2016 Student Pathways in Higher Education Conference Banner

Detailed Program

Click here for a printable version of the detailed program.

Final Attendee List

Monday, April 25, 2016

8:00 am  – 5:00 pm Bottom of the escalators
Registration Desk Open
Check in at the desk to pick up your Conference badge, Final Program and registration package.
Note: Coffee/Tea available upon arrival

9:15 am – 10:00 am Grand Ballroom
ONCAT Annual General Meeting
Meeting to be chaired by Glenn Vollebregt, ONCAT Board Co-Chair, President and CEO of St. Lawrence College
ONCAT Remarks – Glenn Craney, Executive Director
(All delegates are welcome to attend; each institution is requested to ensure the voting ONCAT Council member participates.)

10:00 am – 10:10 am Foyer
10:10 am – 10:20 am Grand Ballroom
Opening Remarks
Glenn Craney, Executive Director, ONCAT

10:20 am – 11:20 am Grand Ballroom
Plenary I – Strategic Enrollment Planning Using Transfer and Articulation within a Large Partnership
Presenter: Angé Peterson, Associate Vice President Emerita, University of Central Florida (UCF) Regional Campuses

11:20 am – 11:35 am
Move to breakout session rooms
11:35 am – 12:35 pm

A1 – Transitioning to University: Best Practices for College Transfer Bridging Courses
Presenters: Nancy Luckai, Deputy Provost, Lakehead University;
Anthea Kyle, Student Success Advisor, Lakehead University;
Andrew Heppner, Transitions Best Practices Project Manager, Lakehead University

We considered the current scholarship, support systems and curricula designed to facilitate a smooth transition from college to university for transfer students and asked "how does it play out in the real world"? Integrating student, faculty and staff experiences, we will identify evidence-based strategies that can apply to cohort and non-cohort models.

A2 – Assessing the Cost of Recruiting and Admitting Transfer Students
Presenters: David Trick, President, David Trick and Associates Inc.
Sharon Kinasz, Registrar, Seneca College of Applied Arts & Technology;
Brad MacIsaac, Assistant Vice-President, Planning & Analysis and Registrar, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

What is the cost of recruiting and admitting a new transfer student?  How does it compare with the cost for a direct-entry student?  Increasingly institutions and policymakers are focusing on the financial issues involved in improving inter-institutional pathways. This presentation will report on the findings of a survey supported by ONCAT of costs at ten Ontario universities and colleges.  Some participants from the survey will provide institutional perspectives.

A3 – Development of a University/College Pathway for Academic Success Remediation
Presenters: Joe Stokes, Associate Registrar, Enrolment Services, University of Ontario Institute of Technology;
Glen Harvel, Associate Professor, Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science, University of Ontario Institute of Technology;
Jennifer Percival, Associate Dean, Faculty of Business and Information Technology, University of Ontario Institute of Technology;
Jeff Zakoor, Program Director, General Arts and Science, Durham College;
Alena Shah, Program Manager, Mentoring and Leadership, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

In the academic success pathway, students that have been suspended from the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) will be given the opportunity to enter a Durham College program that will address academic success-related deficiencies. The students will undergo an assessment process to identify their specific needs and will have access to academic advisors at both institutions for guidance.  Upon successfully completing the program, the student returns to University with a position reserved in their program of study allowing for a semester reduction in the time lost due to suspension. The proposed pathway is done in such a way that successful students will be eligible to earn a general arts and science certificate concurrently with the continuation of their University degree.

A4 – Engineering Online: The Queen's C2U Pathway
Presenters: David Yokom, Project Manager, Queen's University;
Eric Tremblay, Educational Developer, Queen’s University

Queen’s University has partnered with Northern College to create a new Bachelor of Mining Engineering Technology degree. This college to university pathway awards block transfer credits for the first two years of the program to engineering technologists who meet admission requirements. The program utilizes a unique blended learning format, including web–based lectures and tutorials, with intensive on–site field school components. The format focuses on three elements: active learning approaches, cooperative learning amongst students, and student-to-instructor interactions. The program is fully adaptable to the student’s needs and can be completed on a full or part-time basis. This flexibility allows students to adjust their course load at any time during the program, in order to maintain a healthy balance between their personal, professional, and academic commitments. 

At the end of this presentation, participants will be able to describe the lessons learned in creating an online C2U engineering pathway.

A5 – Student Pathways Through Seneca College’s Liberal Arts Transfer Program: Student Progression, Transfer to University, and Success After Transfer
Presenters: Ursula McCloy, Research Manager, Centre for Research in Student Mobility, Seneca College;
Henry Decock, Associate VP, Academic Partnerships, Centre for Research in Student Mobility, Seneca College;
Mitchell Steffler, Research Analyst, Centre for Research in Student Mobility, Seneca College

Seneca College’s Liberal Arts Transfer (LAT) program was initiated in 1986, as a two-year general arts and science program for students who were exploring college options and interested in upgrading their skills. Student interest led to an evolution into a university transfer pathway and an articulation agreement with York was signed in 1997. In recent years, similar agreements have been signed with the University of Toronto and Trent. The structure and amount of credit granted for the intensive program was unique and continues to be unparalleled as other colleges have incorporated a similar model. The purpose of this study was to look at the student pathways of those who enter LAT, as well as the sociodemographic and academic characteristics of those who transfer to York University and are successful after transfer. Key findings include:

