Student Affairs Divisions Research Articles

The Role of the Assessment Coordinator in a Division of Student Affairs

AbstractThis chapter describes the emerging role of assessment coordinators in student affairs divisions. It highlights opportunities and challenges in that role along with key findings from assessment projects.

Table of Contents

Abstract Cover Story Start building ongoing communication with national fraternity officials Collaborate with national headquarters to help keep fraternity/soriority chapters in good standing Be prepared for alumni reactions Briefs Online food orders cut waiting time College juniors prep highschoolers Staff, students learn shooter response Yale bans kegs at university events Assessment Advice Provide staff members with assessment training Campus Safety Try community policing approach to reduce crime Off‐campus policing proves successful Substance Abuse Reduce misconduct, increase success with ‘OneLess’ Change alcohol culture Veterans Improve student‐veterans' success by meeting their needs Promote environment, policies to support student‐veterans Resources/Managing Your Office Develop staffers via self‐coaching Resources See interactive site on student‐vet programs Get some tips on boosting retention Free resource offers ‘green’ ideas You Be The Judge Did excessive force cause officer's death at game? Law & Campus MENTAL HEALTH University may be liable for student's suicide FRATERNITY/SORORITY LIFE Chapter must wait before suing over policy Understand recent OCR rulings involving athletic facilities Leaders & Innovators CAROL THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF OUTREACH & ALUMNI RELATIONS, DIVISION OF STUDENT AFFAIRS, THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA Gain support by reconnecting with student‐leader alumni Word of Advice Reach out to alumni

Assessment of university students' financial management skills and educational needs

The main aim of this study is to assess university students’ financial management skills and financial education needs. Data were collected among Malaysian public and private university students. Samples were selected using multi stage stratified sampling techniques. A total of 11 universities were randomly selected for the study and 350 questionnaires (300 for in campus and 50 for off-campus students) were distributed to students through the student affairs divisions of the respective universities. Perceived financial management skills were measured using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (no skill at all) to 5 (very skilful) on 11 management related items: daily expenses, debt, future needs, time, savings, use of education loan, social interaction, stress, decision making, problem solving and career planning. The scores for the financial management skills were computed and the results revealed significant differences in the mean score among ethnic groups, with Chinese students scoring the lowest compared to other ethnic groups; public university students were perceived to have higher financial management skills compared to private university students; however, there was no gender difference in the score. Concerning the financial education needs, students indicated that they needed training related to career planning.

Educator, Planner and Advocate: Higher Education for Adults in the New Millennium

Individuals, corporations, institutions of higher education, and societies need to be knowledgeable, efficient, and savvy to be competitive in today's world. Increases in technology have changed employment roles and it is predicted that many individuals will have educational and training needs throughout their lifespan (Puryear & McDaniels, 1990). The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that 90 percent of fastest growing jobs in United States will require beyond high school (United States Department of Labor, 2007). Twenty-four percent of United States population currently has a bachelor's degree or higher (U.S. Census, 2003). Adult learners make up 39% of undergraduate population in United States (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2002). Federal and state governments as well as institutions of higher are espousing need for increased bachelor degree attainment in United States. The United States Department of Education's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2007-2012 included following statement: the Department will work to transform adult programs to include transition services that enable graduates to prepare for, enter, and succeed in postsecondary education (p. 30). Increasing number of adult learners was also discussed at a meeting held June 10, 2008, titled Examining National Purposes of American Higher Education which was co-sponsored by University of Virginia and Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. According to Lederman (2008), by end of day there was a general consensus that state and public universities need to double number of people receiving a higher over next two decades and that most of that increase will be with individuals who are underprepared and/or nontraditional. At a time when need for a more highly educated work force has been recognized, financial support for initiatives with dual roles of increasing enrollment and persistence of specific sub-populations has not been forthcoming. In fact, public universities, which rely on state funding to help keep costs of higher down, have experienced a steady decline in state funding since 1980 (National Education Association [NEA], 2003). These decreases in state funding for public institutions are often responded to by increasing cost of tuition (NEA, 2003), thus limiting access to higher for many. Institutions are faced with trying to increase enrollment and rates of persistence while keeping costs of any special programming at a minimum. While businesses have always been responsive to changes in market conditions, these ideas are now impacting institutions of higher education. Stakeholders in higher are increasingly considering program assessment and effectiveness from a corporate culture perspective. Decisions are being made based on economics (Frostd & Taylor, 2001). Some visible results of this change to a more market driven orientation are increased numbers of distance courses, larger classrooms, using more temporary faculty, and outsourcing student services to low bidding private contractors (NEA, 2009). In this environment, student affairs divisions may be at a significant disadvantage due to being on expense side of accounting ledger without having a clearly defined impact on income side. Indirectly, student support and services retain students; however, since income is most often captured by numbers such as students in specific majors and average number of total credits, positive impact on budget based on work of student affairs personnel can be hard to quantify. The purpose of this article is to identify an issue that impacts individuals and institutions on a seemingly individual basis but collectively affects numerous program participants and their communities. Specifically, this article is about tension between need to provide student support service programming with need to advocate for funding needed to provide this type of programming. …

