MCGANIHI TSAEU NIEV IHHLHH'HIZIIUI Mill! ”WWIIWWW 81 2756 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Diversity, Budget and Finance, and Technology: Importance Across Time and Institutional Type and Curricular Implications For College Student Personnel Preparation Programs presented by Gavin Walter ‘Henning has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA degree in Educational Admin. M. Ma d Date 73 $391 (‘113 0-7639 . MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ' PLACE IN RETURN BOX to TO AVOID FINES return on ‘ DATE DU LIBRARY Mlchlgan State Unlurslty remove or before date due. E DATE DUE DATE DUE this checkout from your record. 1:301»:ij _ ——— MSU IcAnAIfl "native Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ' 6W3!!!” 1 DIVE DIVERSITY, BUDGET AND FINANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY: IMPORTANCE ACROSS TIME AND INSTITUTIONAL TYPE AND CURRICULAR IMPLICATIONS FOR COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS BY Gavin Walter Henning A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department. of Educational Administration 1 993 issu. tem admi impo ImpOr thesis CUm'CI (III/erg tachnc “drag COUrSe I ””03 ABSTRACT Diversity, Budget and Finance, and Technology: Importance Across Time and Institutional Type and Curricular Implications for College Student Personnel Preparation Programs BY Gavin Walter Henning This study examined the importance and curricular implications of three issues which affect student affairs practice: diversity, budget and finance, and technology. Samples of students, recent graduates, faculty, and senior administrators were interviewed to obtain their perceptions about the importance of these issues. There was general consensus among participants about the increasing importance of these issues to student affairs practice, and hence support for the thesis that this content must form part of college student personnel preparation curriculum. The groups had conflicting opinions about the importance of diversity and budget and finance across institutional types, but agreed that technology would be most important at large institutions. The best approach for addressing diversity in the curriculum was "integration throughout required courses", and for budget and finance it was "required course". These two ' approaches shared the "best" recommendation for teaching technology. th su pa of ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thanks to Dr. Ann Austin, Dr. Patricia Enos, and Dr. Louis Hekhuis for their assistance with this thesis. Special thanks to Dr. Rodolfo Garcia for his support, time, and guidance. Thanks to all of the individuals who agreed to participate in this study. Their perceptions and opinions were enlightening. All of these people made this project an exceptionally educational experience. LIE TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES IV. INTRODUCTION Purposes of the Study REVIEW OF LITERATURE Diversity Budget and Finance Technology College Student Personnel Preparation Programs RESEARCH DESIGN Research Questions Method Participants Procedure Data Processing and Analysis RESULTS Importance of Diversity, Budget and Finance, and Technology Diversity Budget and Finance Technology Importance Between Different Types of Institutions Diversity Budget and Finance Technology Best Approach for Addressing These Issues in College Student Personnel Preparation Programs Diversity Budget and Finance Technology Mission of College Student Personnel Preparation Programs General Skills Specific Skills Types of Skills Used Adequacy of the Issues Being Addressed in the CUA Program Diversity Budget and Finance Technology Graduates' Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Deal With the Issues iv VI APPEI APPEI APPEI BlBLIo GENE; Table of Contents Senior Administrators' Perceptions Of New Professionals' Preparedness to Deal With the Issues 38 V. DISCUSSION 39 Importance of Diversity, Budget and Finance, and Technology in the Past and Future 39 Diversity 39 Budget and Finance 39 Technology 40 Importance of These Issues at Different Types of Institutions 40 Diversity 40 Budget and Finance ‘ 42 Technology 43 Best Approaches for Addressing These Issues in the Cuniculum 44 Diversity 45 Budget and Finance 45 Technology 45 Mission and Skills 46 Adequacy of the Issues Being Addressed in the CUA Program 46 Graduates' Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Deal With the Issues 47 Senior Administrators' Perceptions of New Professionals' Preparedness to Deal With the Issues 47 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 48 Implications for Further Research 52 APPENDIX A - CORRESPONDENCE 55 APPENDIX B - SURVEY QUESTIONS 60 APPENDIX C - TABLES 76 BIBLIOGRAPHY 90 GENERAL REFERENCES 93 1A. 1 B. 2A. 28. 3A. 3B. 4A. 4B. 4C. 40. 5A. 5B. 5C. . SD. 6A. 6B. 6C. GD. LIST OF TABLES The Importance of Diversity in the Past The Importance of Diversity in the Future The Importance Of Budget and Finance in the Past The Importance of Budget and Finance in the Future The Importance Of Technology in the Past The Importance of Technology in the Future The Importance of Diversity -at Large Research Institutions The Importance of Diversity at Mid-Size Institutions The Importance Of Diversity at Small Liberal Arts Colleges The Importance Of Diversity at Community Colleges The Importance of Budget and Finance at Large Research Institutions The Importance of Budget and Finance at Mid-Size Institutions The Importance Of Budget and Finance at Small Liberal Arts College The Importance Of Budget and Finance at Community Colleges The Importance Of Technology at Large Research Institutions The Importance of Technology at Mid-Size Institutions The Importance Of Technology at Small Liberal Arts Colleges The Importance of Technology at Community Colleges Best Approach for Addressing Diversity in the Curriculum vi 76 77 77 78 78 79 79 80 80 81 81 82 82 83 85 10A. 108. 11. 12A. 123. 120. 13A. 133. Best Approach for Addressing Budget and Finance in the Curriculum Best Approach for Addressing Technology in the Curriculum 'ghe Mission of Preparation Programs is to Teach General kills ghe Mission of Preparation Programs is to Teach Specific kills The Same Skills are Used at All Types Of Institutions, But Applied Differently Diversity Being Adequately Addressed in the CUA Program Budget and Finance Being Adequately Addressed in the CUA Program Technology Being Adequately Addressed in the CUA Program Graduates' Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Deal mm The Issues Senior Administrators' Perceptions of New Professionals' Preparedness to Deal with the Issues vii List of Tables 86 86 87 87 87 88 88 88 89 89 I. INTRODUCTION Higher education is an area that is ever-changing. It is affected by many factors, including composition of student populations and the changing needs Of these students, economic, political, and legal environments, and available technology. Student affairs professionals need to be aware Of the various institutional influences and contextual factors that impact administration. In order to create a vision for administration in the future, they must also know how important these factors have been to the practice Of student affairs in the past, and to what extent they will impact the field in the future. For students' needs to be met, which is the goal of student affairs, professionals in the field must be aware Of the changes that are occurring so the practice can be adapted to deal with the changes. Once these contextual factors have been identified, preparation programs should be evaluated to determine if and how these issues are being addressed and whether the emphasis placed upon them is adequate given the relative impact they will have on higher education and the practice of student affairs. In this way new professionals can be prepared to deal with the issues that affect the practice Of student affairs. PURPOSES OF THE STUDY One purpose of this study was to determine how important the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology have been and will be to higher education, particularly student affairs, and the relationship Of these issues to type Of institution. Another purpose was to determine if the College and University Administration (CUA) program at Michigan State University, was 1 2 adequately addressing these issues. Finally, this study examined the best curricular approach for addressing these issues. The text is organized into six chapters following the introduction. The review of the literature is in Chapter 2. The research design, including the research questions and the method constitutes Chapter 3. Chapter 4 describes the results. The discussion of these results comprises Chapter 5. Chapter 6 includes the summary and conclusions, implications for further research. All survey instruments and tabular information are included in the appendices. II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE In recent years there has been a plethora Of literature concerning the issues that are now, and will be in the future, directing higher education. These issues will also have a profound effect on how student affairs professionals deliver services and aid in the development of students. Margaret Barr and Lee Upcraft, in their book "New Futures in Student Affairs" (1990), have enumerated several of these issues. Among them are the growing diversity Of the student population, changing population demographics, changing student attitudes and values, the rise in accountability Of student affairs to both internal and external agencies, legal issues, technology, and staff diversity. These concerns have been echoed by other scholars (e.g. Deegan, 1982; Shaffer, 1984; Kuh and McAIeenan, 1986; Whyte, 1989; Hood and Arceneaux, 1990). All institutions Of higher education are, and will be, affected by these Issues, from small liberal arts colleges to community colleges to large research universities. The impact experienced may be different, however, within each category of college or university because missions, traditions, student compositions, and financial ' resources are different. All student affairs professionals must acquire the necessary skills and knowledge to deal with these current and future issues at any type of institution. For this study, three issues were focused upon because they seemed to be the most important and most interesting. The decision to study these three factors was the result Of a review Of the literature. Diversity of the college student population and fiscal constraints were the two areas that were cited most Often by scholars as contextual factors 3 4 that will greatly impact higher education and student affairs. Technology was also selected because it was referred to several times in the most recent literature as a future influence and it has the potential to alter the delivery of student services. In addition these areas seemed to be the ones that were addressed least appropriately in the CUA preparation program given the importance they received from scholars. DIVERSITY There is little argument that the changing diversity of the college student population is one Of the top concerns facing administrators in higher education. This may be even more important to student affairs since it is the responsibility Of the professionals in this field to design and develop programs and services which meet the needs of these students. Much research focusing on sub-population Characteristics, fertility rates, and immigration have contributed to the knowledge about diversity within the college student population (Barr and Upcraft, 1990). The birth rate for African- Americans and Hispanic-Americans is much higher than that for whites (Glenny, 1980, Hodgkinson, 1984). Whites tend to bear 1.7 children per female, while African-Americans produce 2.4 and Hispanic-Americans produce 2.9 (Kuh, 1990). Consequently, ethnic minorities will continue to comprise a larger ' proportion of the college student population. ”These students (ethnic minorities) will be more actively recruited to higher education. Institutions will be under pressure to respond to different learning styles, diverse social and emotional needs, and educational expectations of these new participants" (Garland, 1985, pp. 12-13). Immigration will also continue to diversify campus populations. Between 1970 and 1980, due to immigration, the Asian population in the United States 5 grew by 142 percent, the Hispanic population grew by 61 percent, and the persons of Mexican origin grew by 93 percent (Kuh, 1990). From 1984 to the year 2000, the number Of traditional-age students in the US. is expected to decrease by one quarter due to declining birth rates (Kuh, 1990). There are, and will continue to be, more ethnic minorities, returning females, handicappers, Older, and commuter students attending college (Deegan, 1982; Astin, 1984; Forbes, 1984; Shaffer, 1984, Garland, 1985; NASPA 1987; Sandeen, 1988; Creamer, 1989; Whyte, 1989; Barr and Upcraft, 1990; and Hood and Arcaneaux, 1990). In addition, more students entering college will be underprepared to handle the coursework (NASPA, 1987; Sandeen, 1988; Whyte, 1989; and Barr and Upcraft, 1990). There has been a decline in the ACT and SAT scores in recent years and more traditional-age students are in need Of remedial programs (Astin, 1984). There will also be more international students becoming a part Of American higher education (Barr and Upcraft, 1990). The diversification of college student populations will greatly impact the practice Of student affairs. It affects who is served and how they are served. Kuh (1990) states that this diversity raises four important questions that must be answered; what do these students need to learn, where and how do they live, what are their academic and career goals, and finally, how can they best ' attain these. Student affairs professionals must find the answers to these questions so programs can be developed and adapted to meet the needs of a diverse student population. Assessment will be an essential tool to determine if these needs are met and to discover additional needs. Student development theories must be reexamined. Most of the theories in use today are based on samples that were very homogeneous, usually consisting of white males. New theories recognize that development is different for many groups, such as 6 women, ethnic minorities, gay and lesbian individuals, etc. Researchers remark that diversity will greatly impact higher education and student affairs, but will it be more important in the future than it has been in the past? Will the impact Of this diversity depend on institutional type? What is the best way to address this diversity in college student preparation curriculum so new professionals are prepared to deal with it as they enter the field? BUDGET AND FINANCE Another influential issue is budget and finance because it affects how staff members deliver the much needed services. Federal and state resources for higher education are decreasing as a result Of cuts in funding at all political levels (Deegan, 1981; Deegan and O'Banion, 1989; Creamer, 1989). Higher education will have to be financed by private support or by students taking on more of the financial burden because the public is unable support it to the extent it has in the past (Barr and Upcraft, 1990; Forbes, 1984). Student affairs professionals, therefore, will need effective budgeting skills in order to become competent managers Of the available funds (Forbes, 1984; Shaffer, 1984; Garland, 1985). Deegan (1981) states that with the loss of budget flexibility and the increase of budget controls imposed by state and federal government, student affairs professionals need greater budgeting Skills and more training in 1 budget techniques, procedures, and politics. Student affairs professionals will also need to look outside the institution for other sources Of money (Garland, 1985). Grants for services will be extremely important in order to provide quality services to students. Many Of the issues influencing our field are interrelated with budget and finance problems. Technology can greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness Of student affairs work. Technological innovation cannot, 7 however, be accomplished without money. Student affairs units may not be able to hire needed staff to provide services because funds are not available. Also, programs that need to be initiated to provide support for the diverse student population may be hindered by fiscal constraints. Finally, the quality of programs can be influenced by the unavailability of funds. The question that