· Of the 2005–12 entering LAT cohorts, 34% switched to another Seneca program, 45% left Seneca, 10% graduated, and 11% were still enrolled in LAT two years after entry;
· Of LAT entrants who transferred to York, less than half (46%) had graduated from LAT before transferring;
· Between 2002 and 2010, over a quarter of LAT entrants transferred to York by 2012;
· Academic performance in high school and language proficiency at college entry were significant influences on whether LAT students transferred;
· LAT graduates, non-Canadian citizens, younger students, and those who had obtained good grades at Seneca were significantly more likely to graduate from York University;

The key learning outcome of this session is to demonstrate how data sharing between partners can track student trajectories to inform what makes a successful transfer student.

12:35 pm – 1:30 pm Grand Ballroom
Lunch for All Delegates
1:30 pm – 2:30 pm

B1 – Supporting Credit Transfer at Every Level: Guiding Principles and a Practical Framework for Building Better Credit Transfer and Pathway Articulation Agreements
Presenters: Mary Catharine Lennon, Researcher, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto and PEQAB;
Amanda Brijmohan, Graduate Student, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto;
Eric Lavigne, Graduate Student, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto;
Gavin Moodie, Adjunct Professor, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto;
Leesa Wheelahan, William G. Davis Chair in Community College Leadership, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

This session will present guiding principles and a practical framework for building better credit transfer and pathway articulation agreements at the system level, within an institution, and within a program. Based on a study that included desk research, data analysis, and consultation with experts, this presentation presents a ‘decision-making tool’ to support choices on the nature and type of educational pathways needed, and the types of policies and practices that support student access, transfer, transition, and success. Grounded in the theory that higher education qualifications support labour market entry or mobility, transition into higher education, and social mobility, it follows that pathways and transfer are a means to support individual and societal goals. This research developed principles and criteria that departments, institutions and government can use to make decisions about the types of pathways that should be developed, the fields of education that should be linked through pathways, and the institutions that should be involved.

The presentation will outline the proposed decision-making tool, which can be used to guide decisions about where to invest effort in credit transfer at the provincial, institutional, and departmental level. Session participants will come away with practical information on how to develop more effective credit transfer activities. 

B2 – Developing and Promoting Articulation: A Cost–Benefit Analysis at OCAD University
Presenters: Cary DiPietro, Educational Developer (Curriculum), OCAD University;
Stacey Young, Research Associate, OCAD University

Researchers at OCAD University will present findings of a completed case study that provides a framework for small, specialized institutions against which to assess the financial risks and benefits in developing and implementing articulation agreements. The study establishes the major costs associated with articulation, dividing them into three categories. The first represents costs associated with the four stages of negotiating an agreement. The second are "post-registration” costs incurred by the institution relating to articulation students' particular patterns of use of student services, and also take into account some of the internal cost structures relating to faculty-level costing and enrolment targets that will help smaller institutions identify priority areas and strategies for recruiting articulation students. The third category of costs is that relating to extending or discontinuing agreements. The study will also identify principles that institutions can implement to realize some efficiencies relating to articulation.

B3 – Framework for Transferability Between Engineering and Technology Programs
Presenters: Sima Zakani, Research Associate, Queen's University – Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science;
Brian Frank, Associate Professor, Director of Program Development and the DuPont Canada Chair in Engineering Education Research and Development, Queen's University – Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science;
Jake Kaupp, ‎Assessment and Quality Assurance Coordinator, EGAD Project Program Manager, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science, Queen's University;
Roderick D. Turner, Professor and Curriculum Coordinator, School of Information and Communications Technology, Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology

Inconsistent transfer policies, lack of articulated syllabi, and subsequent differences on the delivery of comparable courses are a few examples of the obstacles that Ontario students face. Some of these perceived differences can be alleviated by exploring course contents and learning outcomes. This project aims to develop a framework to support transfer between engineering and engineering technology programs in Ontario using explicit and implicit course outcomes to help develop and define new pathways.  Primarily focusing on expectations in common introductory courses (calculus, physics, and design), the framework is designed to compare courses by systematically analyzing:

 (i) content: course content and outcomes;
(ii) context: depth and complexity of exams, projects, and learning outcomes;
(iii) function: relationship of course content with other courses; and
(iv) structure: order and sequence of topics within the program.

The contextual analysis evaluates each course artefact in ten dimensions: cognitive process, type of knowledge, transfer, depth of knowledge, interdependence, novelty, scaffolding, autonomy, proximity to instruction, and required communication skills. The pilot study was conducted on sample calculus questions from Ontario universities (131 questions) and colleges (17 questions). The preliminary analysis shows that the majority of calculus questions in the colleges require the students to understand and apply their mathematical knowledge in their own specific engineering field, while university students are sometimes asked to apply the same mathematical toolbox in other engineering contexts and make cross-disciplinary connections. However, we expect the major differences to be found in the autonomy and novelty which is currently being studied and will be discussed in the presentation.

The presentation will describe the framework and principles behind it, the analysis of the outcomes and artefacts, and discuss patterns of implicit and explicit expectations in different courses.

