strathcona Kops
Bill Kops, Professor, University of Manitoba CAUCE Conference, Vancouver BC, May 24-26, 2017 Supported by CAUCE Research Fund
Overview older adult education (OAE) at Canadian universities, specifically: • What does OAE look like today (key characteristics, structure, and organization)? • Who participates? • What and how programs taught? • What contributed to the growth and development of OAE? • What are key issues and problems in sustaining programs? • What does the future look like for older adult learning - signs/indications for new directions?
}
}
Portal CE units – CAUCE member universities plus not included U15 universities – also Google search to identify others - 50 identified universities Multi-stage data collection: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
Short survey – identify OAE programs Long survey (FluidSurveys) In-depth interviews – in-person or teleconference with designated representative(s) Website review Attended classes (as available)
}
34 responses from short survey (68%)
}
18 universities indicated offering OAE programs (36%)
}
Reporting on perspectives of designated representatives
Ø
Past 40-50 years a growth in educational programs for OA
Ø
U3As – most successful educational institution in later-life learning (Formosa, 2014)
Ø
France - started in early 1970s; Britain later (early 1980s); Australia early 1980s
Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
USA - mid-1970s but predominance of other like organizations – ILR, Elderhostel, OLLI Canada – U3As/UTAs at Francophone universities in Quebec and New Brunswick l’Universite de Sherbrooke in 1976 and l’Universite de Moncton in 1978 Canada - OAE at Anglophone universities developed differently – based in CE units Emergence of universities of the third age (U3A) and other forms of OA education to create “universal” higher education (Trow, 2010)
}
OA compromise an ever increasing proportion of population versus proportion of traditional university age declining
}
Evidence OA well-being benefits from cognitive and social activity
}
Change in retirement from a passive to creative life stage
}
Multiple role changes experienced by OA
}
Opportunity for universities to serve growing demographic – fits with espoused commitment to community-university engagement – fits outreach mandate of CE and more fully embraces idea of lifelong learning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Response
OA Growth
8 50.0%
3 18.8%
2 12.5%
3 18.8%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
16
Mandate CE
6 37.5%
8 50.0%
1 6.2%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1 6.2%
0 0.0%
16
Commit Uni
3 18.8%
4 25.0%
7 43.8%
2 12.5%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
16
0 0.0%
2 18.2%
1 9.1%
2 18.2%
2 18.2%
4 36.4%
0 0.0%
11
Donors
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1 12.5%
2 25.0%
4 50.0%
0 0.0%
1 12.5%
8
Serve alumni
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1 11.1%
2 22.2%
3 33.3%
2 22.2%
1 11.1%
9
Other
1 100%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1
Revenue
Response
Chart
Percentage
Response
Yes
94.1%
16
No
5.9%
1
Total Responses
17
1
2
3
4
5
Response
Financial
7 (43.8%)
4 (25.0%)
1 (6.2%)
4 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
16
Staffing
1 (7.7%)
5 (38.5%)
3 (23.1%)
2 (15.4%)
2 (15.4%)
13
Enrolment
6 (33.3%)
8 (44.4%)
3 (16.7%)
1 (5.6%)
0 (0.0%)
18
Competition
0 (0.0%)
1 (7.1%)
6 (42.9%)
2 (14.3%)
5 (35.7%)
14
Other
4 (66.7%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (16.7%)
1 (16.7%)
0 (0.0%)
6
Response
Chart
Percentage
Response
Available funding
52.9%
9
University strategic plans
52.9%
9
People
64.7%
11
Other factors
64.7%
11
Total Responses
17
}
Types of courses and programs
}
Length – short versus long term
}
Format – lecture versus workshop
Response
Percentage
Response
100.0%
18
b) Degree
0.0%
0
c) Certificates
5.6%
1
d) Diplomas
0.0%
0
e) Travel/study courses
5.6%
1
16.7%
3
a) Non-degree/personal
f) Other, please specify...
