CAS Standards Research Articles

The State of Higher Education Preparation Programs in the U.S.

While research reveals weaknesses in preparation-program curricula, there are challenges with these studies due to incomplete data from program directories. This descriptive study offers the results of an exhaustive search for programs in the United States and examines how each program’s required curriculum aligns with field standards. Findings include identification of 366 preparation programs at 274 institutions, with only 27% meeting all CAS standards and 18% addressing at least eight of the 10 professional competencies through the required curriculum.

Distance between Silos: Familiarity with CAS Standards among Law Student Affairs Professionals

The CAS Standards are commonly used in undergraduate-facing student affairs practice but rarely discussed in legal education. This study explores law student affairs professionals’ awareness and use of the CAS Standards, finding a significant divergence from the rest of the field and suggesting that (in the current era of increased scrutiny) law student affairs may be a functional area ripe for greater engagement with these strong assessment and benchmarking tools.

CAS standards for campus activities programs: A review of the contextual statement and standards

The purpose of this review is to highlight the differences in the new contextual statement and standards from past editions, as well as to discuss and provide examples of how CAS Standards can be utilized by Campus Activities Professionals.

Striving to Align with the CAS Standards: Graduate Preparatory Programs in Higher Education & Student Affairs

Aim/Purpose: This study examined Higher Education/Student Affairs (HE/SA) programs’ curriculum alignment with the CAS Standards. Background: HE/SA programs have a limited number of credit hours (27-65) and must structure their curriculum within the confines. The CAS Standards guides HE/SA programs and recommends this curriculum include a focus on six content areas. Methodology: A quantitative study that examined the curriculum of the HE/SA programs in the United States (n = 230) and their offering of exclusive courses aligning with the six content areas recommended by the CAS Standards. Contribution: This study is the first to broadly examine the curriculum of the collective HE/SA programs in the United States. It can serve as a catalyst to encourage further research and scholarly discussion around the curriculum of HE/SA programs and the professional preparation of higher education administrators. Findings: Key findings included that of the six content areas, History and Counseling were the areas least likely to be offered in HE/SA programs (48% and 41%, respectively) compared to 82% and above for the other four areas. Evidence suggests that program offerings of 36-39 credit hours may be the “sweet spot” in balancing credit hours with their ability to meet CAS Standards. Recommendations for Practitioners: There is a need for HE/SA faculty and practitioners to communicate where HE/SA programs fell short meeting the CAS Standards so that practitioners can continue in the professional development of these young practitioners. This “handoff” between faculty and practitioners will further strengthen the field of student affairs. Recommendation for Researchers: The findings of this study illuminate the important future research question as to whether there is a difference in the academic preparedness (perceived and/or actual) of graduates who attend programs that are more closely aligned with the CAS Standards? Impact on Society: Recognizing the importance that student affairs professionals have on student development (in-and-out of the classroom), this study challenges educators and practitioners to ensure they are adequately developing the next generation of college administrative leaders. Future Research: Examination of the curriculum alignment in the future once the CAS Standards for Graduate Preparatory Programs are revised

Designing Transitional Programs to Meet the Needs of Multi-Ethnic First-Year Students

Colleges and universities often rely on transitional programs to convey a sense of institutional expectations to new students. These programs, however, are often defined and created from a perspective of history and tradition, and do not necessarily reflect the increasingly diverse college student population. Using the "CAS Standards for New Student Orientation," a student orientation program was reviewed with special attention to multi-ethnic student perceptions of the goals outlined in the standards. Using two years of data collection, the findings suggest that multi-ethnic students are more satisfied with the orientation program than are Caucasian students as measured by the CAS Standards.

Female First-Year Students Preceptions of Orientation Programs

Female college students experience unique dimensions to their transition to college. Traditional orientation programming has begun to address the needs of female students, but these efforts have typically not provided the holistic attention deserving of this population. The current report was a case study of 605 female first-year college students, their perceptions of an orientation program based on the CAS Standards, and the differences between Multi-Ethnic and Caucasian females.