needs to be asked by each student affairs unit is, "which programs should get priority?" Assessment and evaluation is central to this question. lnforrnation generated using these skills serves to defend, support and improve programs and services. This information can also be used to determine which programs and services get priority in an environment with shrinking resources. Scholars suggest that budget and finance will impact student affairs and higher education; but will it be more important in the future than it has in the past? WIII its impact depend on institutional type? What is the best way to approach budget and finance in college student personnel preparation curriculum? TECHNOLOGY Technology is another factor that will greatly influence how student affairs professionals deliver services. Appropriate application of technology is essential for good management (Mills, 1990). Student affairs professionals do ' not need to be technological experts, but they do need a working knowledge of how creative applications can better assist students. Communication is one area in which technology has greatly improved the practice of student affairs tasks and will continue to do so in the future (Forbes, 1984 and Mills, 1990). The advent of electronic mail and the facsimile machine has improved both the Speed and efficiency in which people can communicate with others. Electronic mail and electronic bulletin boards are utilized to 8 maintain communication with faculty, staff, and students, as well as with administrators around the state, country and the world. For example, the Division of Student Affairs and Services at Michigan State University is using an electronic bulletin board which can be utilized by students, faculty and staff tO publicize multicultural events on and Off-campus. AS can also be seen at Michigan State University, technology has improved some basic services such as registration. Students can now register via telephone, and drop and add classes using computers that are available on campus or on their own personal computers if they have a modem that allows then access to the mainframe computer. This saves money because fewer staff are needed for the registration process. Though Michigan State may still lag behind in these types Of services, it is evident that updated technology is not a luxury, but a necessity. Once the investment is made, which includes training staff, maintenance and replacement costs, it is possible to save money. Fewer staff and less staff time is needed fOr basic administrative tasks. Energy and time can then be reallocated to other more important responsibilities. This is especially true in the labor intensive area of student affairs (Garland, 1985). Technology can be utilized to learn more about students (Garland, 1985). This is essential considering the diversity of students attending college. ' Technology facilitates the storage Of and access to information. It will be possible to assess their needs and incorporate the programs and services to meet those needs more quickly and easily. The understanding of new and current technology will undoubtedly benefit the college student population. Many current assessments such as interest inventories can be executed on computers, allowing students to access these inventories themselves. Students do not have to wait for an available 9 person to administer the test. It can be safely assumed that more of these assessments will be available In the future. Students will also be able to access data more easily. Using interactive software, students can determine their graduation requirements and plan their curriculum. Such a practice is extremely helpful for students who may not be able to regularly consult an academic advisor. Part-time, commuter and adult students would especially benefit from this because they tend to be on campus after regular business hours. The understanding of technology will be important to student affairs professionals because it affects many aspects Of the work. Decisions have to be made as to what equipment and programs should be utilized. Consequently the needs of the institution and student affairs unit will need require evaluation. The office environment will change as a result Of the introduction Of technology (Mills, 1990). Staff will need to be trained to use the technology. The access to information will be enhanced. Data will be used more efficiently. Communication will be more effective and efficient. There is one danger with the use Of technology. It makes student affairs work more effective and efficient, but it can also distance people. Student affairs administrators may become hi-tech, low-touch because they depend on technology too Often (Barr and Upcraft, 1990). A balance must be maintained. Researchers report that technology will impact higher education and student affairs; but will it be more important in the future than it has in the past? WIll its impact be different depending on the institutional type? What is the best way to address technology in college student personnel preparation program curriculum? Of the three issues selected for this study - diversity of the student population, budget and finance, and technology - it is the opinion of this 10 researcher that the first two will have the greatest impact on higher education and student affairs, with some institutions experiencing more problems than others. Homogeneous small liberal arts colleges may be affected more by diversity than other types of institutions. In general, community colleges may be the least affected since they traditionally have served ethnic minorities, part- time, commuter, and adult students. The newer challenge may be responding to Iesbian-bi-gay and handicapper students. The extent to which these types Of institutions are affected by diversity will be influenced by their mission and locality. Budget and finance skills are, and will continue to be, important in higher education. Student affairs staff need to be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of programs and gain support for them so funds can be secured to provide them. They will also have to design new and creative ways Of delivering services that require minimal funds. Outside resources will need to be identified and utilized to supplement those distributed by the institution. Technology may not have the same impact as diversity and budgeting, but its influence cannot be overlooked. It definitely will change how student affairs practice is accomplished. Consequently, the opportunities that it can create for student affairs practice need to be understood. Funding priorities will be influenced because of these opportunities. Careful planning and ' implementation of appropriate technology can save money in the long run. COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS There is minimal literature that guides the curriculum for college student personnel preparation programs. The CAS Standards and Guidelines for Student Serviceleevelopment Programs (1986) includes a statement about the mission and Objectives of college student personnel preparation programs 1 1 which is "to prepare students for the field through graduate and in-service education, and research and consultation efforts." The Standards and Guidelines also suggest areas Of coursework that should be included for programs with an administrative emphasis (which is the orientation Of the CUA program). These areas include: administration, performance appraisal and supervision, administrative uses of computers, organizational behavior and development, human development, theory and practice, student affairs functions in higher education, research and evaluation, and other specialized coursework. The "administrative uses of computers" is a narrow definition Of technology. The issues Of diversity and budgeting are not specifically addressed in this document. Ostroth (1981), Domeier (1977), Newton and Richardson (1976), and Hyman (1988), take a competency perspective of what should be included in training for student affairs professionals. They believe that a graduate should have certain competencies and skills upon entering the field. Only Domeier includes budget and finance as a competency area. The other researchers did not include diversity, technology, or budget and finance as specific competency areas for student affairs graduates to know before entering the field. None Of the issues are explicitly addressed within a competency area. Shaffer (1984) suggests that computer skills will be important for student affairs professionals. ' Sandeen (1982) believes more information about budget and finance is needed in college student personnel preparation curricula. "AS with many other skills, student personnel preparation programs really devote much effort to the development Of resource management skills at the master‘s degree level, yet student affairs administrators at all levels are increasingly asked to become familiar with the budgetary process." (Garland, 1985, p. 77). Scholars suggest that the contextual factors of diversity, budget and finance, and technology will impact higher education and student affairs 12 practice. These areas are not being addressed specifically in the curriculum of college student personnel preparation programs, if they are at all. How important will these issues be in the future for higher education and student affairs? Since there are different types of institutions, will the importance depend on the institutional type? What is the best way to address these issues in college student personnel preparation programs? III. RESEARCH DESIGN Scholars state that the issues Of diversity, budget and finance, and technology will be more important to higher education and student affairs in the future, but these have also been influences in the past. Since there are different types of institutions, it would seem logical that there could be differential impact due to institutional setting. Nothing could be found in the literature that addressed this point. Because preparation programs in college student personnel prepare new professionals for the field of student affairs, these programs should address issues that are important to its practice. Although scholars believe these issues is important, there was nothing in the literature that indicates whether these issues will be; more important in the future than they have been in the past, nor whether they are appropriately being addressed in the cuniculum. Personal and telephone interviews were administered in the spring Of 1993 to answer the research questions outlined below. ' RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1. DO students, faculty, and recent graduates of the CUA program at Michigan State University, and senior student affairs administrators agree with scholars that the issues Of diversity, budget and finance, and technology are important to higher education and student affairs, and do they project that the issues will be more important in the future than they have been in the past? 13 14 2. Does the importance of these issues depend on institutional setting? 3. How should these issues be addressed in the curriculum of college student personnel preparation programs, specifically at Michigan State University? 4. How adequately is the College and University Administration program at Michigan State University addressing these issues? 5. DO recent graduates of this program believe they were adequately prepared to deal with these issues? 6. DO senior administrators believe that new professionals, in general, are prepared adequately to deal with these issues? Michigan State University's College and University Administration (CUA) program was used as a case study of college student personnel preparation program to address these research questions. The CUA program is a Master of Arts program that offers a student affairs emphaSis which consists of forty semester credit hours. It has an administrative orientation. The majority of students admitted to the program take coursework on a full-time basis. In an attempt to answer the first research question, all participants were asked how important the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and ‘ technology have been in the past five years and how important they will be in ' the next five years (see Appendix B for specific questions). A time span of five years was utilized because the field of student affairs is very dynamic and ever-changing, and a longer period of time may confuse responses. This information was solicited to determine if it is possible to validate the importance of these issues in the preparation curriculum. To determine possible institutional differences, participants were asked how important these issues will be to student affairs professionals at four 15 different types of institutions: large research universities, mid-size universities, small liberal arts colleges and community colleges. If differences exist, it may be important to include these in the curriculum. The second section of the interview focused on the mission of preparation programs and the Skills needed to work in student affairs. Respondents were asked if the mission was to teach general or specific skills. These answers may affect how these issues should be addressed. If the purpose is to teach general skills, then budget and finance, for example, may not need to be addressed in depth. Participants were then asked if the same skills are used at all types of institutions of higher education, just applied differently. This may also affect how these issues should be covered. If the same skills are used, then coursework may need to address how they are applied differently. If different skills are used then preparation programs may need to train individuals to work at specific types of institutions. The questions in the third section were directed at each specific group sampled. Faculty and current students were asked if the issues were being addressed adequately in the CUA program at Michigan State University. TO determine how adequately the CUA program was preparing students to deal with these issues recent graduates were asked if they gained the knowledge and skills from their masters education. Senior administrators were asked if ' new professionals (those being in the field five years or less) had the skills and knowledge to manage these issues as a way of determining how well programs, in general, were educating students on the contextual factors that influence student affairs. The fourth section focused on how these issues should be addressed in college student personnel preparation programs. The best curricular approach can be influenced by how important the issues are, the differential importance 16 due to institutional type, the mission Of preparation programs, and how well students are being prepared. Finally, to gather more specific information, senior administrators and recent graduates were asked open-ended questions about how these issues affect student affairs work at the particular type Of institution in which they work. METHOD An interview survey method was selected for this study instead of a questionnaire, enabling participants to clarify items on the survey. Participants. The participants for this study were selected from four groups of individuals: current students, recent graduates, faculty members of the CUA program at Michigan State University, and senior administrators from four types of schools in Michigan: large research universities, mid-size universities, small liberal arts colleges, and community colleges. Current students were selected who had completed their first year of the CUA program with a Student Affairs emphasis at Michigan State University. This group was surveyed because the researcher was interested in the students' perspectives on how well the program was training them to deal with the three issues. An alphabetical list of all students enrolled in the CUA program who had I not yet graduated, was generated by the department office. Ten students were randomly selected, utilizing a table of random numbers (Moore and McCabe, 1989). Each individual was contacted by telephone. The interviewer outlined the purpose of the study, stated that each person had been randomly selected, that responses would be held confidential, and then asked if sIhe would like to participate. If the individual agreed to participate, a personal interview was scheduled. At the time of the interview each individual agreed to participate 17 and signed a consent form (see Appendix A). One interview could not be scheduled; after three unretumed telephone calls were made to schedule an