B4 – On-line Course Transitioning Processes: Challenges and Rewards for College Graduates within a Bachelor of Technology Program
Presenters: Ishwar Singh, Adjunct Professor, McMaster-Mohawk Bachelor of Technology Partnership;
Mike Piczak, Chair, DCP Management Program, McMaster-Mohawk Bachelor of Technology Partnership;
Dan Centea, Acting Director, McMaster-Mohawk Bachelor of Technology Partnership

Bachelor of Technology Programs have proliferated over the past twenty years as a direct appeal to industry’s need for engineering graduates whose capabilities lie between Bachelor of Engineering and three-year college diplomas. Program delivery has followed traditional face-to-face approaches although, increasingly, programs are employing either hybrid/blended or fully online modalities, setting up challenges for students, instructors, and institutions in the pursuit of learning outcomes. Instructors must acquire new delivery skills, adapt content to suit the online environment, and learn to teach by replacing a black/whiteboard with a computer system. Concomitantly, learning responsibilities are shifted toward students as flipped classroom expectations come to the forefront to prepare for tutorial-like online sessions.

Additionally, many students report a discomfort with online delivery for a variety of reasons along with a preference for instructor/institutional contact. Administrators look to ensure learning outcomes are achieved, academic integrity is upheld, and budgets are defended. Taken together, these forces speak to the ushering in of a brave new world of higher learning where all stakeholders must relearn what it means to learn. The rewards in such an environment are plentiful for all parties when transitioning and teaching in an online environment are carefully managed. This paper sets out the challenges, frustrations, satisfactions, and rewards arising out of transitioning to full online teaching and learning as taken from the experience of reinventing a dozen courses within the Bachelor of Technology Programs at McMaster University.

B5 – Credit Where Credit Is Due: Understanding the Credit Transfer Experiences at Ontario Colleges
Presenters: Kyle Paul, Research and Planning Analyst, Durham College;
Debbie McKee Demczyk, Director of Research Services, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Durham College;
Rashmi Gupta, Manager of Institutional Research, Durham College

Students typically apply for credit transfer because they have changed programs and/or institutions and do not wish to repeat certain courses. However, the reasons why students do not apply for credit transfer are multiple; they include a lack of awareness, uncertainty of credit eligibility, an inability to obtain accurate information, and lengthy delays obtaining required documents. This project was conducted in collaboration with twenty-two of the publicly funded CAAT colleges in Ontario, with Durham College serving as the lead investigating college. This research study sought to explore and understand why some students do not apply for credit transfer and, for those who do, to understand their experience in applying for credit transfer. The research project used online surveys of relevant student populations, registrar (or designate) interviews, and on-site student focus groups conducted at each of the twenty–two participating colleges.

This presentation will summarize the expectations of the credit transfer experience from a student perspective, informational and process challenges, both from a student and administrative perspective, areas of improvement, and the best practices overall.

2:30 pm – 2:45 pm Foyer
Networking Refreshment Break
2:45 pm – 3:45 pm Grand Ballroom

3:45 pm – 4:00 pmMove to breakout session rooms
4:00 pm – 5:00 pm

C1 – Exploring the ARUCC PCCAT Transcript and Transfer Guide
Presenter: Joanne Duklas, Primary Investigator and Project Lead, ARUCC PCCAT National Transcript and Transfer Credit Project; Researcher and Consultant, Duklas Cornerstone Consulting

In this session, Joanne Duklas, the primary investigator and project lead for the new national ARUCC PCCAT Transcript and Transfer Guide, will provide a walk–through of the new online resource – guide.pccat.arucc.ca. The Guide is a first for Canada and provides resources, tools and best practice supports for postsecondary institutions and allied organizations that are seeking to enhance student mobility. Resulting from a multi–year research and consultation process, the Guide offers more than 500 transcript standards and transfer-related terms, definitions, search tools, links to scholarly research, and best practice guidelines, including research on how to create a competency-based credential. It also contains information on provincial and international jurisdictions to help postsecondary policy developers and practitioners with developing transfer- and transcript-related policies and protocols. Session participants are encouraged to bring to the session practical examples of policy and protocol initiatives they are currently dealing with related to developing inter-institutional programs, transfer credit, and institutional transcript development. These examples will serve as conduits to steward discussions in the session about the resources available in the Guide and how practitioners and policy developers can obtain answers to their many questions when benchmarking current approaches against best practice.

The national research project and the Guide were funded by two national associations (Association of Registrars of the Universities and Colleges of Canada, Pan-Canadian Consortium on Admissions and Transfer) and seven provincial associations (ONCAT, HEQCO, the Alberta Council on Admissions and Transfer, the British Columbia Council on Admissions and Transfer (BCCAT), Campus Manitoba, the New Brunswick Council on Articulations and Transfer (NBCAT), and the Saskatchewan Credit Transfer and Learner Pathways Committee).  Leadership for the project was provided by a joint ARUCC PCCAT Steering Committee co-chaired by Dr. Rob Fleming, BCCAT, with membership that represented institutions and associations from across the country, including Glenn Craney, ONCAT, and Phil Bélanger, NBCAT.