New Student Orientation in Online Education

This study utilized the standards put forth by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) to assess orientation in online education. Two surveys were used to examine the oldest and largest online degree programs, as well as all-online schools. Descriptive statistics were employed to compare online orientation practices to the CAS Standards. Results suggest that online orientation programs are meeting the standards in some areas and missing them in others. The demographics and needs of online students must be closely examined in order to define engagement in the online environment.

The Distance Between Silos: Familiarity and Use of CAS Standards Among Law Student Affairs Professionals

The Distance Between Silos: Familiarity and Use of CAS Standards Among Law Student Affairs Professionals

Using the CAS Professional Standards: Diverse Examples of Practice ed. by Needham Y. Gulley, Shannon R. Dean, Laura A. Dean

Reviewed by: Using the CAS Professional Standards: Diverse Examples of Practice ed. by Needham Y. Gulley, Shannon R. Dean, Laura A. Dean Heidi Levine Using the CAS Professional Standards: Diverse Examples of Practice Needham Y. Gulley, Shannon R. Dean, and Laura A. Dean (Editors) Washington, DC & Fort Collins, CO: NASPA – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, ACPA – college Student Educators International, and Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2017, 184pages, $39.95 (hardcover) More than thirty years following the publication of the first Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) standards in 1986, the editors of this volume provide a case study-based overview of how professionals can apply the standards in current practice. The editors intentionally invited authors able to reflect on practice at different institutional types and sizes and in different functional areas. In the thirty-plus years since the publication of the first CAS Standards, limited work has been published suggesting opportunities for related research (Creamer, 2003) and questioning to what extent and by whom the standards are used (Arminio, 2003). Arminio and Gochenauer (2009) provided a brief overview of the standards, their development, related research, and use in practice; but the most comprehensive review of the standards’ application was published only five years following the release of the first set of standards (Bryan, Winston, & Miller, 1991). This volume fills a niche in providing a thorough look at how the current CAS standards can be used to guide and improve professional practice. Chapter 1, by current CAS executive director, Marybeth Drechsler Sharp, offers an overview of CAS’s evolution and of the standards themselves. Drechsler Sharp presents the CAS general standards as a foundation for the area-specific standards, infusing a holistic approach to thinking about student affairs work and its affects on students, and promoting cross-functional perspectives and work. In her introduction to uses of the standards, she focuses on formal self-assessment and lays out facets of assessment that will be revisited in subsequent chapters. In chapter 2, Shannon Dean discusses using the overarching CAS general standards and learning domains to develop intended student learning outcomes. She anchors this work not only in relation to ever-increasing demands for accountability but in enhancing leaders’ ability to intentionally design programs to achieve specific student development goals. Dean also addresses the challenges and importance of engaging staff in this work, a recurring theme throughout the volume. Chapter 3, coauthored by Tim Pierson and Onie McKenzie, looks at multiple benefits of sustained use of the CAS standards from the perspective of a senior student affairs officer (SSAO). In addition to describing how the CAS model provides the basis for regular program assessment, Pierson and McKenzie discuss the value to and importance of the SSAO in fully embracing this work, as well as speaking to some of the particular challenges and benefits (e.g., prioritization) of doing program review at smaller institutions. Chapters 4 and 5 provide examples of division-wide uses of the CAS standards. Mary-Jeanne Raleigh and John Jones III review one regional institution’s use of the standards to help a student affairs division [End Page 137] shift from an accreditation-focused approach toward one that uses assessment of identified learning objectives to help drive strategic decision-making. Jennifer Wells addresses the process of instilling within a student affairs division a culture that embraces assessment. In both chapters, authors describe strategies to engage staff throughout the division and the connection to prioritizing student affairs work. Wells also provides concrete examples of the processes and mechanisms, including the development of working groups and utilization of the CAS self-assessment guides, used to undergird the creation of a comprehensive review process. In chapter 6, Adrian Rodriguez and Louann Schulze focus on assessment of academic advising in a multi-campus community college context. They discuss the usefulness of the CAS model for creating a framework to identify and assess student learning outcomes, particularly considering ways to align these processes in a functional area that is housed across multiple campuses. Their recommendations include considerations of team composition, examination of how the timing allotted to the full assessment cycle needs to reflect the...