interview, the subject was replaced by the next individual listed. The second category consisted of recent graduates Of the program. These were individuals who graduated between the years Of 1988 and 1992 (within the past five years). This group was selected to be interviewed because they had some experience as professionals in student affairs and they could comment on how well their master's education prepared them to deal with the issues Of diversity, budget and finance, and technology. A list of names and addresses, ordered by zip code, was generated from alumni records by the Office for University Development. A sample often individuals was randomly selected by identifying every tenth person. This list Of addresses was compared to a list maintained by the office of Education and Support Services at Michigan State University (which keeps its own list Of graduates of the program) and the NASPA Directory (1992-93) to determine the most current addresses. Current student affairs staff members were asked to update the listing with any new address information. If the selected subject was not found the next person on the list was selected and the same process was used to determine the most current address, if the individual was no longer working at the institution that was listed as her/his most current address, or the ' most current address was not correct and no other address could be identified. Since phone numbers were not available for some individuals, the institutions where the subject worked was contacted for Office phone numbers. Each subject was sent a letter (see Appendix A) in which the interviewer identified himself, outlined the purpose of the study, stated that participation was voluntary and all responses would be kept confidential. The letter concluded by stating that sIhe would be contacted in a few days to schedule an 18 interview time if the individual agreed to participate. If the subject lived in the East Lansing, Michigan area, a personal interview was scheduled, at which time sIhe signed a consent form (see Appendix A). If the subject lived outside Of East Lansing, a telephone interview was scheduled. Consent was assumed when the individual agreed to participate. Eleven individuals had to be replaced because current addresses could not determined or three calls from the interviewer were not returned (attempts to contact this latter group of individuals ended after three calls were made and either there was no answer or three messages were left and the phone mils were not returned). In addition, one individual declined to be interviewed. At this point, the next individual listed was selected and the above procedure was repeated. Nine recent graduates participated in the study. The third sample was comprised Of faculty members who had either adjunct or regular faculty appointments in the Department of Educational Administration, and served as advisors to students in the CUA program. This group was selected to be interviewed because they were the individuals involved in the development of the curriculum. They could comment on the program in relation to the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology, from an educator's point of view. The entire population comprised the sample because only ten individuals ' fit these parameters. The individuals were contacted either by telephone or letter. Telephone calls were made to individuals that the interviewer knew personally. If an individual was contacted initially by telephone, the interviewer outlined the purpose Of the study and stated that each person had been selected because sIhe fit the specific parameters discussed earlier. Slhe was then told that responses would be confidential. Finally, the faculty member was 19 asked if sIhe would like to participate. If the individual agreed to participate, a personal interview was scheduled. At the time of the interview each subject signed a consent form (see Appendix A). Letters (see Appendix A) were sent to faculty members who the interviewer did not know personally. The interviewer identified himself, outlined the purpose of the study, stated that participation was voluntary and all responses would be kept confidential. The letter concluded by stating that the subject would be contacted in a few days to schedule an interview time if the individual agreed to participate. Consent forms were signed by participants at the time of the interview. Nine faculty members participated. One declined to be interviewed. A purposive sample of senior administrators comprised the fourth group. Four types of institutions in Michigan were identified: large research institutions, mid-size institutions, small liberal arts colleges, and community colleges. Two institutions from each category were selected for the sample. The specific institutions were selected based on their proximity to Michigan State University. Originally, personal interviews with these administrators were planned, but time and budget limitations made this impossible. The top two student affairs administrators (if there were two) from the eight institutions were then identified from the Higher Education Directory (Rodenhouse, 1993) as ' potential participants in the study. A top administrator was defined as an individual holding the title of Vice President for Student Affairs (and/or Services) or Dean of Students. If there was no Assistant VIce President or Dean listed in the directory, the Director of Residence Life (or equivalent Office) was selected as the second individual. This group was selected because they would most likely be most aware of the contextual factors that influence student affairs practice. A total Of fourteen individuals was identified. Two were not included 20 because one was interviewed as a faculty member, and one institution had only one student affairs administrator listed in the Higher Education Directory. These individuals received the same introductory letter describing the study (see Appendix A) as did the other participants. Fourteen individuals identified agreed to participate. Procedure. Each participant was given or mailed an information sheet (see Appendix A) that included definitions of the issues and the scales being used for the questions. Participants thus had this sheet to refer to during the interview so the information did not have to be memorized or frequently restated. The interviewer contacted the subject at the scheduled interview time. SIhe was asked if the information sheet was received and was then asked if SIhe read the definitions Of the issues. All responded yes. There was one subject that received the information sheet but could not locate it at the time of the interview. This subject was given the scales over the phone to write down and was read the definitions of the issues. For all respondents, the interviewer reiterated the purpose of the study. They were then asked if there were any questions before beginning the interview. For the first set of questions, the participants were told that they would be referring to Scale A. The questions appropriate for each sample group (see Appendix B) were then asked. At the ' appropriate time, respondents were told to refer to the next scale. At the conclusion Of the interview the subject was thanked for hisIher time. Participants were also sent a follow-up letter thanking her/him for participating in the study. The procedure was the same for those interviewed in person except that the information sheet was given to the subject at the time of the interview at which point sIhe was asked to read the definitions of the issues. Data Processing and Analysis. The data from the interviews were 21 entered into Minitab, a statistical analysis program package, to be analyzed. The program produced descriptive statistics for every item on the survey for each group and these were examined. The results of this analysis are presented in Chapter 4. IV. RESULTS IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSITY, BUDGET AND FINANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY The first research question concerned the importance that diversity, budget and finance, and technology has had and will have to student affairs and higher education, in the views of the respondents. The respondents were asked to rate, on a scale of one to five, the importance of each of these issues in the past five years and in the next five years. The following scale was used: 1 2 . 3 4 5 not important not very moderately important very at all important important important Diversity. For the question of the importance of diversity in the past five years, the overall mean was 4.2 with a standard deviation of .79 (see Appendix C, Table 1A). Eighty percent of the respondents selected "important" or "very important", with seventy percent of the students selected "important". The faculty was the only group to have a majority (55.6%) rank diversity as "very important". Although the group means for faculty and students were very ' similar, their standard deviations were different. For the importance of diversity in the past, faculty had a mean of 4.4 and a standard deviation Of .72, while the students had a mean of 4.3 and a standard deviation of .48. Senior administrators had 4.0 as their mean response, but their standard deviation was 1.0. The mean for graduates was 3.9 and their standard deviation was .78. Students' responses were the least dispersed; their standard deviation was the lowest Of all the groups. 22 23 The responses for the importance Of diversity in the future were very consistent across groups as well as within groups. The overall mean was 4.8, with a standard deviation Of .51 (see Appendix C, Table 18). All Of the students responded "very important", which resulted in a mean Of 5.0, and all but one faculty member responded the same. Graduates had the lowest mean of any group (4.7), one third Of them chose "important" and two thirds chose "very important". The standard deviation was .50. Faculty and senior administrators had the same mean of 4.8, and the standard deviations were also similar. Senior administrators' standard deviation was .60 and it was .67 for faculty. Each group seemed to believe that diversity will be more important in the next five years than it has been in the past. The overall mean increased from 4.2 to 4.8, with the standard deviation decreasing. The groups' means increased with students' and senior administrators' making the largest increases. Students responses had the smallest standard deviations. Budget and Finance. Students', graduates', and senior administrators' responses were dispersed on the issue Of the importance of budget and finance in the past five years. Their responses ranged from "not too important" to "very important" (see Appendix C, Table 2A). The standard deviations for students and graduates was above 1.0. The means for students was 4.0 and for ' graduates it was 3.6. Senior administrators had a mean of 4.1 and a standard deviation of .86. All of the faculty rated the Importance of budget and finance in the past five years as either "moderately important" or "important". Their mean was 3.7, and they had the lowest standard deviation (.50). Faculty and senior administrators were the only groups to have a majority select any rating. Both majorities rated budget and finance as "important" in the past. The overall mean was 3.6 with a standard deviation of .88. 24 As with diversity, there was more consensus within and among groups about the importance of budget and finance in the next five years. Eighty-eight percent of the participants rated budget and finance "very important" in the future (see Appendix C, Table 28). In every group except the graduates, this was the response of more than 90% of the participants. One hundred percent of the faculty chose "very important". For graduates, only 66.7% selected "very important", which was a much lower percentage than the other groups. They also had the highest standard deviation (.73) and the lowest mean (4.6). The means were similar for students and senior administrators (4.8 and 4.9, respectively), but their standard deviations were different. Students had a standard deviation of .63, while it was lower for senior administrators at .28. The overall mean was 4.8 with standard deviation of .50. All groups believed that budget and finance will be more important in the future than it has been in the past. The overall mean increased almost a whole point from 3.9 to 4.8 and the standard deviation deCreased from .79 to .50. Group means also increased with the faculty's mean increasing the most from 3.7 to 5.0. Standard deviations for the groups also decreased. Technology. On the issue of the importance of technology in the past, the responses, again, were somewhat dispersed. The students and faculty were the only groups to have a majority rate any one response. The rating for both groups was "moderately important" (see Appendix C, Table 3A). The means for these two groups were different. It was 3.4 with a standard deviation of .70 for students and a mean of 2.7 (the lowest group mean) and a standard deviation of .50 for faculty. One hundred percent of the faculty selected either "not too important" or "moderately important". Graduates' and senior administrators' responses had the most dispersion which is depicted by standard deviations of 1.0 and 1.03, respectively. The mean for graduates was 25 3.3, and it was 3.7 (the highest group mean) for senior administrators. The overall mean was 3.3, with a standard deviation of .91. For technology in the future, the overall mean was 4.2 with a standard deviation of .81 (see Appendix C, Table 38). Students' responses were the least dispersed of all the groups. Their standard deviation was .52. They all responded either "important" or "very important" and they had a mean of 4.6. The mean for senior administrators was 4.2 with a standard deviation of .83. Graduates had the lowest mean with 3.9 and the highest standard deviation of 1.05. The mean for the faculty was 4.0 and was just slightly higher than the graduates' mean, but their standard deviation Of .71 was lower. As with the previous two issues, participants believed that technology would be more important in the next five years than it has been in the past five years. The overall mean increased from 3.3 to 4.2, with the standard deviation decreasing slightly from .91 to .81. IMPORTANCE BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF INSTITU‘nONS The second research question concerned the importance of the issues at different types of institutions. The respondents were asked how important diversity will be in the future for Student affairs administrators at different types of institutions. The following scale was used: 1 2 3 4 5 not important not very moderately important very at all important important important Diversity. One hundred percent of the students and faculty and 88.9% of graduates indicated that diversity will be either "important" or "very important" at large research institutions" (see Appendix C, Table 4A). This was true of only 69.3% of the senior administrators. Graduates' and senior administrators' 26 responses were more dispersed. Their standard deviations were the highest at .87 and .93, respectively. It was .48 for students and .50 for faculty. The students and faculty had equal means Of 4.7, which was the highest of all the groups. The mean for graduates was the lowest at 4.0, followed by 4.2 for senior administrators. The students and faculty had similar opinions, while the graduates and senior administrators had similar Views. The overall mean was 4.4, with a standard deviation of .77. One graduate stated that diversity will be more important at large research institutions because there are a larger number of minorities on those campuses. The responses were comparable for the importance of diversity at mid- size institutions. The overall mean was 4.4 with a standard deviation of .77 (see Appendix C, Table 48). Most graduates selected "important" while the majority of each of the other groups rated diversity as "very important" at mid-size institutions. The students and faculty, again, had the highest means with 4.7 and 4.6, respectively, although their standard deviations were slightly different (.68 for students and .88 for faculty). The mean was 4.0 for graduates and 4.4 for senior administrators. The standard deviations were similar for these groups (.71 for graduates and .77 for senior administrators). There was less agreement across groups about the importance of diversity at small liberal arts colleges. The overall mean was 4.1 and the ’ standard deviation was .87. The senior