The Future of Campus Recreation: Time for a Different Administrative Home?

At the beginning of the 20th Century, collegiate campus recreation programs were moved from student controlled entities and placed under the supervision of academic or athletic departments (Milton, 2008a). As such programs grew and became more popular among the general student populations on America's college campuses, administrative oversight was eventually handed to divisions of student affairs, where some research reports as many as 70 percent are housed administratively today (Ross & Schurger, 2007). There has been a recent increase in the business-related culture within campus recreation departments that has served to promote a more business-like structure. As a result campus recreation departments may need to adjust from the student development point of view that many of them have today and toward a more business-like approach. Furthermore, this shift from a student affairs-based structure to a business-based structure as well as the individual factors that have transitioned campus recreation departments toward a more business-oriented approach suggests that campus recreation departments might be better housed under divisions of business affairs rather than student affairs. The purpose of this paper is to provide detailed arguments as to why campus recreation departments in the United States should be housed under divisions of business affairs rather than student affairs at institutions of higher education. Three distinct sections will be identified in the paper, including 1) a brief history and philosophy behind where campus recreation programs have been housed, 2) the trend from the 1960s and 1970s of collegiate recreation programs moving under divisions of student-affairs, and 3) the observed trends in administrative location for campus recreation departments.

Conditions Supporting a Culture of Assessment in Student Affairs Divisions at Small Colleges and Universities

This qualitative study explored the conditions that support assessment practice and the impact of the accreditation process on assessment practice in student affairs divisions at three small colleges and universities in the southeastern U.S. Findings indicate that the role of the senior student affairs officer directly impacts staff perceptions of and attitudes toward assessment. Specific characteristics of small colleges also influence how student affairs professionals conduct assessment on their campuses. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Getting started in student affairs development

AbstractThis chapter examines the challenges that are associated with initiating a fundraising effort in a student affairs division, particularly for administrators at large public universities.

Alternate budgetary sources during budget rescissions

AbstractThis chapter describes revenue‐generating and cost‐saving strategies that student affairs divisions may consider during periods of budget rescissions and categorizes them according to the decision‐making entities involved in each. The chapter also explains why particular examples are well suited to individual institutions.

Student Affairs Connection: Promoting the Library through Co-Curricular Activities

Librarians at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG) University Libraries developed the “Student Affairs Connection” program in order to market the Libraries to students in co-curricular settings and to collaborate more closely with the Student Affairs Division. The program also provides the opportunity to seek student input on Libraries’ services and resources and to communicate directly with them in a variety of ways. The program has multiple facets: a liaison program where librarians are assigned to specific student organizations and services such as Student Government and Residence Life, a Student Libraries Advisory Council (SLAC) representing diverse groups of students that meets with librarians several times a year, staffing a Libraries’ table and providing information and giveaways at information fairs, and sponsoring special events such as Game Night each semester.

Professional Integrity in Higher Education: A Study of Administrative Staff Ethics in Student Affairs

This study examined administrative staff perceptions of professional ethics in a student affairs division at one university. Indepth interviews were conducted with 12 staff members (six assistant/associate vice presidents and six directors) and analyzed using the constant comparative method. Participants described three dimensions of professional ethicality: regulatory, situated, and collective. Discussion focuses on the inadequacy of personal or professional values alone to guide complex ethical reasoning in higher education, as well as the need for creating and sustaining ethical environments in student affairs through ethical modeling and relational leadership.