C2 – Measuring the Cost of Credit Transfer in Small Colleges
Presenters: Audrey Penner, VP Academic and Student Success, Northern College;
Tracie Howieson, Faculty, Northern College

Increasing access for learners is important to small colleges; however, understanding the cost implications of doing so is necessary to manage resources and sustainability. Small colleges face challenges in implementing credit transfer processes, as there are few if any personnel dedicated to this task. The concepts of credit transfer and block transfer are moving quickly to implementation within the Ontario system. Providing credit transfer support requires an investment of time and human resources. Costing models for this process need to be identified within the context of small colleges. This presentation addresses the research questions posed in this study:  What is the cost (both direct and indirect) of the student transfer process for small colleges? What are the results for learners who engage in this process?  What is the formula to determine return on investment specific to the transfer process in a small college? This research was completed in three phases over a 12 month period, and involved the participation of 8 small colleges in Ontario.

C3 – Ontario Colleges to Fanshawe and Seneca College’s Bachelor of Commerce Degrees Transfer Pathways Project
Presenters: Minette Klazinga, Pathways Consultant, Fanshawe College;
Mary Pierce, Chair, Lawrence Kinlin School of Business, Fanshawe College;
Karen  Murkar, Chair, School of Accounting and Financial Services, Seneca College;
Lynn Sveinbjornson, Project Consultant, Ontario College to Fanshawe and Seneca College “Bachelor of Commerce” Degrees Transfer Pathways Project

Building on ONCAT’s transfer agreements in Business, Fanshawe and Seneca College’s Bachelor of Commerce degrees provide pathways for Ontario college diploma students to ladder into college degrees. With an objective to create seamless diploma to college degree transfer between the 24 Ontario colleges and pathways from high affinity college diploma programs to 4 Bachelor of Commerce degrees at Seneca (Business Management, Financial Services Management, Human Resources Strategy and Technology, and International Accounting and Finance) and 4 Bachelor of Commerce degrees at Fanshawe (Management, Digital Marketing, Human Resources Management, and Accounting).

This session will outline the process that was undertaken to complete the extensive program mapping required to complete the transfer agreements and will discuss the many new opportunities this has created for all colleges in Ontario to offer pathways from diplomas to degrees to their business studies students.

C4 – Pathways Without Provincial Borders: the MOU between Queen’s University and Langara College
Presenters: Johanne Bénard, Associate Dean (Studies), Faculty of Arts and Science, Queen's University;
Sue Blake, Assistant Dean (Studies), Faculty of Arts and Science, Queen's University;
Lois Fleming, Director, Student Services Division, Queen's University;
Ian Humphreys, Vice President, Strategic Planning & Business Development, Langara College, British Columbia

Queen’s University (Kingston, Ontario) and Langara College (Vancouver, British Columbia) have recently signed a memorandum of understanding aimed at facilitating the transfer of Langara College students who have completed the two-year Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degrees into the third year of studies in the Faculty of Arts and Science at Queen’s. These students will complete a further two years of study and graduate with either a Bachelor of Arts, Computing or Science (Honours) degree. In the first part of the presentation we will look at the different steps we took to develop this pathway between an Ontario university and a British Columbia college. In the second part, we will consider the implementation of the project, that includes the development of a streamlined program-specific application and admission procedure, the creation of a comprehensive marketing and communication plan to introduce Langara students to Queen’s University, and the leveraging of the functionality of the PeopleSoft student information system to facilitate an efficient and transparent admission and transfer credit assessment process.

C5 – One Size Does Not Fit All: Deconstructing Pathway Complexities Through Student, Staff, and Faculty Perspectives
Presenters: Megan Cotnam-Kappel, Research and Analysis Officer, University of Ottawa;
Sylvie Lamoureux, Vice-Dean (interim), Graduate Studies, University of Ottawa;
Jean-Luc Daoust, Manager, Academic Support Unit, Student Academic Success Service, University of Ottawa;
Simone Davis, Learning Consultant, Student Academic Success Service, University of Ottawa

Since 2013, our research team has conducted studies exploring the variety of pathways and transfer processes with the goal of improving college transfer student experience. Our findings led us to adapt our approach to focus on processes as well as Faculty and program cultures to identify targeted changes that would impact all participants in the college transfer process. In the fall of 2015, our team undertook a study exploring the particular complexities regarding student transfer pathways within the University’s Faculty of Social Sciences. While pipelines between some programs are quite focused, numerous programs within this large Faculty welcome students from a wide variety of programs, some of which may appear unrelated, hence the need to look beyond a “one size fits all” transfer process.

This study focuses on the pathways of two particular departments: the first offers a narrow pipeline, while the second is broader. It is informed by the perspectives of students, administrative staff as well as Faculty to better understand the multifaceted nature of student transfer and transition experiences and institutional processes.  We will lead an interactive Share and Compare session in which we will first share our study’s findings, followed by a discussion where participants will be invited to build upon their transfer and articulation experiences and compare other best practices that could inform the next phases of transfer and articulation innovation in Ontario’s PSE institutions.