administrators were the only group to have a majority rate diversity as "very important" at small liberal arts colleges, 76.9% made this selection (see Appendix C, Table 4C). The mean for this group was the highest at 4.6. For students and faculty a majority of each group selected "important". The mean for faculty was the lowest at 3.3 and they had a standard deviation of .87, which was the highest of all groups, but only slightly (see Appendix C, table 40). Graduates did not have a majority select any rating, 27 but their mean was similar to the mean for students. It was 4.2 for students and 4.1 for graduates. The standard deviation for graduates (.78) was only slightly higher than that for students (.66). Two senior administrators and one graduate made similar comments that diversity will be more intense at small liberal arts colleges because the impact is greater. "One incident affects everybody on campus", said one senior administrator. Consequently, the relative effect of a similar situation would have a greater impact on a small campus. In terms of the importance of diversity at community colleges, there was a fair amount of dispersion of responses for graduates, faculty, and senior administrators. This is represented by the standard deviations. It was 1.13 for graduates, which was the highest, followed by 1.01 for faculty, and .99 for senior administrators (see Appendix C, Table 40). Students had the smallest standard deviation (.71). The overall mean was 4.2 and the standard deviation was 1.01. Students and faculty were the only groups to have a majority select any rating. It was "very important" for both groups. Their means were similar (4.5 for students and 4.4 for faculty), but their standard deviations were different. Graduates had the lowest mean (3.4), but also the highest standard deviation (1.13). The mean for senior administrators was 4.2. One senior administrator stated that diversity will not be as important for community colleges because they have been dealing with this issue for a long time due to ' their mission and populations they serve. Students and faculty members had similar perceptions about the importance of diversity at different institutions. They responded that it would be most important at large research institutions and least important at small liberal arts colleges. Graduates and senior administrators responded differently. They rated diversity more important at small liberal arts colleges and least important at community colleges. At every type of institution except small liberal arts 28 colleges, graduates rated the importance of diversity lower than any other group. At this type of institution, faculty gave the importance of diversity the lowest rating. The standard deviations for all groups was highest in regards to community colleges. Budget and Finance. For the question concerning the importance of budget and finance at large research institutions, all respondents, except one graduate, rated it as "important" or "very important" (see Appendix C, Table 5A). Senior administrators were the only group to have the majority rate budget and finance as "important" at large research institutions. The majority of every other group selected "very important". Faculty and students had equal means of 4.8 and nearly equal standard deviations of .44 and .42, respectively. Little difference existed between the means of graduates, 4.4, and senior administrators, 4.5, but their standard deviations were different. It was .73 for graduates and .52 for senior administrators. The overall mean was 4.6 and the standard deviation was .54. ' For mid-size institutions, similar responses were made. All of the participants, with the exception of one student responded either "important" or "very important" (see Appendix C, Table 5B). The overall mean was 4.6 with a standard deviation of .54. "Very important" was selected by the majority of students, graduates and senior administrators. Students had the highest ‘ percentage (80) make this rating. The majority of faculty rated budget and finance as "important" at mid-size institutions. The means were similar for students (4.7), graduates (4.7), and senior administrators (4.6). The standard deviation for students (.67) was only slightly higher than for graduates (.50) and senior administrators (.51). The faculty had a mean of 4.4 and a standard deviation Of .53. 29 The responses for the importance Of budget and finance at small liberal arts colleges were similar to the responses on the previous types of institutions. All participants, except one faculty member and one senior administrator, rated budget and finance as "important" or "very important" (see Appendix C, Table 5C). Again, faculty had a different perception than the other groups. This was the only group to not have the majority believe that budget and finance was "very important" at small liberal arts colleges. Graduates had the highest mean of 4.9 and the lowest standard deviation of .33, with 88.9% selecting "very important". This was true of 60%, 33.3%, and 69.2% of students, faculty and senior administrators, respectively. The students and senior administrators had equal means of 4.6, but their standard deviations were slightly different. It was .65 for senior administrators and .52 for students. The mean for the faculty was 4.2, and their standard deviation was .67. The overall mean was 4.6 and the standard deviation was .59. The importance of budget and finance at community colleges was perceived differently by the groups. The majority Of students, graduates and faculty responded that budget and finance was "very important" at community colleges. Senior administrators did not have a majority for any rating. Faculty had the highest mean at 4.8 and the lowest standard deviation of .44. Graduates and faculty had similar perceptions. The graduates' mean was 4.7 ' and a standard deviation of .50. The senior administrators had the lowest mean at 4.0 and the highest standard deviation of 1.08 (see Appendix C, Table 50). The students' mean was 4.4, with a standard deviation Of .84. The overall mean was 4.4 and standard deviation of .84. One hundred percent of graduates and faculty responded either "important" or "very important", while 80% of the students and 76.9% of the senior administrators made these SOIBCtIOI‘IS. 30 The perceptions of the importance across institutional type were, overall, similar, but with subtle differences, for the groups sampled. For each institution, at least 80% of each group rated the importance as "important" or "very important". For large research institutions, students and faculty had similar perceptions, while graduates and senior administrators had comparable views. Students and faculty rated budget and finance as more important. Faculty differed in their perceptions about the importance Of budget and finance at mid-size institutions from the other groups, which had ratings that were alike; faculty rated it lower. This was also true for small liberal arts colleges, but graduates distinguished themselves because they rated budget and finance higher than students and senior administrators, who had similar perceptions. For community colleges, graduates and faculty had parallel ratings about the importance of budget and finance. They rated it more important than students and senior administrators, who rated it lower, but had a very high standard deviation. One senior administrator stated that "large research institutions have an advantage because they have more research grant money than other institutions". Budget and finance is most important at small liberal arts colleges because they are generally tuition driven, was a statement made by three senior administrators. One senior administrator made a couple of interesting comments about community colleges, "... they are underfinanced because they ' have no alumni in governmental positions, thus no political clout." They are also dependent upon local district tax bases for their funding where as other public institutions are dependent on other types of funding (e.g. state and federal funding). The four groups had only Slightly different perceptions about the importance of budget and finance across different institutions. These are minimal considering that for every institution, at least 80%, responded either "important" or "very important". 31 Technology. All respondents rated technology as "important" or "very important" at large research institutions (see Appendix C, Table 6A). Eighty percent Of the students and 88.9% of the graduates selected "very important". Seventy-eight percent of faculty and 69.2% Of senior administrators responded that technology would be "important" at large research institutions. The different means between these groups also reflects the difference in Opinion. Students and graduates had means Of 4.8 and 4.9, respectively, and their standard deviations were slightly different at .42 for students and .33 for graduates. The means for faculty and senior administrators was 4.2 and 4.3, respectively and their standard deviations were .44 and .48. The overall mean was 4.5 and standard deviation was .51. For the importance of technology at mid-size institutions, students were split equally between "important" and "very important" (see Appendix C, Table 68). A majority of each other group selected "important". The percentage of faculty responding with "important" was 66.7, and they had a mean was 3.7, which was the lowest, and a standard deviation of .50. Students had the highest mean of 4.5 and a standard deviation of .53. The graduates and senior administrators had similar perceptions with equal means Of 4.2, although their standard deviations were different. It was .67 for graduates and .44 for senior administrators. The overall mean was 4.2, with a standard deviation of .49. For small liberal arts colleges, faculty were the only group that had a majority believe that technology would be "moderately important". All other groups had the majority select "important" (see Appendix C, Table 6C). The means for students (4.0), graduates (3.9), and senior administrators (3.8) were similar, but the standard deviations were different. It was .67 for students, .93 for graduates, and .38 (the lowest) for senior administrators. The overall mean was 3.8 with a standard deviation Of .73. Eighty percent Of students, 77.8% of 32 was 3.8 with a standard deviation of .73. Eighty percent of students, 77.8% of graduates, and 84.6% of senior administrators rated technology as "important" or "very important" at small liberal arts colleges, although no senior administrators rated it as "very important". Faculty had a different perception, since only 22.2% rated technology as "important" or "very important". For community colleges, neither the faculty nor students had a majority select any rating. Graduates and senior administrators had a majority respond that technology would be important at community colleges. The students had the largest mean at 4.3 with a standard deviation of .68, the faculty had the lowest mean of 3.9 (see Appendix C, Table D). Faculty also had the highest standard deviation of .93. Graduates and senior administrators had similar means of 4.0 and 4.1, respectively, but their standard deviations were different. It was .71 and .49, respectively. The overall mean was 4.1 and the standard deviation was .69. Students and senior administrators had 90% and 92.3%, respectively, responding "important" or "very important". This was true Of 77.8% Of graduates, but only 55.5% of faculty. For each type of institution, faculty rated the importance lower than any other group. Their perceptions were similar to those of senior administrators for large research institutions. Whereas, students and graduates rated the importance Of technology at large research institutions higher than the other two ' groups. Graduates and senior administrators had similar responses about the importance of technology at mid-size institutions. Their means were higher than the faculty's mean, but lower than the students' mean. Students, graduates, and senior administrators had similar means for small liberal arts colleges, although their standard deviations were different. The faculty had the lowest mean for the importance of technology at this type Of institution. Faculty had the lowest mean for the importance Of technology at community colleges, 33 faculty had the highest standard deviation. Students had a slightly higher mean than the other groups. All groups had similar perceptions of the importance of technology at different types Of institutions. All rated it as most important at large research institutions. TO all, it will be least important at§small liberal arts colleges. One senior administrator said, "... technology is part Of faculty jobs (at large research institutions), so it is assumed as a standard." One graduate thinks the importance is a function of money and at these large schools they have more money for technology. "People are creating it at large research institutions..." was a comment by a graduate. Two senior administrators believe that importance of technology is not based on size. One of them goes on to say that the younger use it more. He might be suggesting that younger professionals may better realize the potential for technology and/or they may be more comfortable and familiar with it. Students, graduates, and practitioners responded that it would be more important at community colleges than mid-size institutions. Faculty responded oppositely. Faculty had the lowest mean for each institutional type. BEST APPROACH FOR ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS The third main objective was to determine the relative merit of various ' approaches for addressing the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology in college student personnel preparation programs. The participants were asked to select the best approach to address these issues in the curriculum from among six choices: required course on the specific topic, elective course on the specific topic, integrated throughout required courses, as a topic in a comprehensive required course, as a practicum, assistantship or extemship Opportunity, or other. 