From the Chair-Elect (Love)
ACPA 2001 Conference Information
Commission XII Sponsored & Co-Sponsored Programs at ACPA 2001 Boston Convention (Branch)
A Perspective about an Old Friend - CACREP 2001 (Barratt)
Post-Masters Certification Program (Neuberger)
Infusing Technology in the Student Affairs Preparation Curriculum: Issues for the Roundtable (Salter)
Patrick Love, New York University
Hello everyone! Welcome to another busy spring. As a member of Commission XII you should have already received information on our annual elections. I want to encourage you to participate in this process and help us select the colleagues who will join us on the Commission XII Directorate. The beauty of this process is that there is no possibility of swinging, pregnant, dimpled, or any other kind of chad.
As we head into the annual convention, I realize that I am coming to the end of my first year as chair of the Commission. The year has flown by and I want to recognize the work that has been done by commission members. We have established a new research grant program for faculty which have been added to the annual research and writing awards. Through these awards and grants, we seek to encourage scholarship in our field and to recognize and reward those faculty and student colleagues who are doing high quality work. We have continued our other programs as well, such as the syllabi clearinghouse (located at Kansas State University), our new faculty welcome program at the annual convention, our sponsored programs, roundtable discussions, swap shop at the convention, our newsletter, and our web site.
Coming to the end of this year as chair also reminds me of some of the unfinished work of the Commission. One of the projects of the past several years was the combined Graduate Program Directory and Quality Enhancement Task Force. The Directory portion of that project was completed last year, especially through the work of Mike Coomes (and many of his students) and Donna Talbot. We do recognize that there are still distribution issues to be worked out, so we recognize that our work is not quite finished. The Quality Enhancement Task Force, however, is at a crossroads. The major accomplishment of the past year was the compiling and synthesizing of feedback on the CAS Self-Assessment Guide provided by programs that wished to be included in the directory. That 50-page report was presented to CAS last summer. Since then, Phyllis Mable (CAS President) and I have been in conversation about what next steps should be taken with regard to the feedback provided. The Quality Enhancement Task Force came to recognize some basic philosophical differences between our work and CAS's historical focus. In the most simplistic terms, we saw CAS as focusing on inputs, while our desire was to attempt to address inputs, processes, and outcomes associated with high quality graduate preparation. The conversations Phyllis and I have had are addressing some of those issues and differences.
There are several questions before us as an entire commission about the Quality Enhancement Initiative. The first is do we have the interest, will, and energy to continue our work in this area? If we are to move ahead with this effort, we will need the interest and investment of individuals beyond those currently serving on the task force.
The second question is who will lead this effort? I have shared with the members of the task force that I do not have the time to invest in spearheading the next phase of this project, though I am still willing to do the work that is necessary and even share leadership with someone.
I have conceptualized what I perceived to be the immediate needs for this initiative. A group of people needs to come together (a reenergized task force) several times during the next couple of years to figure out how we translate the work that had been done on quality enhancement (e.g., by Jennifer Grant Hayworth and Cliff Conrad) into a model and process that can be assessed and that can be disseminated to professional preparation programs. To this end, I have been meeting with people at NYU whose job is to find money for such worthy causes. I have told them I am interested in support to bring a group of 8-10 faculty together twice per year for two years. To each of these meetings would also be invited one of the various experts in the area of quality enhancement (e.g., Peter Senge, Trudy Banta) to respond to what we would be creating and to assist us with our work. Basically, homework would be done between meetings, but the time together would provide for face-to-face communication, creation, and problem solving. Once that phase of our work has been completed, we would also need money to sponsor regional workshops or conferences in order to disseminate the results to program faculty. Such an effort would require the endorsement of, at a minimum, ACPA, but probably also CAS and other professional organizations.
This issue will be a primary topic on the agenda of the Commission XII meeting at ACPA. As I mentioned earlier, we are at a crossroads in this effort. We must either commit to moving forward with our work, or we must decide as a group that, for whatever reason, we cannot commit to continuing our work in this area. I invite any and all people interested in this topic to attend our meeting at ACPA. I also invite comments and suggestions prior to the meeting.
I look forward to our discussions, and I thank you for the opportunity to serve as the chair of Commission XII.
The commission meetings are on Sunday, March 4th from 8am - 6pm in the Marriot Brandeis room. Following past practices, the morning as our business meeting and the first part of the afternoon is the open meeting.