Chart
Total Responses
18
Response
Chart
Percentage
Response
a) Full term/semester
44.4%
8
b) Less than one day
50.0%
9
c) One day
44.4%
8
d) Two days
27.8%
5
e) Three days
33.3%
6
f) Four days
22.2%
4
g) Five days
22.2%
4
h) Other
61.1%
11
Total Responses
18
Response
Percentage
Response
100.0%
18
b) Seminars/workshops
77.8%
14
c) Group discussion
55.6%
10
d) Self-directed
11.1%
2
5.6%
1
22.2%
4
a) Classroom (lecture)
e) Online f) Other
Chart
Total Responses
18
}
More women than men – 70-80% women
}
Age – average age 69; range 50-90 (age defined programs)
}
Retirement – depending on program 70-100% retired; semi 10-25%; working 5-10%
}
Active learners – number courses per year: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
}
}
1 course – 6% 2 courses - 45% 3 courses - 17% 4 courses - 28% 4+ courses – 6%
Lack of diversity in participants described by visible minorities, socio-economic, education level Changing demographic – difference as increased participation of young-old versus old-old adults
1
2
3
4
Response
Learn for learning
15 (88.2%)
2 (11.8%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
17
Socialize
2 (11.1%)
13 (72.2%)
3 (16.7%)
0 (0.0%)
18
Achieve goal
1 (9.1%)
2 (18.2%)
7 (63.6%)
1 (9.1%)
11
0 (0.0%)
1 (50.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (50.0%)
2
Other
1
2
3
4
5
Response
Time
5 (38.5%)
1 (7.7%)
4 (30.8%)
1 (7.7%)
2 (15.4%)
13
Transportation
2 (16.7%)
4 (33.3%)
3 (25.0%)
2 (16.7%)
1 (8.3%)
12
Disability
2 (16.7%)
4 (33.3%)
4 (33.3%)
2 (16.7%)
0 (0.0%)
12
Money
3 (23.1%)
5 (38.5%)
1 (7.7%)
4 (30.8%)
0 (0.0%)
13
Other
3 (60.0%)
1 (20.0%)
1 (20.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
5
}
Who teaches:
◦ university faculty - 100% ◦ community experts - 95% ◦ OA volunteers – 39%
}
}
Instructors paid at most universities (78%) About 40% of universities provide some form of training for instructors
} }
} }
} }
Programs long-standing – over 40 years in some identified universities Offered through CE at 18 identified universities – either fully operational within CE (11 – 60%) or affiliated with community partner (7 – 40%) – hybrid of French-English U3A In about ½ identified universities, OAE also offered by units other than CE Partnerships on continuum – shared operational functions (high affiliation 3/7) to devolved functionally (low affiliation 4/7) Devolution of functions typically circumstantial versus strategic CE provides a varying range of operational functions, including classrooms, tech support, marketing, finance and registration, office space, administrative support
}
Regardless of extent of support, university brand is important
}
Just under half (44%) of identified universities had research centres on aging/gerontology
}
OAE is alive and well at many Canadian universities – either within or allied with CE, (or associated with a non-CE unit)
}
All universities indicated a positive future for OAE
}
OAE programs have changed over time – growing, re-organizing, disappearing
}
Overall, two changes are evident: ◦ greater independence from CE/universities (5/18) ◦ blended into community programs not defined by age (5/18)
}
Challenges for CE units re: OAE ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
diversity strategic commitment relevant programs workable organizational model
}
}
Expanding demographic of OA learners warrants attention OAE fits nicely into the idea of community-university engagement – over half of respondents indicted OAE fits with university strategic plans
}
Build learning communities – exposes fuller range of resources & opportunities
}
Framework to build university-wide mandate – e.g. Age-Friendly Campus (Network)
}
Role of CE increases in importance as units to extend university resources to the community – key is to strengthen the role
}
High demand for courses today – but . . .