5:00 pm – 6:00 pm Foyer
Reception in the CATfé

Remarks from The Honourable Reza Moridi, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and Minister of Research and Innovation
Join your ONCAT colleagues in the CATfé lounge at this networking reception to end the first day of the Conference.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

7:15 am – 3:00 pm Bottom of the escalators
Registration Desk Open
7:45 am – 8:45 am Grand Ballroom
Breakfast for All Delegates

9:00 am – 9:55 am Grand Ballroom

Plenary III – Inter-provincial Transfer and Mobility: Learning from other Jurisdictions
Glenn Craney, Executive Director, ONCAT
Robin Fisher, Chair, ACAT
Rob Fleming, Executive Director and Co-Chair, BCCAT

This panel is comprised of leaders from the provincial organizations across Canada responsible for advancing student transfer and mobility. The panelists representing BCCAT (BC), ACAT (Alberta) and ONCAT (ON) will discuss the activities that will better integrate the jurisdictions’ efforts over the upcoming year, with a particular focus on collaborative programming and information for students/websites.

This session will advance conference participants’ awareness of the student mobility efforts happening across Canada and encourage conversation about what opportunities exist and what barriers remain.

9:55 am – 10:15 am Foyer
Networking Refreshment Break and move to breakout session rooms

10:15 am – 11:15 am

D1 – Specialized Transfer Program: Finance & Wealth Management, King’s University College at Western and Fanshawe College
Presenters: Mary Pierce, Chair, Lawrence Kinlin School of Business, Fanshawe College;
Minette Klazinga, Pathways Consultant, Lawrence Kinlin School of Business, Fanshawe College;
Tracy Cunningham, Associate Registrar, King’s University College

Using a bilateral approach, King's University College and Fanshawe College have created a unique pathway earning students a two-year diploma and a three-year degree in Finance within a 4 year period.  This high-affinity pathway fulfills academic and professional learning outcomes. Multi-certified graduates will be in high demand to work regionally in wealth management immediately following graduation. This session will discuss this exciting new partnership between a college and a university and lessons learned when a college and university collaborate to create an innovative pathway.

D2 – Path to Pathways: One University’s Market Research Insights
Presenters: John Macmillan, Director, Communications & Marketing, University of Ontario Institute of Technology;
Melissa Levy, Manager, Communications and Creative Services, University of Ontario Institute of Technology;
Holly Broome, Marketing Specialist, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

It can be a challenge to create a path to pathways – marketing pathways programs to prospective students. Anchored by some 11 years of experience with pathways, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT) has found that successful promotion depends on good market research. Learn about UOIT's experience in meeting the communications challenges of pathways programs, as well as how its 2016 pathways market research will influence the university's – and possibly other institutions' – future marketing efforts.

D3 – Developing a Multilateral Articulation Agreement for an Accredited Program: Lessons Learned
Presenters: Mary Harrison, Curriculum Consultant, Fanshawe College;
Tracy Gedies, Director, Centre for Academic Excellence, Fanshawe College;
Gabriela Kongkham-Fernandez, Pathways Coordinator, Fanshawe College;
Mary Wilson, Director, Centre for Academic Excellence, Niagara College

In this session, we will share insights and lessons learned from developing a set of multilateral pathways to an accredited professional program of study involving multiple college and university partners. We are members of a larger team working on an ONCAT-funded project titled the Technological Education Pathway Development (TEPD) project. TEPD aims to provide pathways that will allow teacher candidates in the Technological Education field who have a trades and/or college background and no degree to earn a Bachelor of Education degree following their completion of teacher training. Historically, these candidates have earned a Certificate or Diploma of Education while their degreed colleagues earn the B.Ed.

To navigate the multiple stakeholder interests and the curricular and procedural complexities inherent to our project, we created a dynamic pathways model which is presently in its sixteenth iteration. The pathways model reflects our team’s learning outcomes–based approach to pathway development and is supported by our curriculum mapping processes. The pathways model is a tool which allows us to sketch out and work through various pathways scenarios and to articulate the principles of credit transfer and recognition upon which our pathways are premised. It also depicts the critical components that the TEPD team must advocate for and negotiate with the receiving university partner and with the Ontario College of Teachers, the relevant accrediting body. The design of the pathways requires validation from the university and the accrediting body in order to be both operational and meaningful for students. As such, our team’s negotiations with the relevant stakeholders take on renewed significance because the primary goal of our project, rooted in our research-informed best practices, is to act in the best interests of the students whom the pathways would serve.

In this session, we will present our dynamic pathways model and discuss the particular challenge of negotiating elements of the pathways with multiple stakeholders, including a professional accrediting body, when each stakeholder’s agreement with our proposed terms might be contingent on the others’ validation. In describing our consultation and negotiation process we will focus on how that process has informed and strengthened the opportunities we strive to carve out for Ontario students.
D4 – Pathways to Higher Education:  An Alternative Approach to Prior Learning Assessment and Advanced Placement
Presenters: Sonia Dhaliwal, Program Administrator, British Columbia Institute of Technology;
Kevin Wainwright, Program Head, BBA Degree Program and BCIT SITE Centre, British Columbia Institute of Technology

Canadian employers invest an extensive amount of resources in training employees. Many of the skills and experiences accumulated by mature students are highly valued by employers.  Further, these skills are often embodied in academic programs, suggesting mature students would have a comparative advantage in such programs.   Based on the ideology, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” BCIT uses an alternative approach to assessing mature student training and experience to provide advanced placement pathways into postsecondary programs. By mapping learning outcomes rather than course equivalencies, those from non-traditional educational backgrounds are given advanced placement opportunities, therefore increasing the mobility of these students from the workplace back into postsecondary.