An Exploration of High-quality Student Affairs Learning Outcomes Assessment Practices

This study was conducted because limited research has occurred in the area of co-curricular student learning outcomes assessment, which has resulted in confusion within the student affairs profession on how to develop and implement assessment plans. The purpose of this study was to examine high-quality assessment practices of student affairs divisions at three different research institutions in order to advance the value, usefulness, and understanding of learning outcomes assessment within the student affairs profession, so more student affairs divisions may begin assessing the co-curricular. Those student affairs divisions selected for this study represented assessment models with significant experience in successfully implementing assessments of student learning and development. These mature student affairs divisions who have substantial experience in successfully implementing their assessment plans were important to examine closely so that others can learn from their experiences.This study found that those student affairs divisions that participated in this study fostered a shared commitment to assessment. It became apparent that there are four levels of professional commitment to each student affairs division’s assessment initiative. Those four levels of professional commitment included: vice presidents, directors/coordinators of assessment, assessment committees, and unit-level professional staff.This research clearly indicates that successful assessment of student affairs learning outcomes requires the understanding that units are experts in their particular field; therefore, a decentralized model of assessment, facilitated by a coordinator or director, is most appropriate in student affairs. This study also explores the most commonly used assessment methods in student affairs, as well as student affairs efforts to collaborate in the assessment process. Moreover, this study investigates how student learning outcomes assessment results are used to enhance the student co-curricular experience. Finally, this study highlights the assessment successes and challenges identified by each of the three institutions that participated in this study.

An Exploration of High-quality Student Affairs Learning Outcomes Assessment Practices

This study was conducted because limited research has occurred in the area of co-curricular student learning outcomes assessment, which has resulted in confusion within the student affairs profession on how to develop and implement assessment plans. The purpose of this study was to examine high-quality assessment practices of student affairs divisions at three different research institutions in order to advance the value, usefulness, and understanding of learning outcomes assessment within the student affairs profession, so more student affairs divisions may begin assessing the co-curricular. Those student affairs divisions selected for this study represented assessment models with significant experience in successfully implementing assessments of student learning and development. These mature student affairs divisions who have substantial experience in successfully implementing their assessment plans were important to examine closely so that others can learn from their experiences.This study found that those student affairs divisions that participated in this study fostered a shared commitment to assessment. It became apparent that there are four levels of professional commitment to each student affairs division’s assessment initiative. Those four levels of professional commitment included: vice presidents, directors/coordinators of assessment, assessment committees, and unit-level professional staff.This research clearly indicates that successful assessment of student affairs learning outcomes requires the understanding that units are experts in their particular field; therefore, a decentralized model of assessment, facilitated by a coordinator or director, is most appropriate in student affairs. This study also explores the most commonly used assessment methods in student affairs, as well as student affairs efforts to collaborate in the assessment process. Moreover, this study investigates how student learning outcomes assessment results are used to enhance the student co-curricular experience. Finally, this study highlights the assessment successes and challenges identified by each of the three institutions that participated in this study.

Transforming Student Affairs Strategic Planning into Tangible Results

The Division of Student Affairs at the University of Michigan has engaged in an iterative strategic process to create and implement a set of long-range goals. This strategic journey continues to evolve, bringing together the guiding framework of strategic planning steps, a reflective process with an assessment component within each step, and a group process approach to support both individual growth and organizational change.

Transforming Student Affairs Strategic Planning into Tangible Results

The Division of Student Affairs at the University of Michigan has engaged in an iterative strategic process to create and implement a set of long-range goals. This strategic journey continues to evolve, bringing together the guiding framework of strategic planning steps, a reflective process with an assessment component within each step, and a group process approach to support both individual growth and organizational change.