}
OA demographic changing ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
}
increasing in number living longer changing retirement patterns – maintain/change careers continuing active community contribution healthier and better educated more adventurous/demanding more technology savvy latent academic interests
. . . suggests programs for OA different tomorrow
Overview older adult education (OAE) at Canadian universities, specifically: • What does OAE look like today (key characteristics, structure, and organization)? • Who participates? • What and how programs taught? • What contributed to the growth and development of OAE? • What are key issues and problems in sustaining programs? • What does the future look like for older adult learning - signs/indications for new directions?
}
}
Portal CE units – CAUCE member universities plus not included U15 universities – also Google search to identify others - 50 identified universities Multi-stage data collection: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
Short survey – identify OAE programs Long survey (FluidSurveys) In-depth interviews – in-person or teleconference with designated representative(s) Website review Attended classes (as available)
}
34 responses from short survey (68%)
}
18 universities indicated offering OAE programs (36%)
}
Reporting on perspectives of designated representatives
Ø
Past 40-50 years a growth in educational programs for OA
Ø
U3As – most successful educational institution in later-life learning (Formosa, 2014)
Ø
France - started in early 1970s; Britain later (early 1980s); Australia early 1980s
Ø
Ø
Ø Ø
USA - mid-1970s but predominance of other like organizations – ILR, Elderhostel, OLLI Canada – U3As/UTAs at Francophone universities in Quebec and New Brunswick l’Universite de Sherbrooke in 1976 and l’Universite de Moncton in 1978 Canada - OAE at Anglophone universities developed differently – based in CE units Emergence of universities of the third age (U3A) and other forms of OA education to create “universal” higher education (Trow, 2010)
}
OA compromise an ever increasing proportion of population versus proportion of traditional university age declining
}
Evidence OA well-being benefits from cognitive and social activity
}
Change in retirement from a passive to creative life stage
}
Multiple role changes experienced by OA
}
Opportunity for universities to serve growing demographic – fits with espoused commitment to community-university engagement – fits outreach mandate of CE and more fully embraces idea of lifelong learning
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Response
OA Growth
8 50.0%
3 18.8%
2 12.5%
3 18.8%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
16
Mandate CE
6 37.5%
8 50.0%
1 6.2%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1 6.2%
0 0.0%
16
Commit Uni
3 18.8%
4 25.0%
7 43.8%
2 12.5%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
16
0 0.0%
2 18.2%
1 9.1%
2 18.2%
2 18.2%
4 36.4%
0 0.0%
11
Donors
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1 12.5%
2 25.0%
4 50.0%
0 0.0%
1 12.5%
8
Serve alumni
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1 11.1%
2 22.2%
3 33.3%
2 22.2%
1 11.1%
9
Other
1 100%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
0 0.0%
1
Revenue
Response
Chart
Percentage
Response
Yes
94.1%
16
No
5.9%
1
Total Responses
17
1
2
3
4
5
Response
Financial
7 (43.8%)
4 (25.0%)
1 (6.2%)
4 (25.0%)
0 (0.0%)
16
Staffing
1 (7.7%)
5 (38.5%)
3 (23.1%)
2 (15.4%)
2 (15.4%)
13
Enrolment
6 (33.3%)
8 (44.4%)
3 (16.7%)
1 (5.6%)
0 (0.0%)
18
Competition
0 (0.0%)
1 (7.1%)
6 (42.9%)
2 (14.3%)
5 (35.7%)
14
Other
4 (66.7%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (16.7%)
1 (16.7%)
0 (0.0%)
6
Response
Chart
Percentage
Response
Available funding
52.9%
9
University strategic plans
52.9%
9
People
64.7%
11
Other factors
64.7%
11
Total Responses
17
}
Types of courses and programs
}
Length – short versus long term
}
Format – lecture versus workshop
Response
Percentage
Response
100.0%
18
b) Degree
0.0%
0
c) Certificates
5.6%
1
d) Diplomas
0.0%
0
e) Travel/study courses
5.6%
1
16.7%
3
a) Non-degree/personal
f) Other, please specify...