34 Diversity. For all groups, a majority (53.7%) ranked "integrated throughout required courses" as the best approach for addressing diversity in the curriculum (see Appendix C, Table 7). The senior administrators had the highest percentage (76.9) make this response. This was selected by 40.0% Of students, 55.6% Of graduates, and 44.4% of the faculty. A comment by one senior administrator suggests that integration may be the best approach. He said that "it (diversity) is background to every decision". An interesting comment was made by a graduate. She said that she learned more from the diversity of students in her classes than she did from her coursework. A faculty member and a senior administrator echoed this by saying that interaction is the best method to learn about diversity. Budget and Finance. For all groups, a majority responded that a "required course" was the best approach for addressing budget and finance in the curriculum (see Appendix C, Table 8). This was chosen by 51.2% of all respondents. Students' responses ranged over five choices, but 40% selected "required course". Senior administrators' answers ranged over six choices, but 61.5% chose this approach. Fifty-six percent of the graduates and 44.4% of the faculty selected "required course". Four graduates and three senior administrators stated that they wished they had taken a budget and finance class during their master's preparation. Technology. The responses for the best approach for addressing technology in the curriculum differed between groups. Thirty-one percent of all participants ranked "integrated throughout required course" as the best approach and 29.3% ranked "required course" as the best approach (see Appendix C, Table 9). "Required course" was selected by 50.0% Of students, 1 1.1% Of graduates, 33.3% Of faculty, and 23.1% of senior administrators. Twenty percent of students, 44.4% of graduates, 11.1% of the faculty, and 35 11.1% of graduates, 33.3% Of faculty, and 23.1% of senior administrators. Twenty percent of students, 44.4% of graduates, 11.1% of the faculty, and 46.2% of senior administrators selected "integrated throughout required courses". Students and faculty had similar perceptions, graduates and senior administrators had similar views. Both a faculty member and senior administrator remarked that the exposure to technology is the important issue. MISSION OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PREPARATION PROGRAMS The participants were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that the mission of preparation programs in college personnel were to teach general skills so an individual could perform almost any student affairs function at any type of institution. They were then asked if the mission of these programs was to teach specific skills so an individual could perform a small number Of student affairs functions well, at a particular type of institution. They responded using the following scale from one to five: 1 2 3 4 5 agree disagree General Skills. Sixty-six percent of all respondents selected four (see Appendix C, Table 10A). Senior administrators had the lowest percentage (61.5) selecting this response. Students had the highest with 70%. All of the . students chose either three or four. All Of the graduates chose three or higher. NO faculty chose five and no senior administrators selected one. Specific Sla'lls. In terms of the mission of preparation programs being to teach specific skills, the answers were more disperse. The largest percentage (34.2) of all respondents chose two. Students had 40% select two and another 40% select three (see Table 108). Senior administrators had 30.8% select one and 30.8% select three. Graduates were the only group to have a majority - 36 TYPES OF SKILLS USED Participants were also asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that the same skills are used at different types Of institutions, but are applied differently depending on the institutional setting. The following scale was used: 1 2 3 4 5 agree disagree Over 80% Of all respondents responded with a four or five (see table 11). As individual groups, 70% Of the students, 77.7% of the graduates and faculty, and 92.4% of the senior administrators made those responses. Only two faculty members, one student and one graduate responded with a two or lower. ADEOUACY OF THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED IN THE CUA PROGRAM Students and faculty were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that diversity, budget and finance, and technology were being addressed adequately in the CUA program at Michigan State University. The following scale was used: 1 2 3 4 5 agree disagree Diversity. On the issue of diversity and the extent to which it is being addressed adequately, 60% of the students responded with a two or lower, with two receiving 50% of the responses for that group (see Appendix C, Table 12A). The faculty had a very different opinion. Only 22.2% of the faculty responded with two and none with a one, and 77.8% responded with a three, four or five. Thirty-three percent Of this group selected three. Students had only 40% respond with either a three or four. 37 Budget and Finance. On the issue of budget and finance, 80% of the students responded with a one or two (see Appendix C, Table 128). This was true Of only 44.4% Of the faculty. The faculty had 33.3% choose two and the same percentage choose three. Fifty-percent of the students selected two. Technology. Vlhth the issue of technology, students and faculty were fairlyconsistent with each other. All students responded with one or two, which was also true Of 77.8% Of the faculty (see Appendix C, Table 12C). Only 22.2% of the faculty chose a three. GRADUATEs' PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR PREPAREDNESS To DEAL WrrH THE ISSUES Graduates were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that their masters education in the CUA program adequately prepared them to deal with the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology. The following scale was used: 1 2 3 4 5 agree disagree On the issue of diversity, 77.8% Of the graduates responded with a three or above and 33.3% of which selected three (see Appendix C, Table 13A). In terms of how prepared they were to deal with budget and finance as a result of their experience in the CUA program, 66.7% responded with a two or three (see I Table 13A), 33.3% selecting each. Seventy-eight percent responded with a two or lower. For the issue of technology, all responded with a three or lower (see Appendix C, Table 13A). Fifty-six percent chose two. 38 SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS' PERCEPTIONS OF NEw PROFESSIONALS' PREPAREDNESS To DEAL WITH THE ISSUES Senior administrators were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed that new professionals, those being in the field less than five years, are prepared to deal with these issues. The following scale was used: 1 2 3 ‘ 4 5 agree disagree With the issue of diversity, 66.7% Of the senior administrators responded with a three or four (see Appendix C, Table 138) and none responded with a one or five. Forty-two percent chose three. Sixty-two responded with a two or lower on the issue Of budget and finance (see Appendix C, Table 138). Forty-six percent selected two. On the issue of technology, responses were more dispersed. Sixty-two percent responded with either a three or four (see Appendix C, Table 138). Each response was selected by 30.8% Of the group. NO one selected five for any of the issues. V. DISCUSSION THE IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSITY, BUDGET AND FINANCE, AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE PAST AND FUTURE The literature reviewed indicated that the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology will influence higher education and student affairs. None of it examined whether these will be any more important in the future than they have been in the past. Every group sampled for this study believed that these issues will be more important in the next five years than they were in the past five. Diversity. All groups responded that diversity will be more important in the future than it has been in the past. There was also more agreement within groups. Graduates and senior administrators had similar views Of its importance in the past which were Slightly different than the views Of students and faculty, who rated it more important. All groups had the same perceptions of its importance in the next five years. A Budget and Finance. All groups, again, responded that budget and finance will be more important in the next five years than it has been in the past five years. In regards to this issue, students and senior administrators had similar perceptions concerning its importance in the past because they rated it higher than faculty and graduates did. It is interesting to note that for the importance of budget and finance in the future, all of the faculty members rated it as "very important". This was true for over ninety percent of both students 39 40 and senior administrators, but not graduates. They had only 66.7% rate it this important. Technology. As with the other issues, all groups believed that technology will be more important in the next five years than it has been in the past five years. The groups had different perceptions about its importance in the past. Faculty rated the importance lower than the other groups and senior administrators rated it higher. Students and graduates had comparable views. In regards to the importance of technology in the future, the students rated it more important than the other groups. Graduates and faculty had similar views and they did not rate It as important than the other groups. For each of these issues, the perceptions Of each group about the importance in the future versus the past were different. Some groups had Similar perceptions in regards to the past, but different views about the importance in the future. The reason(s) for this cannot be determined from this study. But all groups did respond that the issues will be more important in the next five years. Since all groups stated that these issues will have a greater impact on student affairs and higher education, it seems imperative that students be taught the implications Of these. THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE ISSUES AT DIFFERENT TYPES OF INSTrTUTIONS None of the scholars discussed how the importance of these issues may depend upon the institutional type. If there are differences, it seems that these Should be included in the curriculum SO students can understand how institutional context is influenced by the various issues affecting higher education and student affairs in general. Diversity. The four groups had different perceptions about how important the issue Of diversity will be at different types of institutions. Both students and 41 faculty believed that diversity would be most important at large research institutions and least important at small liberal arts colleges, although student rated diversity more important at the latter type Of schools than faculty did. Whereas, the graduates and senior administrators rated diversity most important at small liberal arts colleges and least important at community colleges. Here, senior administrators rated diversity more important at community colleges than graduates did. Part of the reason for the disparate opinions may be that individuals in each group had a different understanding of importance. Some of the comments suggested that for senior administrators and graduates, importance was in regards to relative impact Of the issue. The impact of diversity at a small liberal arts college would be greater because of the small size and the more homogeneous population that is indicative of these institutions. On the other hand, students and faculty may think that importance means a larger minority population, thus a more diverse student body to serve. Large research institutions have larger numbers of minorities on campus than small liberal arts colleges, and with the demographic Shifts, these numbers will grow. The administration at these schools will have to be prepared to handle this change. Students and faculty also rated diversity more important at community colleges than the other two groups. This may also be due to the fact that importance 1 means numbers. Community colleges traditionally have had diverse populations because of their mission and the populations they serve. They are used to dealing with this issue. Consequently, the relative impact of more minorities will be minimal at these institutions. Graduates and senior administrators rated diversity less important at these types of institutions which can also be because their understanding of importance is based on impact, not numbers. Another explanation of the differences of opinions of these groups 42 about the importance of diversity at different institutions may be that the senior administrators and graduates have a better perspective because they are current practitioners. Since most students do not have the experience that the other groups have, their perceptions may not be as seasoned. Faculty may be too far removed from this issue because they have not been in the field for a number of years, if they were at all. This is a weaker argument because four out of the nine faculty members surveyed have adjunct positions and are also currently administrators. These are all speculations based on a case study and small sample sizes. Budget and Finance. The perceptions of how important budget and finance will be across institutions was very different between the groups. For large research institutions, students and faculty had similar views and rated it more important than graduates and senior administrators, who also had similar views. Faculty were only slightly more likely to consider that budget and finance will be only slightly less important at mid-siZe institutions than the other three groups did. The perceptions seemed to be fairly similar for all groups. For small liberal arts colleges, the ratings were interesting. Students and senior administrators had similar views and rated it more important than faculty did, but not as important as graduates did. Faculty and graduates rated budget and finance more important at community colleges than the other groups and ' students rated it more important than senior administrators. This disagreement about the importance of budget and finance could be because substantial differences do not exist. All groups believed that budget and finance would be important in the next five years (for each type of institution, at least 80% Of each group rated budget and finance as either "important" or "very important"), SO the level of importance may not be dependent on type of institution. The budgetary constraints may just be different depending upon institutional type, Am“-.. "1n 43 which was evidenced by some of the comments reported. The importance of budget and finance due to private or public affiliation was not addressed in the survey, but it was raised by some participants. These individuals stated that this affiliation was the essential factor determining the level of importance, not necessarily size. For the issue of budget and finance, it may be important to understand the implications that are dependent upon the institution being public or private and as well as those related to size. All groups did not have the same perceptions about the importance of budget and finance at different institutional types. These were only the same for mid-size institutions. Technology. All groups had similar perceptions of the importance of technology at different types of institutions. They rated technology more important at large research institutions and least important at small liberal arts colleges. A couple of participants remarked that the importance is based on available funds for technology. One stated that research institutions have more money for this, while another stated that liberal arts colleges had more. Students and graduates had similar views about the importance of technology at large research institutions and rated it more important than faculty and senior administrators, who also had similar ratings. For mid-size institutions, students rated it slightly more important than graduates and senior administrators. Faculty rated it less important than the other groups. Faculty also rated ' technology less important at small liberal arts colleges than the other groups, which had very similar ratings. Students rated it more important than the other groups, who had similar views, at community colleges. For all institutions, faculty had the lowest rating of importance of technology. For all institutions, except large research institutions, students rated it more important than the other groups. Faculty may not use technology for administrative purposes to the extent that graduates and senior administrators do, and they were not 44 raised in the "computer age" like the students. But again, four out of the nine faculty members interviewed are also practitioners, so this may be a weak argument. From the data, it is hard to determine why the faculty and students rated the importance Of technology differently. The amount of importance placed on these issues undoubtedly varies between the different types of institutions. For the issue Of diversity, the four groups may have a different definition Of importance. Students and faculty may think of it in terms of numbers of minorities on campus, whereas graduates and senior administrators may put it in terms of the relative impact of having minorities on campus, regardless of the numbers. For the issue of budget and finance, the perceptions were different for each group for each type of institution, except mid-size schools. This may demonstrate that importance is the same for all institutions, but there are just different types of implications based on the institutional type, especially if it is private or public. All groups agreed that technology would be most important at large research institutions and least at small liberal arts colleges. Faculty consistently rated technology less important and students rated it more important for all institutions, except large research universities. Different perceptions exist and the reasons for these cannot be determined from this data. It is important to understand how these issues influence student affairs work at different types Of institutions and ' this knowledge would be beneficial to include in the CUA cuniculum. BEST APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES IN THE CURRICULUM Since diversity, budget and finance, and technology are important to higher education and student affairs, and will be more so in the years ahead, students need to be prepared to deal with them. A different approach may be needed for each issue that influences the field. 