One Size Does Not Fit All: Traditional and Innovative Models of Student Affairs Practice (review)

One Size Does Not Fit All: Traditional and Innovative Models of Student Affairs Practice, by Kathleen Manning, Jillian Kinzie. & John Schuh. New York: Routledge, 2006. 240 pp. ISBN 0415952581. One Size Does Not Fit All based on data from a national research project focused on investigating why some colleges did better than expected on their NSSE (National Survey of Student Engagement) scores. The project known as DEEP (Documenting Effective Educational Practices) considered the unique features found at 20 colleges and universities that helped them create effective educational environments. A more detailed explanation of the DEEP project and its findings found in the book Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2005). This second book based on DEEP data attempts to look at the organization of student affairs divisions and the models, or characteristics, that worked for the DEEP institutions. The purpose of the book is to delineate models for student affairs (p. viii). This goal accomplished by taking the reader from models to innovative models of student affairs practice. There are four parts to the book, and their order meant to create a case for making changes within student affairs organizations that are innovative and focus on student engagement. Part 1 provides an introduction to the historical foundations of student affairs practice, to student engagement, and to the relationship between engagement and the work of student affairs divisions. Part 2 describes three traditional models of student affairs divisions: out-of-classroom centered, administrative centered, and learning centered. The third part of the book focused on the two innovative models that were observed in the DEEP project: student-centered and the academic and collaboration models. The final part of the book attempts to weave the basket by tying together concepts and taking a closer look at collaboration between academic and student affairs as well as at the factors needed to make this collaboration work. Each of the models in One Size Does Not Fit All presented in the context of historical influences, theoretical underpinnings, strengths and weakness of the model, and examples of how these models are exhibited in practice. The strongest element of the book that it pulls together information from both historical and current research to create a cogent description for how student affairs divisions are organized. Other than a few chapters in student affairs handbooks (Ambler, 2000; Dungy, 2003), there are no books that provide this level of both historical and current research specifically focused on the organization of student affairs within higher education institutions. This book oriented toward practice and does a nice job of translating findings from the DEEP research project to practice applications in the field of student affairs. As part of this translation, the authors effectively emphasize two positions that challenge some commonly held beliefs. The first position that programming for students not the most important element of student affairs practice; instead, the authors posit that the central element of practice the way staff members work to integrate the academic mission into students' lives. …

Student affairs staffing in the small college

AbstractThis chapter provides an overview of the challenges to and strategies for successful staffing in a small college student affairs division.

Redesigning for Collaboration in Learning Initiatives: An Examination of Four Highly Collaborative Campuses

Organizations are realizing the need to redesign for work based both on external challenges and pressure and on the documented benefits of working in this manner. External challenges such as difficult financial times, changing demographics, globalization, and increasing complexity create an atmosphere in which organizations must rethink their work. In the business literature, the main strategy for addressing these many new challenges is collaborations or partnerships. For example, partnerships help to combine resources and help to identify new solutions to problems by combining expertise. Rosabeth Moss Kanter (1994) coined the term collaborative advantage to describe the way that private sector organizations engage in strategic alliances and partnerships that enhance institutional capacity to meet the demands of the new environment. In addition, Peter Senge's (1990) now famous learning organization is centered on collaboration (teamwork, cross-functional work) to increase effectiveness and to meet environmental challenges. In terms of external pressure, accreditors, foundations, business and industry, and government agencies such as the National Institutes for Health and National Science Foundation have been espousing the importance and value of collaboration for knowledge creation and research, student learning, and improved organizational functioning (Ramaley, 2001). These external groups are responding to research about the host of organizational benefits from collaboration--greater efficiency, effectiveness, and increased complexity of decision making (Haskins, Liedtka, & Rosenblum, 1998; Kanter, 1994; Senge, 1990; Whetten, 1981; Wood & Gray, 1991). Perhaps most important for higher education institutions, it has been suggested that collaboration can also enhance student learning (Knefelkamp, 1991; Love & Love, 1995). Several studies of particular collaborations--including interdisciplinary teaching (Conway-Turner, 1998; Smith & McCann, 2001), learning communities (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999; Smith & McCann, 2001), community service learning (Eyler & Giles, 1999), and academic and student affairs collaboration (Kezar, Hirsch, & Burack 2002)--demonstrate that they enhance student performance such as grade point average, persistence, and learning outcomes such as problem solving and interpersonal skills. Although evidence is just emerging about the impact of initiatives on student learning, the organizational benefits are well documented. Some higher education institutions are aware of the importance of building more partnerships to increase efficiency and effectiveness and to build capacity. In recent years, cross-disciplinary faculty have begun to form learning communities that bring faculty and students together to study an issue such as the environment, capitalizing on intellectual capacities throughout the institution for teaching. Other institutions have collaborated with external groups such as industry and business in an effort to increase teaching or research capabilities. For example, George Mason University has a partnership with several technology firms based on the school's proximity to the second-largest technology corridor in the country. By partnering with local businesses, some campuses have enlarged their teaching pool and internship potential as well as increased much-needed labs and materials for conducting research. In addition, academic and student affairs divisions have begun to work more closely together and, in some institutions, to combine resources. These are just a few examples of the growing number of efforts in higher education. However, in general, institutions are not structured to support approaches to learning, research, and organizational functioning. Such collaborations struggle, at times, to become institutionalized because higher education institutions work in departmental silos and within bureaucratic/hierarchical administrative structures. …