8 a.m. - 11:30: Business meeting1 p.m. - 3 p.m.: Open meeting
3 p.m. - 4 p.m.: Meet with Professional Issues Core Council about assessment project
4 p.m. - 5 p.m.: Meet with Professional Issues Core Council, Comm I, and Comm IX
On Sunday, March 4, we (chair prerogative to volunteer the entire commission!) and the Senior Scholars are jointly sponsoring a program to assist doctoral students and other professionals who are pursuing research. The purpose of this program is to promote a culture of scholarship in student affairs. The program is scheduled on Sunday from 3:30 - 5:00 p.m. (Keen observers will note that this is right in the middle of our commission meeting!) and will take place in the Westminster room in the Hilton. It was scheduled then as an auxiliary to avoid the costs associated with a pre-conference and to avoid placing it right in the middle of the conference.
Here's the structure:
Brief introduction and overview - introducing participants and facilitators, setting the tone for a culture of scholarship. There will be a 40 minute roundtable discussion session regarding the following: 1) getting started, identifying a researchable topic; 2) searching scholarship and generating research questions; 3) designing qualitative studies; 4) designing quantitative studies; and 5) turning a study into a publishable project. We need about 4 or 5 faculty interested in teaming with the senior scholars to help facilitate the round table discussions. If you like to assist in this venture, please contact Patrick Love,.
This year's Graduate Program Fair will be held on Monday March 5 from 6:00 pm - 8:00 pm in the Marriott Salon Foyer A-K. The Salon Foyer is directly outside of the ballroom that will be the site of the Convention Carnival. The Graduate Program Fair will be held concurrently with the Carnival. Hopefully these factors will increase the number of people who will be stopping by your tables. The plan is to make standard 8' tables available to each program, but we may have to share if demand is high.
The Curriculum Swap Shop Session is an opportunity for all faculty to share classroom materials. The ACPA Curriculum Swap Shops are scheduled for the following times: ACPA: March 5, 2001, Sheraton Commonwealth, 9:00 a.m.
Commission XII and Commission IX social will be held on Saturday, March 3, from 5-7 p.m. at The Pour House, which is located across from the conference hotels (check with a concierge for more precise directions). There will be hot and cold hors d'oerves and iced tea. There will also be a cash bar.
Submitted by Katie Branch, University of Rhode Island, Sponsored Program ChairA Process Model for Translating Theory to Practice in Master's Level Courses
Coordinating Presenter: Susan Croy Norton, Edinboro University of PennsylvaniaA Usable Past: History in the Student Affairs Graduate Curriculum
Coordinating Presenter: Susan R. Richardson, Penn State University
Additional Presenter: Stan Carpenter, Texas A&M UniversityStudent Development Theory Revisited: Where Are We Now?
Coordinating Presenter: Dea Forney, Western Illinois University
Additional Presenters: Marcia Baxter Magolda, Miami University; Marylu McEwen, University of Maryland-College Park; Terry Piper, University of Nevada-Las Vegas; and Teri Hall, Towson UniversityEnhancing Professional Practice: Lessons from the CAS SAGs Assessment Project
Coordinating Presenter: Michael D. Coomes, Bowling Green State University
Additional Presenters: Patrick Love, New York University, and Donna Talbot, Western Michigan UniversityInfusing Technology into Professional Preparation (link to related article)
Coordinating Presenter: Daniel W. Salter, Penn State UniversityLeading Organizational Change in Student Affairs Through Organization Development (OD)
(Co-Sponsored with Commission I: Administrative Leadership)
Coordinating Presenter: Kevin W. Bailey, Bowling Green State University
Additional Presenters: Kathy Cleveland Bull, The Ohio State University, and Cortney TenBrook, Bowling Green State UniversityTheory to Practice, or 'Will I Ever Actually Use This?'
(Co-Sponsored with the Standing Committee for Graduate Students & New Professionals)
Coordinating Presenter: Florence A. Hamrick, Iowa State University
Additional Presenters: Kathleen Clauson, Mercy College; Randall Ludeman, Bemidji State University; Vernon Wall, Iowa State University; and Penny J. Rosenthal, Iowa State UniversityDo I Need a Ph.D.? Self-Assessment to Address Complex Issues
(Co-Sponsored with the Standing Committee for Graduate Students & New Professionals)
Coordinating Presenter: Elizabeth J. Whitt, The University of Iowa
Additional Presenters: Debora Liddell, The University of Iowa, and Becky Elkins-Nesheim, The University of Iowa
Will Barratt, Indiana State University.