The New Advisor Guidebook: Mastering the Art of Academic Advising (2nd ed.) ed. by Pat Folsom, Franklin Yoder, and Jennifer E. Joslin

Reviewed by: The New Advisor Guidebook: Mastering the Art of Academic Advising (2nd ed.) ed. by Pat Folsom, Franklin Yoder, and Jennifer E. Joslin Jennifer L. Bloom The New Advisor Guidebook: Mastering the Art of Academic Advising (2nd ed.) Pat Folsom, Franklin Yoder, and Jennifer E. Joslin (Editors) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2015, 355 pages, $55.00 (hardcover, e-book) Given that many higher education institutions provide little to no training for new (or experienced) academic advisors, it is clear that The New Advisor Guidebook (2nd ed.), edited by Pat Folsom, Franklin Yoder, and Jennifer E. Joslin, is an important addition to the academic advising literature. Although this is technically the second edition, it is a substantial upgrade to the first edition which first appeared in 2007 as a NACADA monograph that was edited by Folsom. This edition for new advisors is the first in a sequence of three books produced [End Page 478] through a partnership between NACADA and Jossey-Bass that seeks to meet the needs of beginning, intermediate (year 2 and beyond), and advanced (over 3 years) academic advisors. The Guidebook seeks to provide new faculty and professional advisors the information and skills they need to be effective in their jobs. The six parts of the book are undergirded by Habley’s (1995) three essential advising components: conceptual (part 2), informational (part 3), and relational (part 4). Each chapter includes basic terms, information, concepts, as well as strategies and case studies to bring the information shared to life. The first part of the book has one chapter. Folsom makes the case that academic advising involves much more than just registering for classes. She deftly sets up Habley’s (1995) conceptual, informational, and relational components as the framework for presenting NACADA’s advisor competencies list in “The New Advisor Development Chart.” This chart “identifies essential topics and proficiencies for effective advising – the knowledge and skills advisors need to demonstrate in effective practice” (p. 8). I strongly concur with Folsom’s statement that “At first glance, new advisors may find the scope of the chart overwhelming” (p. 9). As an advisor for over 25 years, I found the chart with three columns (Foundations, Year 1, and Year 3, and Beyond: Foundational Mastery) to be indeed overwhelming and a bit humbling. However, there is value in the chart if used appropriately to help guide the work of new advisors and the people charged with training them. It may have been less overwhelming for new advisors if the chart was broken down and the appropriate foundations were presented before or after the part or chapter that covered particular competencies. In this way, the chart might have served as a framework for the information presented in each chapter. It would also have been helpful to add in another column to the chart that maps to the location where the competency information is covered in the book, although the format of the chapters did not consistently align with the chart is some sections. The conceptual component is covered in part 2 of the book and features chapters on the history, mission, and role of advising, ethical issues, and theories pertinent to advising. Chapter 2, written by Patrick Cate and Marsha A. Miller, provides new advisors an appropriate understanding of the historical foundations of advising and its place within the broader context of higher education. However, I have long advocated that NACADA endorse an official definition of academic advising, although this was not the authors’ assignment or responsibility. Defining academic advising is certainly not an easy task, but in the absence of an agreed-upon definition, too many others inside and outside the academy mistakenly perceive that academic advising is equivalent to registering for classes. Providing a definition endorsed by NACADA would help give academic advisors the language to educate others about the important roles they play on college campuses beyond registering students for classes. Chapter 3, penned by Joanne K. Damminger, provides an important overview of the NACADA Core Values, CAS Standards, and Marc Lowenstein’s ethical guidelines, as well as a 10-step ethical decision-making framework. Kathleen (Kim) Roufs, in writing chapter 4, touches on a number of important foundational...