Attendees of this session will learn about the pathways BCIT provides several mature student groups including the Canadian Forces, BC Ambulance and BC Fire Services, and McDonald’s Canada.  They will gain an understanding to our non-traditional approach to prior learning and take away ideas and concepts to implement similar pathways in their institutes.  Finally, attendees will see the positive gains of this approach to students, institutes, industry, the economy, and society.

D5 – Partnering with Students to Understand Their Experiences in Joint College/University Collaborative Educational Programs: The “Dual Identity Project”
Presenters: Lindsay Bolan, Business Manager, McMaster-Mohawk Bachelor of Technology Partnership;
Nancy Matthew-Maich, Professor, McMaster-Mohawk BScN Program;
Janet Landeen, Associate Professor, School of Nursing, McMaster University

Little is known about the student experience in collaborative college/university programs, where students are enrolled in two institutions simultaneously. The purpose of this study was to identify issues unique to students in each of four collaborative college/university programs by exploring their perspectives (nursing in collaboration with 2 different colleges, medical radiation science, and bachelor of technology).  Using interpretive descriptive qualitative research, ten undergraduate student researchers (SR’s) partnered with and were mentored by faculty in all aspects of the study.  Sixty-eight students representing all programs participated in 10 focus groups facilitated by the SR’s. 

The study was enriched by pairing SR’s from different programs in conducting the focus groups. Results revealed that while all participants valued their respective academic programs, their day-to-day life experiences presented a different story.  Some students had perceptions of belonging, leading to thriving in a dual world.  Others had perceptions of ambiguous belonging, contributing to perceiving through a perpetual lens of being less.  Issues of how students are invited to engage in the university and college cultures, perceptions of power and control, and daily reminders of being different all contributed to positive or ambiguous student identities.  Results raise preliminary questions for universities and colleges and policy considerations regarding how to enhance the student experience. Having students as co-investigators enriched the study design and results, as well as the experience for the individuals SR’s.

Learning Objectives: 

1) To explore the collaborative student experience through an interdisciplinary lens.
2) To review lessons learned for students and faculty from involving students as co-investigators.

11:15 am – 11:30 am
Move to breakout session rooms
11:30 am – 12:30 pm

E1 – Entente d'arrimage entre des programmes de La Cité et du Collège Boréal avec l'Université Saint–Paul
Présentateurs : Joseph Aghaby, Consultant, La Cité;
Pauline Bélanger, Gestionnaire des programmes d’études et des projets stratégiques, Université Saint-Paul;
Jocelyne Bédard, Gestionnaire de projets, Collège Boréal

La présentation portera sur trois ententes 2 + 2, conclues en 2015, impliquant les trois programmes de La Cité et du Collège Boréal et trois programmes de l'Université Saint–Paul. Les programmes collégiaux sont les suivants : Adjoint juridique, Techniques de réadaptation et de justice pénale ET Techniques de travail social. Les trois programmes de l'Université Saint–Paul sont : Communications sociales, Relations humaines et spiritualité ET Études de conflits.  La présentation va porter sur les points suivants :

les démarches préliminaires entreprises 
la participation et l’implication des professeurs dans ce processus 
les facteurs qui favorisent la réussite d’un tel projet 
la promotion des ententes conclues
les retombées de ces ententes  

Les représentants des trois institutions qui ont piloté ces ententes seront présentes pour témoigner de leur expérience et des suites au projet.  Des témoignages d’étudiants ayant bénéficié de ces ententes seront présentées lors de cet atelier.

E2 – Transfer Credit Process and Policy at Canadore College
Presenters: Marianne Haist, Pathways Officer, Canadore College;
Jan  Lundquist, Coordinator of Language, Communication and General Education, Canadore College;
Jeannette  Miron, Registrar and Manager of Institutional Research, Canadore College

Canadore College serves over 5,000 students annually at its four campuses, three in the City of North Bay and one located in Parry Sound. Canadore provides access to over 65 full-time programs and has approximately 1,000 graduates per year. Over the last three years Canadore College has undertaken a thorough review of its credit transfer process in order to improve its service to students and facilitate student mobility.  This session will outline the challenges associated with implementing an effective credit transfer process at a smaller college. We will share our progress in developing credit transfer policies, procedures, and guidelines as well as highlight the following during our presentation:

Dissemination of information
Student feedback
Data and tracking
Challenges and successes 

Participants will gain a broader knowledge of the challenges facing smaller colleges and will gain insight into how, over the last three years, we have succeeded in developing a comprehensive credit transfer process. We will engage participants to share their experiences in order to potentially identify best practices.