Our Fall 2000 Department retreat was dedicated to planning for CACREP Accreditation for three of our four Master's programs. In preparing for this event I was carefully reading through the CACREP 2001 Standards not expecting to find anything on student affairs except Standards for College Counseling. I was surprised to discover a new Student Affairs Standards section because I was under the impression that Student Affairs was being omitted from the final 2001 Standards.
The 2001 CACREP Standards contains eight core areas central to all programs: Professional Identity, Social and Cultural Diversity, Human Growth and Development, Career Development, Helping Relationships, Group Work, Assessment, and Research and Program Evaluation. Each of these eight areas contains a multi-part description listing specific knowledge and skills that students should have. These eight knowledge bases and skill sets must be listed in as learning objective in course syllabi. In addition, practical experiences reflecting the learning goals must correspond and be demonstrated in the course work. Covering this core may involve eight courses, or the material may be integrated in a department's existing course structure.
I carefully read over the new Standards for Student Affairs Programs and found some surprises. Essentially the 1994 Standards have been edited, and the 2001 Standards include nearly all of the material from the Student affairs: Professional Practice Emphasis and the Student Affairs: College Counseling Emphasis grouped under Student Affairs Programs. The 2001 Standards clinical practice requirements remain unchanged, with a 100 clock hour practicum and a 600 clock hour internship.
The 2001 Standards for Student Affairs Programs cover the same three areas as the 1994 Standards; Foundations of Student Affairs, Contextual Dimensions of Student Affairs, and Knowledge and Skill Requirements for Student Affairs Professionals. As minor enhancements, the multicultural area has become more explicit and inclusive, "career planning" has become "personal and social planning", and group work has been omitted, because it is covered in the core areas.
A language adjustment has changed the "preventive methods and procedures designed to deter harmful habits and to promote healthy living" into "knowledge of issues that may affect the development and functioning of college students (e.g., attention deficit . . .) and the methods and procedures for coping with and/or deterring them and promoting healthful living." I assume that this reflects contemporary mental health issues on campus, but reflects an emphasis on pathology rather than on development and learning.
The first major change in the 2001 Standards appears under the Contextual Dimensions area. The 1994 Standards state "theories of student development that include, intellectual, moral, ethical, ego, psychosocial, systems and career development". This has been replaced by the simple phrase "historical and contemporary theories and student affairs". It would appear that the concept of student development is now part of "historical and contemporary theories" along with other unspecified historical and contemporary theories. This phrasing reflects a dilution of our core of student development and learning.
The second major change implies a less proactive model of student affairs. The 1994 standard of "consultation skills related to organizational behavior and the promotion of organizational change" has been changed in the 2001 Standards to "consultation skills for working with faculty, professional staff, and student families in areas related to student development and welfare." I would infer that organizational development and change are no longer an area of interest as we consult with new populations.
The new CACREP evaluation strategy is more up-to-date than the older strategies, and is certainly superior to the current CAS strategies. Still, the evaluation strategy does not reflect contemporary practice in program evaluation, especially program enhancement evaluation that emphasizes measuring process rather than design and outcomes. The CACREP evaluation strategy relies on program documentation to demonstrate that specific elements are in place for the program and for each course. Additional evaluation relies on the program's ability to demonstrate that students have been successful in acquiring the knowledge base and skill set articulated in the course syllabi, so at least there is some concern with outcomes, rather than a fixation on program design.
CACREP 2001 is an improvement over CACREP 1994 in some ways, and a step away from our research, theory and practice foundations in other ways. It would have been nice if Commission XII and our Quality Enhancement Task Force had been invited to participate in the development of standards however.