Chart
Total Responses
18
Response
Chart
Percentage
Response
a) Full term/semester
44.4%
8
b) Less than one day
50.0%
9
c) One day
44.4%
8
d) Two days
27.8%
5
e) Three days
33.3%
6
f) Four days
22.2%
4
g) Five days
22.2%
4
h) Other
61.1%
11
Total Responses
18
Response
Percentage
Response
100.0%
18
b) Seminars/workshops
77.8%
14
c) Group discussion
55.6%
10
d) Self-directed
11.1%
2
5.6%
1
22.2%
4
a) Classroom (lecture)
e) Online f) Other
Chart
Total Responses
18
}
More women than men – 70-80% women
}
Age – average age 69; range 50-90 (age defined programs)
}
Retirement – depending on program 70-100% retired; semi 10-25%; working 5-10%
}
Active learners – number courses per year: ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
}
}
1 course – 6% 2 courses - 45% 3 courses - 17% 4 courses - 28% 4+ courses – 6%
Lack of diversity in participants described by visible minorities, socio-economic, education level Changing demographic – difference as increased participation of young-old versus old-old adults
1
2
3
4
Response
Learn for learning
15 (88.2%)
2 (11.8%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
17
Socialize
2 (11.1%)
13 (72.2%)
3 (16.7%)
0 (0.0%)
18
Achieve goal
1 (9.1%)
2 (18.2%)
7 (63.6%)
1 (9.1%)
11
0 (0.0%)
1 (50.0%)
0 (0.0%)
1 (50.0%)
2
Other
1
2
3
4
5
Response
Time
5 (38.5%)
1 (7.7%)
4 (30.8%)
1 (7.7%)
2 (15.4%)
13
Transportation
2 (16.7%)
4 (33.3%)
3 (25.0%)
2 (16.7%)
1 (8.3%)
12
Disability
2 (16.7%)
4 (33.3%)
4 (33.3%)
2 (16.7%)
0 (0.0%)
12
Money
3 (23.1%)
5 (38.5%)
1 (7.7%)
4 (30.8%)
0 (0.0%)
13
Other
3 (60.0%)
1 (20.0%)
1 (20.0%)
0 (0.0%)
0 (0.0%)
5
}
Who teaches:
◦ university faculty - 100% ◦ community experts - 95% ◦ OA volunteers – 39%
}
}
Instructors paid at most universities (78%) About 40% of universities provide some form of training for instructors
} }
} }
} }
Programs long-standing – over 40 years in some identified universities Offered through CE at 18 identified universities – either fully operational within CE (11 – 60%) or affiliated with community partner (7 – 40%) – hybrid of French-English U3A In about ½ identified universities, OAE also offered by units other than CE Partnerships on continuum – shared operational functions (high affiliation 3/7) to devolved functionally (low affiliation 4/7) Devolution of functions typically circumstantial versus strategic CE provides a varying range of operational functions, including classrooms, tech support, marketing, finance and registration, office space, administrative support
}
Regardless of extent of support, university brand is important
}
Just under half (44%) of identified universities had research centres on aging/gerontology
}
OAE is alive and well at many Canadian universities – either within or allied with CE, (or associated with a non-CE unit)
}
All universities indicated a positive future for OAE
}
OAE programs have changed over time – growing, re-organizing, disappearing
}
Overall, two changes are evident: ◦ greater independence from CE/universities (5/18) ◦ blended into community programs not defined by age (5/18)
}
Challenges for CE units re: OAE ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
diversity strategic commitment relevant programs workable organizational model
}
}
Expanding demographic of OA learners warrants attention OAE fits nicely into the idea of community-university engagement – over half of respondents indicted OAE fits with university strategic plans
}
Build learning communities – exposes fuller range of resources & opportunities
}
Framework to build university-wide mandate – e.g. Age-Friendly Campus (Network)
}
Role of CE increases in importance as units to extend university resources to the community – key is to strengthen the role
}
High demand for courses today – but . . .
}
OA demographic changing ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦
}
increasing in number living longer changing retirement patterns – maintain/change careers continuing active community contribution healthier and better educated more adventurous/demanding more technology savvy latent academic interests
. . . suggests programs for OA different tomorrow