45 Diversity. A majority of all participants responded that the best approach for addressing the issue of diversity in college student personnel preparation programs was by integrating it throughout the required courses. Senior administrators had the largest majority select this approach. Students and graduates did not have a majority rank any of the approaches. Comments by some individuals suggest that a curricular approach is not all encompassing. A couple Of people remarked that it was important to have a diversity of students in the program, as well as a diverse faculty and staff. These comments complement the statements by others when they stated that interaction with diverse individuals is the best approach for Ieaming about diversity. Although there was not strong consensus on a best approach for addressing diversity, it appears that having the opportunity for interaction with diverse students, faculty and staff is beneficial. Budget and Finance. The participants responded that the best approach to addressing budget and finance in the curriculum is through a required course. This was selected by a slight majority of all respondents. This approach was echoed by comments made by some of the individuals. Many graduates and senior administrators stated that they wished they had taken a course on budget and finance, because they felt unprepared. Other comments suggest that the experience is also important to understanding the process. ' Somehow there has to be the opportunity to work with budgets to understand them. Technology. There was not a majority of the participants selecting one best approach for addressing technology. Integration throughout required courses, and having a required course, were the top two responses. Graduates and senior administrators thought that integration was the best approach. Students and faculty felt that a required course was the best approach. This 46 response by the faculty members was interesting considering that they consistently rated the importance Of technology lower than the other groups. Comments by senior administrators and graduates emphasized the need to understand how technology can improve the efficiency and effectiveness, not necessarily how to use specific types of technology. MISSION AND SKILLS The content of the courses is influenced by the mission Of college student personnel preparation programs, in general. All groups agreed that the mission is to teach general skills more so than specific skills. Comments by faculty support this, but some also said that the mission should focus on knowledge as well as Skills. This is interesting since a majority Of the respondents ranked "required course" as the best approach for addressing budget and finance in the curriculum. It would seem that a required course would focus on specific skills, whereas integrating budget and finance throughout required courses would be more consistent with a mission which is to teach general Skills. ADEGUACY OF THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED IN THE CUA PROGRAM Faculty and students had very different perceptions about how well ' diversity and budget and finance was being addressed in the curriculum. On both issues, faculty responded that it was being done fairly well, whereas, students had a less favorable opinion. Both groups believed that diversity was being addressed a little bit better than budget and finance. With these two issues, even though the perceptions were different about how well they were being addressed, they still were not being addressed as adequately as they 47 could be. Students and faculty agreed that technology is not being addressed very well. GRADUATES' PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR PREPAREDNESS To DEAL WITH THE ISSUES The graduates responded that they could have been better prepared to deal with these issues. Diversity was the one that they believed they could handle best, then budget and finance, and then technology. Some graduates commented that although they could have learned more about budget and finance, they learned what they needed on the job. SENIOR ADMINISTRATORs' PERCEPTIONS OF NEW PROFESSIONALS' PREPAREDNESS TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUES Senior administrators responded that new professionals are better prepared to deal with diversity than the other issues, but this was only slightly higher than the students' ability to deal with technology. Budget and finance was the issue that senior administrators thought that new professionals were least prepared to handle. VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS All groups agreed the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology will be more important in the next five years than they have been in the past five years. Students and faculty did not think that these issues were being addressed as well as they could be. Graduates responded that they could have been better prepared. Senior administrators stated that new professionals, in general, could also be better prepared to deal with these issues. Hence, the CUA program at Michigan State University would benefit from examining how the issues are addressed now and how it can be done better. It would also be to the advantage of other college student personnel ' preparation programs to examine their curricula in similar fashion to determine how to best incorporate into the curriculum the issues that will influence student affairs, if it is not being accomplished adequately now. Conclusions and recommendations in this chapter are speculations based on one case study utilizing small samples. The importance of these issues varies depending upon institutional type because their corresponding challenges and factors are different. The issues are going to be important across institutions. The four groups sampled had different perceptions about the relative importance of these contextual factors at different institutions. Students and faculty thought that diversity would be more important at large research institutions while graduates and senior administrators believed it would be more so at small liberal arts colleges. Students also thought that budget and finance would be more important at large 48 49 research institutions than other types. Faculty rated it most important at large research institutions and community colleges equally. Graduates and senior administrators rated budget and finance more important at small liberal arts colleges than the other groups, with the latter group rating it equally with mid- size institutions. All groups agreed that technology would be more important at large research institutions than other types. The respondents agreed that the same skills are used at all types Of schools, but applied differently. The different factors and challenges that different types of institutions encounter in 1,. relation to these issues should be imbued in the coursework SO students can 1 understand how the skills are adapted to fit with the institutional context. This may be best accomplished by bringing in guest lecturers from various institutions to discuss student affairs work at that particular type of school. Capstone seminars would also be beneficial to meet this goal. Collaboration between faculty and senior administrators is important in determining institutional differences since these two groups' perceptions about the importance of the issues across institutional type were different, especially for the issues of diversity and budget and finance. A majority of all respondents believed that the best approach for addressing diversity was integration throughout required courses. This will take a personal commitment from every faculty member to ensure that it is accomplished. Students need to see the implications that diversity has for all areas of student affairs. Diversity cannot be addressed by the curriculum alone. Recruiting, as well as, hiring and admitting diverse faculty and students is essential in creating a productive Ieaming environment in concordance with the coursework. This will greatly enhance the understanding of diversity and its impact. The interaction that will result between diverse people can be an exceptional Ieaming experience. 50 A Slight majority of all participants ranked a required course on budget and finance as the best approach for addressing the issue of budget and finance. A couple of faculty members remarked that preparation programs should emphasize knowledge Of concepts, philosophy, and general skills. A required course may focus too much on specific skills which would be antithetical to the goal of preparation programs. All groups stated that these programs should teach general Skills, not specific ones. Many graduates and senior administrators stated that they learned most Of their budgeting skills on I- the job and not during their master's work. These comments suggest that M budget and finance may be best addressed by integrating it throughout courses and emphasizing the implications of budget and finance so students can understand its impact, especially in different institutional settings instead of focusing on specific skills. This would fulfill the goal Of general skill and knowledge acquisition. The specific skills may best be learned on the job through mentoring or professional development activities when individuals have had the experience and the opportunity to work with budgets. Not all students will need the specific skills, but all will need to know their implications. They can learn this through the integration of budget and finance in required courses. In this way, the students that will utilize these skills can get them when, and if, they need them. The best approach for technology was close between integration throughout required courses and a required course. Integration would probably be the best approach given that technology is rapidly changing and a required course may have to be constantly altered to present these changes. Integration may also better present how technology can impact all parts of student affairs work. The required course approach may actually compartmentalize technology to the extent that it may be hard to for students to see the encompassing 51 effects of it. Capstone seminars and similar workshops would be additional Options to improve the understanding of the influence of technology in regard to the effectiveness and efficiency Of student affairs professionals. It would also provide the opportunity to demonstrate more specific aspects of technology. The overall recommendation is that these issues be incorporated batter into the CUA program so students understand the implications for all parts of student affairs and how each issue impacts the others. It is also important for students to understand how these issues have varying implications at different types of institutions(e.g. private, public, large, or small), and that there are L different challenges(e.g. relative impact of minorities on campus) that are encountered by student affairs professionals in regards to these issues. Integration Of all these issues throughout the coursework would be the best approach for presenting the implications of these issues to student affairs and higher education. Alternative forms of education such as guest lecturers and capstone seminars could be utilized to a larger extent to better understand the implications for these issues that are dependent upon particular institutional setting and to focus on areas Of each issue that are more specifically focused. The conclusions and recommendations are only speculations based on the quantitative and qualitative data collected from small samples. College student preparation programs at the master's level must ' constantly be aware of the various factors that shape student affairs and higher education. There are many of these, with just three of them introduced here. These factors must be addressed in the curriculum so new professionals have the knowledge and skills to deal with them appropriately when they enter the field. 52 IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH If this study were to be replicated, there are some particulars that need to be considered and improved upon to gain better information and may make the process easier. This study is only generalizable to the CUA program at Michigan State University. If a large sample study cannot be conducted, students, faculty and graduates from other programs should be interviewed to get a better cross- section of responses. Senior administrators from outside of Michigan should also be interviewed for the same purpose. Increasing the sample Size of each group would also make the results more generalizable to all preparation programs. The CUA program was in transition from a quarter system to a semester system. Consequently, some courses were added and deleted and others were reorganized. Students surveyed had taken courses from the "Old" CUA curriculum and the "neW" Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education (HALE) curriculum. Graduates had not taken any courses from this "new" curriculum nor may not have interacted with faculty members that have joined the department in the past few years. It was not possible to perform inferential statistics to determine significance between the means of the groups. The mean could only be used as a descriptive statistic because the sample sizes were small and the data was ordinal, not interval. Increasing the sample sizes would allow for significance tests to be performed because the mean would be a more stable measure of central tendency, than it would be for small samples and the ordinal data could be treated as interval for the sake of significance testing. The assumptions made to do this would be more accurate with larger samples. 53 This study determined that there were differences of opinions between groups on some issues, but the reason for this could only be based on speculation. All respondents should be asked specific Open-ended questions about their responses to the closed-ended questions to better understand their perceptions. The questions that concerned the mission Of college student personnel preparation programs were "tripled-barrelled". Each incorporates essentially three questions: the mission of preparation programs is to teach general or specific Skills, the mission is to teach skills to perform almost any student affairs function or a few number of student affairs functions well, the mission should be to teach skills so a student can work at any type Of institution or a specific type of institution. In addition, these questions only focus on skills and not knowledge acquisition, which two faculty members stated was the mission Of college student personnel preparation programs. The definition of technology used was too narrow. It only defines technology in regards to increasing the efficiency of student affairs work. This should be broadened to include the opportunity that technology Offers to increase the effectiveness of student affairs work, by improving its quality. Time and money was wasted by sending the information sheet to participants after they agreed to participate. The participants that receive letters ' Should be sent the information sheet with the letter (not after sIhe has agreed to participate) with a statement similar to, "if you decide to participate, the enclosed information sheet will assist you in responding to the interview questions". This will save the time and money it takes for the additional correspondence. The waste that may occur from those that do not participate should be minimal since there were very few in this study. Moreover, 54 interviews may not have to be scheduled if the subject is able to do the interview at the time of the initial call. This will also save time. Further research should also analyze the usefulness Of the recommendations made here, especially in terms of the use Of capstone seminars and the use of guest lecturers. These were not Options in the survey. This study is only a springboard for other research in the area. It is exploratory because only one case, the CUA program at Michigan State University, was considered. More research will have to be done on a larger scale to determine how preparation programs in general are doing in regards to these issues. A larger scale study will also demonstrate if the preliminary findings of this study are significant. APPENDIX A APPENDIX A - CORRESPONDENCE Date Inside Address I”: Name 1; Address t Dear Name, I am a Master's Candidate in the College and University Administration program at Michigan State University. I am doing telephone interviews for my Master's Thesis entitled "Three Issues in Student Affairs and How They Should Be Addressed By the Curriculum of College Student Personnel Programs." The purpose of the Interview is to solicit opinions about the impact that diversity, budget and finance, and technology have had, and will have, on student affairs in general and at different types of institutions. I would also like to Obtain responses concerning the best approach for addressing each of these issues in college student personnel preparation programs. Responses will be compared across four groups of individuals including practitioners(from four types of institutions), current students, recent graduates, and faculty in Michigan State University's College and University Administration Program. Your participation in this interview is voluntary but will be greatly appreciated because I have a small sample. It will take approximately twenty minutes. All responses will be confidential and only aggregated responses will be reported. Your name will never be linked in any way with any response in this interview. Upon request, results will be made available to participants. I will be calling you in a few days to invite you to participate and to schedule a ' convenient interview time if you agree to participate. Thank you for your time and consideration for participation in this project. