D. thesis and perhaps for subsequent articles and presentations. Dr. Angel Hildyard is my thesis supervisor. She can be contacted at 416-978 4865; her e-mail address is [email protected]

Between 10 and 14 participants from two sites will be contributing to the research. In asking you to be one of these participants, I would like to inform you of the following conditions which have been reviewed and approved by the University of Toronto’s Ethical Review Committee:

1. Your participation is voluntary and you are free to withdraw at any time.

2. The study is descriptive. My purpose is to describe educational processes without evaluation or judgement. The premise of the research is that educational processes are different in the two sectors. Your input will contribute to the understanding of this premise.

3. Although your institution will be identified, your input will be confidential. No statement will be attributed to you or to your role; all context which may identify you will be expunged from the description.

4. Asa participant in the study, you will be the subject of a one-hour semi-structured interview. During the interview, you will be asked to describe the educational processes at your college. Each question attaches to the research about curriculum, the in-class environment, the out-of-class environment and assessment. Follow-up questions will seek clarification and/or examples. At any time during the interview, you may decline to answer a question.

5. The interview will be taped; you have the choice of declining to have the interview taped.

6. I will also make field notes which will be used to assist me in re-living the interview. Your name will not be used in any of these notes. Instead a coding system will be used to identify you and the data that connects to your participation.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector Appendix E

370

Appendix E, continued

7. All data will be kept in a secure location. After three years, all data will be destroyed.

8. At any time, you are free to ask questions about the research and your involvement with it. Also you may ask that your input be eliminated from the research. And you may request a copy of a summary of the findings.

Thank you for considering this request

Rick Davey Dr. Angela Hildyard Candidate, Theory and Policy Studies Professor, Theory and Policy Studies in Education Telephone: 416-978 4865 OISE/University of Toronto Telephone: 905-502-5193, Ext. 6500

By signing below, you are indicating that you are willing to participate in this study, you have received a copy of this letter, and you are fully aware of the conditions above.

Name

Institution

Signed Date

[| Yes, I agree to having the interview taped.

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Appendix E

371

Appendix F: Approval letter from the Education Ethics Review

Committee

University of Toronta

Ore

Me GaP RESE

PRT CAO, REFER

didy

Ry, H. Peavey

Ras

duathd reocive a sayy of dheir

2 aparowed wrotwed

Procedural Diversity in Ontario’s Non-Degree Sector Appendix F

372

Appendix G: Map of Case Study Site Locations

Sheridan’s Davis Campus DeVry Ca

Sheridan’s Trafalgar Road Campus

Procedural Diversity in Ontario's Non-Degree Sector Appendix G

373

H Xipueddy

Jopes aei6eq-UON

S,014e}UO Ul

AISIaAIq [eANpeD01g

aoueridiuo’) pue samioe4 n

de

pue

SOQUEL JUApN}S seomnosay UBLUNH

Jajj0.qu04 pue aoueUl piel pue sndwe9

SdOINlas JealeQ pue | |

ABojouyoa) voqewuoyuy

Joa SJuapn}s Jo ueaC]

Jopaiq iopaliq

SUOISSIWUDY ‘JO}DeH] | SITU alWapeoy Jo UeAX]

Jo ueaq]

Jojxe | auer Xi002" pine

Aeay uaney yjeqdwer) saqy

(Mls why Jpleywed Gog

Ueyisag Beipaly

| |

| |

|

“pl0-0/) suoqeoUnWiwo)

pue i.

oalaly eM TURISISSY @ATNSIUILUDY

UeMals poy eqn

eine)

—episalg Aaneq ¥Oy

O[OUId |

JO abajo

Aljod Jey) UonezZuebIO

=H xipuoddy

374

Sheridan Co

lleg

e of

A

Chart

ion

Organizat

Appendix

I

SS

2s

ee oe Se

Ap

pend

ix

I Pr

oced

ural

Di

vers

ity

in Ontario’s

Non-

Degr

ee Se

ctor

( xIlpueddy Jopes

3e16aq-UON S,OUeIUC

U! AySuaAIG

[euNped01q

Ssoumusaypenddy, HNL

CCDS)

a pom

a

nt a

Po 6106

‘ei0s

iSojduiexy :(

Xipuoddy

SZE

376 c xipueddy

Jopes 30Jfeq-UON

S,Oe]UM UI

AIISIaAIg JeINped01d

) SYNCH Lda

WINCH LOVING

?or1aAa

DOFLOWA

puoudcayaneg

¥ Ubiseg Peloug

1 Qe74

qusuMdoppAsg|

sucywoydely

Potlog sues

WoWSBOUEW

Zea]

ML 7z0*r1a20]°

Ts

sa: Ta

CO bIANGD

OTT

UPAR, 41:

Bunuwesioig

1 qe9 waudorssd

INIT BUN Me dds

aer ues Guanduosa}

| aawidwop

Faforg s9HES

++ a3

YORAnposuH

Bapesoo01dOsONN

B SaUCAOSI WHA

sessed

4O8220961002911N

eS oanjaowaay

4nse690

UC .91N

pspraqaua

SUNDsID WUBI

I :

BwewAS

seysia:

udiIseg Suesugua

O27 UOIONPO LI

SucApoUrUNWOS:

SeeeunAA

2 DAs

AMOQIONHOAL

SnmaaNiona

suo

eS SUMO

T :

: :

- q

- "

ae

ee

tee ee eee

te ee ee ee Dee

ae

Lecce

cee eee

eeeee eee

asi +.

E: ae

: ss:

Szlisad

a StTeELSa

> om:

pzeissa

USES

B

SIshieuy sWO4Os1g

sIzApeuy|

8 Pos

¥YNO4ID SwtDc]

Suisseoold

leumS Bowuy

SUNDAD

DIWOADEI:

S1O4WOD PLISnRUL

Aeris moeay|

sormaéudt SOE WUSLIONE

aOnNaDS

SOMUWWAHLT

AaWOUOR

AL

& eugadry

eBsiom

Leoedud aGaia5

Leninsie>

paucichy

TEPMAHS

dete

eee tess ee alee eee SMUeWOH

RUS AWI90S ‘ABOOUUoEL

soravoad

qaunoSs.sa

reupsiad

WIEWIoISASG dseses

nowwa3aNndSs

WereanS

Sacusiscs os

ABQIONDASS

2zz2oNa0

EL iSong

sas

SUCRFOIUNUWO DS

aet

WA UAEFOdWeD USI

Ss4é4tHdSa

Supwords onand

Bun4ad mucssayodg

pues”

~ BOGS Vang

li Buea

Swe pATS

wos ApATS

: :

i i

3B sswoss3|5

[ (ewojdig

uveay @

ABojouysea)

GBuuaaul

7oj/aWexy =

Xipuoddy