Validation of Subject Areas of CAS Professional Studies Standards for Master’s Level Student Affairs Professional Preparation Programs

The standards for Master’s Level Student Affairs Professional Preparation Programs, first published in 1986, were among the first standards published by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS; Ebbers & Kruempel, 1992). With the latest revision in 2012, the CAS standards for preparation of student affairs professionals at the master’s level are valuable in that they “provide criteria by which an academic program of professional preparation can judge its educational efforts” (CAS, 2012, p. 349), based on a consensus of experts in the profession. The standards outline three areas of the curriculum: (a) Foundational Studies, (b) Professional Studies, and (c) Supervised Practice. Each of these areas outlines specific subjects that should be covered throughout the curriculum of master’s programs. The understanding of the impact of the CAS standards on learning in master’s programs in student affairs is limited. There are only two published studies describing surveys of recent graduates of programs using instruments based on the curriculum standards outlined by CAS. Alumni of these programs report high levels of confidence in their learning in areas outlined as important by CAS (Cuyjet, Longwell-Grice, & Molina, 2009; Young & Janosik, 2007). The exceptions to this were graduates’ preparation in grant writing techniques (Cuyjet et al., 2009), Validation of Subject Areas of CAS Professional Studies Standards for Master’s Level Student Affairs Professional Preparation Programs

AAC&U's Integrative Liberal Learning and the CAS Standards: Advising for a 21st Century Liberal Education

The Association of American Colleges and Universities presented and promoted integrative liberal learning as a collaborative goal that all institutions of higher education must strive to achieve. The similarities between the goals of integrative liberal learning and the Standards for Academic Advising by the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education are discussed with emphasis placed on the critical role that academic advising plays in support of an integrative liberal learning education, and in turn, future success for all students.

From the Co-Editors

From the Co-Editors

An Overview of CAS Standards: The Role in Self‐Assessment and Evaluation

This chapter explores CAS as a tool for collecting assessment and evaluation data in community college student affairs offices. Details are provided about accessing the self‐assessment modules, as well as the resources available to assist colleges with data collection. Finally, the chapter will explore how to use the data to advocate for programming, and the implementation of findings to leverage resources for future work.

Using the CAS Standards in Assessment Projects

AbstractThis chapter provides an overview of the use of professional standards of practice in assessment and of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS). It outlines a model for conducting program self‐studies and discusses the importance of implementing change based on assessment results.

The Common Language of Leadership

AbstractAs our complex society continues to call for leadership across all career fields, preparing leaders at the college level can be challenging. This article outlines the results of a comprehensive examination of learning outcomes of 475 academic programs within 72 academic accrediting organizations in regard to student leadership development. The purpose of the current study was twofold: (a) to understand better what competencies college students need to develop in order to engage in leadership in their respective career fields and (b) to use research findings to develop a list of leadership competencies across academic disciplines, serving as a “common language” for use in program planning, course development, as well as individual student advising and mentoring. The Student Leadership Competencies have been translated to contemporary leadership models such as the Relational Leadership Model, the Social Change Model of Leadership Development, the Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership, Emotionally Intelligent Leadership, and the CAS Standards. Implications for the use of the Student Leadership Competencies in program development, program assessment, and the development of strategic partnerships are also discussed.

The Influence of the CAS Standards on Academic Advisors and Advising Programs

Research on the influence of the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) on academic advising is limited. Using a comparative case study method, I respond to this research gap by exploring how the standards influence practices of academic advising programs. Study results indicate that participating advisors knew little about the standards, practices were naturally aligned with the standards through the services provided, and the standards influenced programs when intentionally implemented. The findings of the study have implications for academic advisors, advising administrators, and CAS.

Using CAS Standards to Measure Learning Outcomes of Student Affairs Preparation Programs

A majority of recent graduates from master’s level student affairs preparation programs report having a clear understanding of 58 of 60 foundational learning outcomes derived from the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) guidelines. While there were only two significant differences between selfreported learning of graduates from CAS compliant and non-compliant programs on 60 items, data suggest that recent graduates from CAS compliant programs report greater confidence in their preparation in 48 of the 60 outcomes presented in the questionnaire.

Using CAS Standards to Measure Learning Outcomes of Student Affairs Preparation Programs

A majority of recent graduates from master’s level student affairs preparation programs report having a clear understanding of 58 of 60 foundational learning outcomes derived from the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS) guidelines. While there were only two significant differences between selfreported learning of graduates from CAS compliant and non-compliant programs on 60 items, data suggest that recent graduates from CAS compliant programs report greater confidence in their preparation in 48 of the 60 outcomes presented in the questionnaire.

Operationalizing CAS standards for program evaluation and planning

AbstractVarious approaches can be used to put standards into practice for program evaluation and planning within a division of student affairs.