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me in writing or by phone. Sincerely, Gavin Henning 55 56 Date Inside Address Name Address Dear Name, Thank you for consenting to be interviewed for my Master's Thesis research. I have enclosed some information that may help you while I am interviewing you. The issues are defined so you can understand how I am interpreting them. Also included are the scales that I will be using during the survey. This information should make it easier for you to answer the questions because you will have the definitions and scales in front of you to refer. Again, thank you for your help! Sincerely, Gavin Henning enclosure f 57 Diversity: The issue of diversity as I define it is the changing demographics of the college student population. More ethnic minorities, women, adult students(older than the traditional 18-22 year Old student), handicapper(including physically handicapped and Ieaming disabled) and commuter students are now attending colleges. The number of traditional aged(18-22 years Old) students is declining. Lesbian, bisexual and gay students are also becoming more vocal. This also adds to the diversity of the college student population. BudgetIFlnance: The issue of budget and finance as I define it is the emphasis placed on budgeting and finance in higher education because federal and state funds are decreasing and the cost of delivering higher education is increasing. This issue also includes the constraints placed on Student Affairs units because of the changing institutional priorities which shift funds away from Student Affairs. Technology: The issue of technology as I define it is the use of various types of technology (i.e. computer programs, facsimile machines, electronic mail and bulletin boards) to improve the efficiency of Student Affairs units. Scale A. 1 2 3 4 5 not not very moderately important very important important important important at all Scale 8. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Scale C. _required course on the specific issue __as an elective course on the Specific issue _integrated throughout required courses , _as a topic in a comprehensive required course _aS a practicum, assistantship or extemship Opportunity _Other. 58 CONSENT FORM The purpose of this research is to determine if preparation programs in college student personnel, specifically Michigan State's, are addressing issues that will have an important impact on both higher education and student affairs in the near future. The interview will take approximately twenty minutes to complete. Your participation is completely voluntary. You may refuse to participate or may refuse to answer any question that you feel uncomfortable answering. You may also withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. All answers will be kept in strict confidence. Answers will in no way be identified as belonging to any individual or administrative position. Answers will only be classified to a category of subjects; experts, faculty, current students, or recent graduates. On request, results will be made available to participants. If you have any questions about your participation, please contact: F _' C. can L."".-‘¢1 . .J Gavin Henning Graduate Resident Advisor 2 West Wilson Hall Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 48825 (517) 353-0601 The purposes of the interview have been explained to me by the interviewer. I understand that participation is voluntary and can refuse to respond to any question posed. I hereby consent to be interviewed for this study. Signed Date 59 Date Inside Address Name Address Dear Name, I would like to thank you again for your participation in my Master‘s Thesis research. Your answers were very interesting and beneficial. They will greatly help me with my work. Sincerely, Gavin Henning it ““1 APPENDIX B APPENDIX B - SURVEY QUESTIONS QUESTIONS FOR MSU STUDENTS The purpose of this survey is to solicit your Opinions about the impact that diversity, budget and finance and technology have had, and will have, on student affairs in general and at different types of institutions; and to inquire about the best approaches for addressing these issues in college student personnel preparation programs. Responses will be compared across four groups of individuals including practitioners(from four types of institutions), current students, recent graduates, and faculty in Michigan State University's College and University Administration Program. r'“? a].“an' ~ I: Definitions of Issues: Diversity: The issue of diversity as I define it is the changing demographics of the college student population. More ethnic minorities, women, adult students(older than the traditional 18-22 year old student), handicapper(including physically handicapped and Ieaming disabled) and commuter students are now attending colleges. The number of traditional aged(l8-22 years old) students is declining. Lesbian, bisexual and gay students are also becoming more vocal. This also adds to the diversity of the college student population. Budget/Finance: The issue of budget and finance as I define it is the emphasis placed on budgeting and finance in higher education because federal and state funds are decreasing and the cost of delivering higher education is increasing. This issue also includes the constraints placed on Student Affairs units because of the changing institutional priorities which shift funds away from Student Affairs. Technology: The issue of technology as I define it is the use of various types of technology (i.e. computer programs, facsimile machines, electronic mail and bulletin boards) to improve the efficiency of Student Affairs units. 1 am going to ask you some questions about how important the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology have been to higher education and student affairs. I'll ask you both how important they have been recently and how important they will be in the future. 1. a. How important has diversity been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not imp. at all not too import. moderately Import. Important very Import. b. How important will diversity be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too import. moderately import. Important very Import. 60 61 a. How important has budget and finance been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderateu Import. Important very Import. b. How important will budget and finance be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? l 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. a. How important has technology been to higher education and student affairs in the past ’ 5 years? F J l 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. I- .. b. How important will technology be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. For the next three questions, I'd like you to consider how important these issues will be at various institutions. 4. In your view, how important will diversity be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(l=not important, 5=very important) large research institutions? I 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? I 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 In your view, how important will budget and finance be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(l=not important, 5=very important) large research institutions? 1 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? 1 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 62 6. In your view, how important will technology be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(l=not important, S=very important) large research institutions? 1 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? 1 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 Now I'd like you to reflect on the mission of College Student Personnel Preparation Programs. 7. The mission of preparation programs in college student personnel should be to teach general ’ skills so an individual can perform almost any student affairs function in any type of IF institution. i l 2 3 4 5 ii. disagree agree L... 8. The mission of a preparation program in college student personnel should be to teach specific skills so an individual can perform a small number of student affairs functions well in a specific type of institution. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Now I'd like you to focus on the skills needed to work in Student Affairs. 9. The same student affairs skills are used at all types of institutions of higher education(i.e. large research university, mid-size college/university, or small liberal arts college), but are applied differently depending on the specific college setting. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Now please think about the College and University Administration Program here at MSU. 10. Thus far in the College and University Administration Program here at MSU, the issue of diversity is being addressed adequately. l 2 3 4 5 disagree agree 11. Thus far in the College and University Administration Program here at MSU, the issue of budget and finance is being addressed adequately. l 2 3 4 5 disagree agree 12. Thus far in the College and University Administration Program here at MSU, the issue of technology are being addressed adequately. l 2 3 4 5 disagree agree 63 Now please consider how these areas of concern should be addressed in College Student Personnel Preparation programs. l3. 14. IS. 16. What do you see as the best way to prepare students for the issue of diversity in the college student personnel preparation curriculum? ‘Please rank the top three (l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _topic in a comprehensive required course _practicum, assistantship or externship opportunity V _other: r.— I What do you see as the best way to prepare students for the issue of budget and finance in the :1 college student personnel preparation curriculum? . ‘Please rank the top three(l=best) strategies Li, _required course on the specific issue _elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _topic in a comprehensive required course __practieum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: What do you see as the best way to prepare students for the issue of technology in the college student personnel preparation curriculum? ‘Please rank the top three (l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _topic in a comprehensive required course __practieum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: Those are all of the formal questions I have. Do you have any comments about the questions I have raised, or is there anything that you would like to talk about or add that I have not covered? 64 QUESTIONS FOR MSU GRADS(< 5 YEARS AGO) The purpose of this survey is to solicit your opinions about the impact that diversity, budget and finance and technology have, and will have, on student affairs in general and at different types of institutions; and what is the best approach for addressing these issues in college student personnel preparation programs. Responses will be compared across four groups of individuals including practitioners(from four types of institutions), current students, recent graduates, and faculty in Michigan State University's College and University Administration Program. Definitions of Issues: Diversity: The issue of diversity as I define it is the changing demographics of the college student population. More ethnic minorities, women, adult students(older than the traditional 18-22 year old student), handicapper(including physically handicapped and learning disabled) and commuter students are now attending colleges. The number of traditional aged(18-22 years old) students is declining. Lesbian, bisexual and gay students are also becoming more vocal. This also adds to the diversity of the college student population. Budget/Finance: The issue of budget and finance as I define it is the emphasis placed on budgeting and finance in higher education because federal and state funds are decreasing and the cost of delivering higher education is increasing. This issue also includes the constraints placed on Student Affairs tmits because of the changing institutional priorities which shift funds away from Student Affairs. Technology: The issue of technology as I define it is the use of various types of technology (i.e. computer programs, facsimile machines, electronic mail and bulletin boards) to improve the efficiency of Student Affairs units. I am going to ask you some questions about how important the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology have been to higher education and student affairs. I'll ask you both how important they have been recently and how important they will be in the future. 1. a. How important has diversity been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. b. How important will diversity be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. 2. a. How important has budget and finance been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? I 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. n‘amMa-T‘ F“ k. 65 b. How important will budget and finance be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. 3. a. How important has technology been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. b. How important will technology be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. For the next three questions, I'd like you to consider how important these issues will be at various institutions. 4. In your view, how important will diversity be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(l=not important, S=very important) large research institutions? 1 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? 1 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 5. In your view, how important will budget and finance be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(1=not important, S=very important) large research institutions? I 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? I 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 . 2 3 4 5 6. In your view, how important will technology be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?( l=not important, S=very important) large research institutions? I 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? I 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 66 Now I'd like you to reflect on the mission of College Student Personnel Preparation Programs. 7. The mission of preparation programs in college student personnel should be to teach general skills so an individual can perform almost any student affairs function in any type of institution. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree 8. The mission of a preparation programs in college student personnel Should be to teach specific skills so an individual can perform a small number of student affairs functions well at a specific type of institution. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree 9. The same student affairs skills are used at all types of institutions of higher education(i.e. large research university, mid-size college/university, or small liberal arts college), but are applied differently depending on the specific college setting. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Now think about skills you have acquired through the College and University Administration Program at MSU. 10. As a new professional in the field, you gained the knowledge and skills from your master's education at MSU to deal with the following issues. a. diversity? I 2 ' 3 4 5 disagree agree b. budget and finance? 