E3 – Flexibility and Mobility in Health, Fitness, Sports, and Kinetics Educational Pathways
Presenters: Nadine Cervi, Associate Faculty, English & Pathways Research Consultant, Lambton College of Applied Arts and Technology;
Chris Perkins, Coordinator/Faculty - Sports and Recreation Management, Lambton College of Applied Arts and Technology;
Kathleen Geelen-Cervi, Manager, Online and Continuing Education and Centre for Educational Pathways, Lambton College of Applied Arts and Technology;
Karen Spiers, Manager, Centre for Flexible Learning, Seneca College

The development of flexible, innovative, and seamless pathways has been an important element for enhancing the student experience and reducing barriers for students looking to transfer between postsecondary institutions or within their own College.  In order to best support our students’ educational journeys, developing internal and external transfer opportunities for programs has been an on-going mission for Lambton College.  In this session, participants attending will learn about three different, yet interconnected pathway opportunities Lambton College is either developing or has developed for students, in collaboration with partnered institutions such as Seneca College and the University of Windsor. First, the presenters will share the flexibility and mobility of online courses within the Fitness and Health Promotion Diploma offered by Seneca and Lambton through OntarioLearn and eCampusOntario. Second, participants will learn about a new internal pathway being developed at Lambton College for the Fitness and Health Promotion Diploma, the Sports and Recreation Administration Diploma, and the Sports and Recreation Management Advanced Diploma.

Finally, the participants will also learn about the mobility of these programs through Lambton College and the University of Windsor’s partnership, which enables Lambton College’s graduates of the Sports and Recreation Advanced Diploma to go into the University of Windsor’s Faculty of Human Kinetics–Sport Management major. The following pathway has been in place since 1997 and is still one of the top pathway opportunities used by graduates at Lambton College.  We encourage participants to come out and learn about the opportunities, the successes, and the challenges associated with building internal and external pathways to help optimize the student transfer experience and their academic success.

E4 – Provincial Policy Frameworks and Patterns: A Comparison of Canada’s Transition Systems
Presenters: Christine Arnold, Postdoctoral Fellow, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto;
Jacquie Beaulieu, Doctoral Student, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto;
Jean-Claude Taylor-Cline, Master’s Student, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto;
Leesa Wheelahan, William G. Davis Chair in Community College Leadership, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

Our session will present emerging findings from a SSHRC-funded research project investigating provincial credit transfer policy frameworks and patterns for the purposes of comparing transition systems across Canada. More specifically, our research project examines the relatively enduring features of Canada’s institutional and structural arrangements and how they shape student transitions (Iannelli & Raffe, 2006).  Case studies were composed for each of Canada’s provinces via detailed document and website analyses reviewing policies, organizational missions and mandates, and chronological developments in educational pathways. The provinces were mapped across twelve historical, structural, and cultural dimensions. Historical dimensions analyzed include: historical events and timelines; historical influences and politics towards the development of articulation; historical figures, stakeholders and roles; and historical documents (reports, accords, reviews, and education acts).

Building on this foundation, current structural and cultural dimensions analyzed include: provincial articulation models/types of arrangements; national and international approaches to articulation; articulation materials and tools (transfer guides, portals, and planners); credentials and governing policies; and data collection and reporting mechanisms (types of data, requesting government/agency, and methods of collection).

These analyses will be used to compare variations in transition systems across provinces and assess national patterns. This research contributes to an emerging theoretical framework on the relation between qualifications and the labour market. It has implications for government and institutional policies and practices, for the design and structure of qualifications and educational pathways, for improving connections between qualifications and the labour market, and for building stronger links between education and its social partners.

E5 – Postsecondary Pathways: An Analysis of Toronto District School Board Student Census Results
Presenters: Karen Robson, Associate Professor, York University;
Robert Brown, Research Coordinator, Toronto District School Board;
Lisa Newton, Research Coordinator, Toronto District School Board

In this session, we give an overview of some key findings from various projects that involve analysis of the TDSB Student Census data. In the first presentation, we examine institution and type of postsecondary study. The choice of institution (e.g., University of Toronto, York, George Brown, Humber) is examined as well as Program Type (e.g., Humanities/Social Sciences/Arts, Sciences for universities, Arts, Science for colleges). Data linking TDSB students with the combined OUAC and OCAS data from 2008 through 2014 (seven application cycles) will be used.

The next presentation examines the relationship between grade 9 mathematics achievement and transition to postsecondary education from 2008 to 2013. The association between different math courses and later-life postsecondary education is also explored. In the final presentation, comparisons are made between the postsecondary transitions of high school students in Toronto, relative to those of similar age/race/socioeconomic characteristics in Chicago and London (UK).

E6 – Improving Postsecondary Mobility in Ontario: Student Priorities for Credit Transfer
Presenters: Ciara Byrne, Director of Advocacy, College Student Alliance;
Zachary Rose, Executive Director, Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance;
TBA, Canadian Federation of Students

Recognizing the trend towards increased student mobility provincially, and the barriers faced by Ontario’s students in navigating an inconsistent system with often unclear institutional credential recognition policies, both the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the College Student Alliance have made improving Ontario’s credit transfer system a cornerstone of their provincial advocacy efforts. This presentation will provide an overview of the College Student Alliance, Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario and will include the student perspective on credit transfer, how students are involved with the credit transfer system, and provide recommendations for next steps in achieving a robust and transparent credit transfer system for the students of Ontario.