Carmen Neuberger, American College Personnel Association
The Post Master Certification Program has been received by the ACPA Executive Committee and discussed by the chairs of Commission XII and the Professional Development Core Council. It is proposed that this pilot program at the University of Missouri, Columbia, be launched in Fall 2001. It would assist the profession by providing advanced, current , and specialized training for professionals in the field. Three 3-credit courses offered during convenient weekend periods would constitute the core requirement for the certificate to be issued by ACPA. Three professional themes, Residence Education, Enrollment Management, and Multicultural Education, have been suggested for this pilot program. ACPA, through its Core Council for Professional Development, currently provides certificates for people completing its proven and well-received Mid-Level Management Institute (MMI) or its four modules. Commission XII has been discussing "quality enhancements" for graduate preparation programs. It is hoped that the Professional Development Core Council, to complement its mid-level management training, and with Commission XII's full support, will recommend approval of this pilot program at the March 2001 Executive Council meeting. It is envisioned that this certification program would further enhance ACPA's professional development offerings with quality assured by the graduate preparation faculty and program that offers it, assist our members' upward mobility, and help retain a shrinking pool of mid-level professionals in student affairs.
The Post-Masters Certification Program will be comprised of three linked graduate courses organized around a professional theme (i.e. residence education; enrollment management; multi-cultural education, etc.) and taught to cohorts of students at convenient times that accommodate their work schedules.
Most student affairs educators consider the masters degree to be their terminal degree. The vast majority of these professionals has no doctoral degree aspirations and hence rarely completes any post-masters graduate work. Not surprisingly, most masters programs are comprised of courses that emphasize breadth versus depth. For example, young professionals who become residence hall directors rarely have courses on residence education as part of their masters degree program. These same individuals, however, have aspirations of advancing "up the ladder" in the housing/residence life field. A Post-Masters Certification Program that provides in-depth, graduate course work in a professional career area (i.e. residence education, enrollment management, etc.) will position student affairs educators for career advancement in their professional specialty area.
The Post-Masters Certification Program will include three linked graduate classes organized around a professional theme and taught to cohorts of students at convenient times that accommodate their work schedules. For example, professionals interested in gaining an in-depth understanding of residence education would take the following courses in their post-masters certification program: (1) Principles of Good Practice in Residence Education; (2) Assessment in Residence Education; and (3) Critical Issues in Student Affairs and Higher Education Affecting Residence Education. Similarly, for professionals interested in a more in-depth understanding of Enrollment Management, the three course sequence would include: (1) Principles and Practices of Enrollment Management; (2) Assessment in Enrollment Management; and, (3) Critical Issues in Higher Education Affecting Enrollment Management. To appeal to full-time student affairs professionals, the courses could be taught at convenient times that accommodate their work schedule. A three-credit course in "Principles of Good Practice in Residence Education," for example, could be taught from noon &endash; 8:00 p.m. on Friday and 9:00 a.m. until noon on Saturday, four times during the semester, thereby generating 44 contact hours. Equally important, all courses would be directly linked and aligned with the work experiences of the students. This alignment would foster synergy between knowing and doing. Upon successful completion of the third course in the sequence, students would receive a professional certificate jointly signed by the department chair of the sponsoring department and the executive director of the American College Personnel Association.
Substantial benefits would accrue to the four primary constituent groups: students, employers, the sponsoring graduate department; and, the ACPA. The students would receive an in-depth, professional immersion experience in graduate courses directly linked to their career aspirations. Since most institutions pay 75% of the cost of graduate education for their employees, there would be minimal costs associated for participation. Furthermore, sponsoring departments would be asked to cover the additional 25% thereby making the program a "no-cost" experience for participants. Students can also use the post-masters program as a venue for "testing the waters" with regard to their interest in a doctoral degree. Minimally, students would receive a certificate that highlights the knowledge base, skills and competencies acquired through the program. For those interested in pursuing a doctoral degree, they will have acquired nine graduate credits.
For employers, a number of benefits will accrue. First, and foremost, by participating in the program they will demonstrate a significant commitment to the professional education of their employees. The Post - Masters Certification Program will be a powerful incentive in the recruitment of talented young professionals. It will also increase opportunities for collaboration between the sponsoring department and the graduate program thereby linking, in a very intentional and synergistic fashion, theory and practice, knowing and doing. Ideally, student affairs directors will participate in an advisory committee that will design curriculum and core experiences for the post-masters program.
Sponsoring graduate departments will benefit by increasing enrollment in graduate courses and through developing stronger, collaborative relationships with their student affairs division. The post-masters' certification program will also serve as a vehicle for recruiting students for the departments doctoral programs. Increased enrollment gains will be achieved without the additional costs associated with assistantships and fellowship
The American College Personnel Association will benefit by co-sponsoring accredited, focused and highly relevant professional education through the post-masters certification program. Such participation will highlight the ACPA's commitment to professional education, strengthen linkages between the association and graduate preparation programs and enhance the organization membership base.