Differences between Participants and Non-Participants of Campus Recreation Offerings across Demographic Variables and Perceptions of the College Experience

While outcomes associated with involvement in extracurricular activities have been shown to be linked to persistence and overall satisfaction with college life, there is still a paucity of recent research (Barcelona & Ross, 2002) that has examined the differences between college students who participate in campus recreation offerings and those who do not. Therefore, the primary purpose of this paper was to examine the association between students who participate in campus recreation programs and services and those who do not across demographic characteristics, as well as their perceptions of the overall college experience. A self-administered questionnaire was administered randomly to 389 students of a southeastern university during spring 2001. The findings in this study revealed that students were quite similar across demographic characteristics and perceptions of the college experience regardless of their participation in campus recreation programs and services. Despite the differing response categories for many of the demographic characteristics examined, expected responses nearly matched actual responses for the majority of each characteristic analyzed. Regardless of the findings, the use of this type of information would likely be valuable to a campus recreation department, as well as provide information for a division of student affairs to assist in better understanding the relationship between student involvement in recreational activities and the overall college experience.

Student Learning Community of Practice: Making Meaning of the Student Learning Imperative and Principles of Good Practice in Student Affairs

This ethnomethodological case study analysis explored and described how The Student Learning Imperative (American College Personnel Association, 1994), Principles of Good Practice for Student Affairs (American College Personnel Association & National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, 1996), and Good Practice in Student Affairs (Blimling & Whitt, 1999) are understood and utilized as guides to design and implement practice in a student affairs division. The Senior Student Affairs Officer (SSAO) provided leadership and direction to shape and cultivate a student learning approach to practice. Staff members developed an organizational ethos that is aligned with several of the guiding principles. Patterns and processes of congruence and incongruence that emerged from the ethos were compared with the principles espoused by the guiding documents. Incongruence demonstrated that three communities of practices were at work in this division of student affairs that includes a learning, services, or consumer mission. A focus on learning was not the primary mission for each functional area. Most functional areas with either services or consumerism as their primary mission did develop a secondary learning mission.

Learning Partnerships: Theory and Models of Practice to Educate for Self-Authorship (review)

Preface Part One: A Theoretical Framework to Educate for Self-Authorship: 1. Self-Authorship as the Common Goal of 21st Century Education - Marcia B. Baxter Magolda 2. Learning Partnerships Model: A Framework for Promoting Self-Authorship--Marcia B. Baxter Magolda Part Two: Models of Educational Practice to Promote Self-Authorship: 3. Promoting Self-Authorship Through an Interdisciplinary Writing Curriculum--Carolyn Haynes 4. Creating a Context to Promote Diversity Education and Self-Authorship among Community College Students--Anne M. Hornak and Anna M. Ortiz 5. An Urban Leadership Internship Program: Implementing Learning Partnerships 'Unplugged' from Campus Structures--Katie Egart and Melissa P. Healy 6. A Learning Partnership: U. S. College Students and the Poor in El Salvador--Kevin Yonkers Talz 7. Community Standards Model: Developing Learning Partnerships in Campus Housing--Terry D. Piper and Jennifer A. Buckley 8. A Community of Scholars: Enacting the Learning Partnerships Model in Graduate Education--Judy L. Rogers, Peter M. Magolda, Marcia B. Baxter Magolda, and Kathleen Knight Abowitz Part Three: Implications of Implementing the Learning Partnerships Model: 9. The Learning Partnerships Model: Framing Faculty and Institutional Development-Terry M. Wildman 10. Organizing for Learning in a Division of Student Affairs--Rebecca Mills and Karen L. Strong Part Four: Designing Learning Partnerships: Creating Learning Partnerships in Higher Education: Modeling the Shape, Shaping the Model--Patricia M. King and Marcia B. Baxter Magolda.