12:30 pm
Buffet Lunch for All Delegates
1:05 pm – 1:45 pm
Remarks and Q&A with Sheldon Levy, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Training, Colleges & Universities
Closing Remarks from Glenn Craney, Executive Director, ONCAT

1:45 pm – 2:00 pm
Move to breakout session rooms
2:00 pm – 3:00 pm

F1 – Transfer Connect: Bridging Recruitment, Assessment, and Advising
Presenters: Andrew Wilson, Assistant Registrar, Transfer Credit & Graduate Assessment, York University;
Mary Dytyniak, Social/Print Media Assistant, York University;
Brian Callan, Admissions Assessor, York University

Beginning with the September 2013 entry, York augmented its service to Transfer Credit students by developing process changes that made it faster and easier for them to move from prospective to applicant to registrant. York grounded these changes in Ontario fast-track admissions, comprehensive website renewal, course database development, proactive student communications, streamlined transfer credit assessment, and a dedicated online admissions service.

This presentation will look at why and how we updated our process in a highly competitive and dynamic postsecondary student mobility landscape, and how it ultimately benefits our applicants and future students.

F2 – Towards a Better Understanding of Credit Transfer Costs and Benefits
Presenter: Ken Snowdon, President, Snowdon & Associates;
Jo-Anne Brady, Senior Associate, Snowdon & Associates

This presentation will summarize the findings of an ONCAT-sponsored research project that focused on the financial costs of Ontario’s credit transfer initiative from a student, government, and institutional perspective, and in the context of jurisdictions elsewhere in Canada and in the United States.  In doing so the presentation will provide a more comprehensive picture of ‘costs’ that may help inform policy makers about the financial aspects of policy options in the context of postsecondary education system planning.  The results challenge the conventional views of ‘cost savings’ attributed to credit transfer and provide some insight into the mechanics and dynamics of the college and university funding frameworks and their impacts on internal resource allocation decisions and institutional strategic decisions.

Looking to other jurisdictions it is clear that designing a ‘system’ to provide a more seamless pathway from community college to university is possible but there is little evidence that it is more cost efficient than the current ‘system’ in Ontario. In fact, one could argue that the evolution of credit transfer to date in Ontario is a success story – nudged along by government and dependent on local institutional circumstances regarding demand and capacity.

F3 – Game Education Matrix (GEM) Prototype Tool for Collection and Comparison of Learning Outcomes Data to Support Transfer
Presenters: Jean Bridge, Assistant Professor, Brock University;
Mary Wilson, Director, Centre for Academic Excellence, Niagara College

The Game Education Matrix (GEM) prototype that was recently created with ONCAT support provides a proof of concept web-based tool that demonstrates the viability of using learning outcomes rather than courses to compare programs and inform transfer pathways. The GEM's framework; methods for populating its database of learning outcomes; and mechanics for user input and queries have resulted in a functional tool that produces reliable data for interpretation for the development and validation of  transfer agreements. The GEM was created specifically to serve game and interactive media postsecondary education across Ontario for the purpose of collecting and structuring program learning outcomes and curriculum data; facilitating comparison of program competencies and competency levels; and generating data and recommendations for transfer pathways. This presentation will explore opportunities and challenges in the collection and use of learning outcomes data encountered in the GEM Prototype project by exploring:

1)  Alternative methods for framing, structuring, and populating viable and sustainable learning outcomes databases; and
2)  Methods for interpretation of learning outcomes data that may improve transfer.

F4 – The New Stew:  Online Access, University of Windsor Liberal Arts, and 27 College Diploma Pathways
Presenter: Tim Brunet, Pathways Coordinator and Liberal Arts and Professional Studies Program Coordinator, University of Windsor

Many College Transfer students are working professionals and need a program that is both flexible and amenable to their academic interests and careers. This new pathway is a neoclassic approach to education that enables learners to access the excellent opportunities of college while connecting the credentials and theoretical achievement of university. This approach to pathways fosters innovation, differentiation, and collaboration.  In this session you will learn how the University of Windsor created its first online degree completion program for working professionals. See more at uwindsor.ca/laps.

F5 – An Examination of How Transfer Pathways Are Used in Ontario Postsecondary Education
Presenters:  Amanda Brijmohan, Graduate Student, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto;
Eric Lavigne, Graduate Student, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto;
Mary Catharine Lennon, Researcher, postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board;
Leesa Wheelahan, William G. Davis Chair in Community College Leadership, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto;
Jinli Yang, Researcher, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

This session will present findings from a project investigating student use of current transfer pathways across Ontario postsecondary institutions. The project analyzed transfer pathway datasets made available through ONCAT, student transfer rates and patterns from the 2013 National Graduate Survey, and the 2013/2014 College Graduate Satisfaction Survey. Findings suggest most pathway agreements are between institutions that are not within commuting distance. A closer examination of the transfer pathways between the College and University sectors reveals that only 17% of universities facilitate transfer from colleges within commuting range.  Second, the findings show that most pathways are underused by transfer students, and for the students who do transfer, most are from institutions within commutable range. Third, the extent to which students stay within the same field of education when they undertake a second postsecondary education qualification varies, but overall, most students change their field of education.

The data highlights the need for more evidence-based transfer pathway policy development that takes into account student use, transfer trajectories, and geographic proximity. The findings from this project are informing the development of a ‘decision-making tool’ for Ontario postsecondary education institutions. The tool aims to support decisions on the nature and type of educational pathways that are needed, whether pathways should be in the same or different fields of education, how to determine priorities in developing pathways, and the types of policies and practices that will support student access, transfer, transition, and success.

3:00 pm
Conference concludes