Carmen G. Neuberger, Ed.D., J.D. Executive Director, American College Personnel Association, One Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20036-1110, cgn@acpa.nche.edu, (202) 835-2272, (202) 296-3286 fax
Daniel Salter, The Pennsylvania State University
In our efforts to incorporate technology into the professional curriculum, we see a process that mirrors our undertaking to teach about diversity. An explosion of information and evolving research must be quickly incorporated into the fixed amount of time of a graduate-level training experience. Students arrive with a variety competencies and are taught by faculty who have a range of skills. For both areas, faculty are called upon to teach the facts, the theory, the skills, and the broader implications of topics that are under-researched, fluid, and often conflicting. Furthermore, the need to know a subject does not always suggest the most effective pedagogy for it.
One approach that has seemed to work well with multicultural education has been the use of an infusion model (in the case of technology, perhaps we should borrow the medical metaphor of a need for rapid infusion). This strategy of teaching a subject across the curriculum, as well as offering advanced coursework that focus specifically on the topic, would seem to be a viable response to the current press on preparation programs to respond to evolving technology. To do so, however, we would seem to need answer the following questions, which will serve as starting points for the roundtable discussion.
1. What do new professionals need to know about technology?
Individuals in both NASPA and ACPA are trying to identify the competencies for student affairs staff in regard to technology. In light of discussions that I have attended, it would be safe to say that the bar is being set higher, but its exact nature is still unclear. For example, while the ability to surf the web and find information is an identified requisite skill, there is less agreement about the ability to design a web site. Generally though, these emerging competencies seem to fall into three broad areas.Technology skill concerns the use of various forms of technology in the day-to-day practice of their jobs. For example, using a spreadsheet program and sending e-mail have become assumed skills of new professionals.Technology practice addresses the administrative practices related to student affairs. Student affairs staff need to be able to talk the talk of the people who make recommendations to us, and be prepared to ask the right questions when technology decisions are made. How do we teach new professionals to lead the process instead of being led by it?
Technology theory involves understanding the broader implications of technology, including its inherent advantages and limitations. Technology raises many issues to our accepted theories. Is the digital divide real and should we respond? What are the merits of online communities, multiple internet identities, etc. We really understand so little.
2. What skills do new graduate students need?
Admissions time is upon us. As we screen applicants, we try to look for such attributes such as people skills, leadership potential, and understanding of diversity. In light of the changing nature of our profession, we might be wise to gauge their technology abilities, as well.
3. What skills do faculty need?
Occasionally, in what may be a Dilbert-esque situation, the individuals who must manage technology are the ones who understand it the least. Certainly, a number of senior staff have been retooling over the past decade, sometimes by trial and error. In the Academy, more faculty are using technology (some more begrudgingly than others), even if they do not fully appreciate how it works or what it means to students and themselves. Further, can we have different expectations for our students than ourselves on this dimension?
4. How do we infuse technology into the curriculum?
Assuming that the profession identifies the competencies, which students are prepared to learn them, and that faculty have the skills to teach them, what then? How do we infuse technology into preparation programs? Of course there are no easy answers, and what works in one situation may not in another.... hence the upcoming C-12 roundtable devoted to this topic.
The Student Development Program at The University of Iowa is pleased to announce a new doctoral program in Student Affairs Administration and Research (SAAR). Educational foundations covered in the SAAR doctoral curriculum include: (1) college student learning and development, (2) student affairs administration, (3) integrative experiences, and (4) research tools. Participating faculty include: Elizabeth J. Whitt, Debora L. Liddell, Betsy Palmer, Sherry Watt, Ernest T. Pascarella, and Mary Louise Petersen.
Dr. Debora L. Liddell,
Associate Professor
Division of Counseling, Rehabilitation, and Student Development
The University of Iowa
N364 Lindquist Center
Iowa City IA 52242,
319-335-5188 voice
email: Deb-Liddell@uiowa.edu
Lemuel Watson <lemuelw@clemson.edu>, Clemson UniversityDaniel Salter <dws11@psu.edu> The Pennsylvania State University
Jan Arminio <jlarmi@ark.ship.edu> Shippensburg University
The American College Personnel Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, affectional/sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, procedures or practices. This nondiscrimination policy covers membership and access to association programs and activities including but not limited to national conventions, placement services, publications, educational services, and employment.