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree c. technology? I 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Now please consider how these three issues should be addressed by College Student Personnel Preparation Programs. 11. What do you see as the way to prepare students for the issue of diversity in the college student personnel preparation program curriculum? ‘Please rank the top three (l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _topic in a comprehensive required course _practicum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. I7. 18. I9. 20. 67 What do you see as the way to prepare students for the issue of budget and finance in the college student personnel preparation program curriculum? ‘Please rank the top three(l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _topic in a comprehensive required course _ practicum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: What do you see as the way to prepare students for the issue of technology in the college student personnel preparation program curriculmn? ‘Please rank the top three (l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _elective course on the specific issue rhiik '—‘; ms... _ _integrated throughout required courses _topic in a comprehensive required course _practicum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: Can you comment on how the issue of diversity affects or has affected you and your work? Can you comment on how the issue of budget and finance affects or has affected you and your work? Can you comment on how the issue of technology affects or has affected you and your work? Can you comment on how the issue of diversity especially affects the practice of student affairs in (type of institution)? Can you comment on how the issue of budget and finance especially affects the practice of student affairs in (type of institution)? Can you comment on how the issue of technology especially affects the practice of student affairs in (type of institution)? Those are all of the formal questions I have. Do you have any comments about the questions I have raised, or is there anything that you would like to talk about or add that I have not covered? 68 QUESTIONS FOR MSU FACULTY The purpose of this survey is to solicit your opinions about the impact that diversity, budget and finance and technology have, and will have, on student affairs in general and at different types of institutions; and to inquire about the best approach for addressing these issues in college student personnel preparation programs. Responses will be compared across four groups of individuals including practitioners(from four types of institutions), current students, recent graduates, and faculty in Michigan State University's College and University Administration Program. Definitions of Issues: DIveraIty: The issue of diversity as I define it is the changing demographics of the college student population. More ethnic minorities, women, adult students(older than the traditional 18-22 year old student), handicapper(including physically handicapped and learning disabled) and commuter students are now attending colleges. The number of traditional aged(18-22 years old) students is declining. Lesbian, bisexual and gay students are also becoming more vocal. This also adds to the diversity of the college student population. Budget/finance: The issue of budget and finance as I define it is the emphasis placed on budgeting and finance in higher education because federal and state funds are decreasing and the cost of delivering higher education is increasing. This issue also includes the constraints placed on Student Affairs units because of the changing institutional priorities which shift funds away from Student Affairs. Technology: The issue of technology as I define it is the use of various types of technology (i.e. computer programs, facsimile machines, electronic mail and bulletin boards) to improve the efficiency of Student Affairs units. I am going to ask you some questions about how important the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology have been to higher education and student affairs. I'll ask you both how important they have been recently and how important they will be in the future. I. a. How important has diversity been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. b. How important will diversity be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. 2. a. How important has budget and finance been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. For the next three questions, I'd like you to consider how important these issues will be at various 69 b. How important will budget and finance be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. a. How important has technology been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. b. How important will technology be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. 1”“ . in institutions. 4. In your view, how important will diversity be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(l=not important, S=very important) large research institutions? I 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? 1 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 ' 4 5 In your view, how important will budget and finance be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(l=not important, S=very important) large research institutions? I 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? I 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 In your view, how important will technology be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(l=not important, S=very important) large research institutions? I 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? . l 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 70 Now I'd like you to reflect on the mission of College Student Personnel Preparation Programs. 7. The mission of preparation programs in college student personnel should be to teach general skills so an individual can perform almost any student affairs function in any type of institution. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree 8. The mission of a preparation programs in college student personnel should be to teach specific skills so an individual can perform a small number of student affairs functions well at a specific type of institution. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Now I'd like you to focus on the skills needed to work in Student Affairs. 9. The same student affairs skills are used at all types of institutions of higher education(i.e. large research university, mid-size college/university, or small liberal arts college), but are applied differently depending on the specific college setting. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Please consider how these well these issues are being addressed by the College and University Administration Program at MSU by commenting on the extent you agree or disagree with the following statements. 10. The issue of diversity is covered adequately. l 2 3 4 5 disagree ‘ agree 11. The issue of budget and finance is covered adequately. l 2 3 4 5 disagree agree 12. The issue of technology is covered adequately. l 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Now please consider how these areas of concern should be addressed in College Student Personnel Preparation Programs. 13. What do you see as the best way to prepare students for the issue of diversity in the college student personnel preparation curriculum? ’Please rank the top three (l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _topic in a comprehensive required course _practicum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: 14. 15. I6. 71 What do you see as the best way to prepare students for the issue of budget and finance in the college student personnel preparation curriculum? ‘Please rank the top three(l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _topic in a comprehensive required course _practicum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: What do you see as the best way to prepare students for the issue of technology in the college student personnel preparation curriculum? ‘Please rank the top three (l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _topic in a comprehensive required course __practieum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: Those are all of the formal questions I have. Do you have any comments about the questions I have raised, or is there anything that you would like to talk about or add that I have not covered? 72 QUESTIONS FOR SENIOR ADMINISTRATORS The purpose of this survey is to solicit your opinions about the impact that diversity, budget and finance and technology have, and will have, on student affairs in general and at different types of institutions; and what is the best approach for addressing these issues in college student personnel preparation programs. Responses will be compared across four groups of individuals including practitioners(from four types of institutions), current students, recent graduates, and faculty in Michigan State University's College and University Administration Program. Definitions of Issues: DIveraIty: The issue of diversity as I define it is the changing demographics of the college student population. More ethnic minorities, women, adult students(older than the traditional 18-22 year old student), handicapper(including physically handicapped and learning disabled) and commuter students are now attending colleges. The number of traditional aged(l8-22 years old) students is declining. Lesbian, bisexual and gay students are also becoming more vocal. This also adds to the diversity of the college student population. Budget/Finance: The issue of budget and finance as I define it is the emphasis placed on budgeting and finance in higher education because federal and state funds are decreasing and the cost of delivering higher education is increasing. This issue also includes the constraints placed on Student Affairs units because of the changing institutional priorities which shift ftmds away from Student Affairs. Technology: The issue of technology as I define it is the use of various types of technology (i.e. computer programs, facsimile machines, electronic mail and bulletin boards) to improve the efficiency of Student Affairs units. I am going to ask you some questions about how important the issues of diversity, budget and finance, and technology have been to higher education and student affairs. I'll ask you both how important they have been recently and how important they will be in the future. I. a. How important has diversity been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? I 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. b. How important will diversity be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. 2. a. How important has budget and finance been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? I 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. 73 b. How important will budget and finance be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. 3. a. How important has technology been to higher education and student affairs in the past 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Impoth very Import. b. How important will technology be to higher education and student affairs in the next 5 years? 1 2 3 4 5 not Imp. at all not too Import. moderately Import. Important very Import. For the next three questions, I'd like you to consider how important these issues will be at various institutions. 4. In your view, how important will diversity be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(laot important, S=very important) large research institutions? I 2 3 4 5 mid-Size institutions? I 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 i 4 5 5. In your view, how important will budget and finance be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(l=not important, S=very important) large research institutions? 1 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? I 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 6. In your view, how important will technology be in the future for student affairs professionals at the following types of institutions?(l=not important, S=very important) large research institutions? 1 2 3 4 5 mid-size institutions? I 2 3 4 5 small liberal arts colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 community colleges? 1 2 3 4 5 fiAA'Ih. . I 74 Now I'd like you to reflect on the mission of College Student Personnel Preparation Programs. 7. The mission of preparation programs in college student personnel should be to teach general skills so an individual can perform almost any student affairs function at any type of institution. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree 8. The mission of a preparation programs in college student personnel should be to teach specific skills so an individual can perform a small number of student affairs functions well at a specific type of institution. 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Now I'd like you to focus on the skills needed to work in Student Affairs. 9. The same student affairs Skills are used at all types of institutions of higher education(i.e. large research university, mid-size college/university, or small liberal arts college), but are applied differently depending on the specific college setting. I 2 3 4 5 disagree agree For the next question please think about the quality of College Student Personnel Preparation Programs in general. 10. New student affairs professionals(in the field fewer than 5 years) have the knowledge and skills to deal with the following issues for student affairs in higher education. a. diversity? 1 2 ~ 3 4 5 disagree agree b. budget and finance? 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree c. technology? 1 2 3 4 5 disagree agree Now please consider how these areas of concern should be addressed in College Student Personnel Preparation Programs 11. What do you see as the best way to prepare students for the issue of diversity in the college student personnel preparation curriculum? ‘Please rank the top three (l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _as an elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _as a topic in a comprehensive required course _as a practicum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: Fri-3A“- . I 75 12. What do you see as the best way to prepare students for the issue of budget and finance in the college student personnel preparation curriculum? ‘Please rank the top three(l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue _as an elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _as a topic in a comprehensive required course _as a practicum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: 13. What do you see as the best way to prepare students for the issue of technology in the college student personnel preparation curriculum? ’Please rank the top three (l=best) strategies _required course on the specific issue __as an elective course on the specific issue _integrated throughout required courses _as a topic in a comprehensive required course _as a practicum, assistantship or externship opportunity _other: 14. Can you comment on how the issue of diversity affects or has affected you and your work? 15. Can you comment on how the issue of budget and finance affects or has affected you and your work? 16. Can you comment on how the issue of technology affects or has affected you and your work? 17. Can you comment on how the issue of diversity especially affects the practice of student affairs in (type of institution)? 18. Can you comment on how the issue of budget and finance especially affects the practice of student affairs in (type of institution)? 19. Can you comment on how the issue of technology especially affects the practice of student affairs in (type of institution)? 20. Those are all of the formal questions I have. Do you have any comments about the questions I have raised, or is there anything that you would like to talk about or add that I have not covered? ? hm“ 9L1.- gm APPENDIX C APPENDIX C - TABLES TABLE 1A The Importance of Diversity In the Past “_fi - —-— . .._ .._ _._.1 Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior A||(%) Administrators(%) ' not Importantatall 0 O O 0 O n (1) I not too Important 0 0 0 7.7 2.4 I (2) , moderately important 0 _ 33.3 11.1 23.1 17.1 I (3) , Important 70.0 44.4 33.3 30.8 43.9 ? (4) { very inportant 30.0 22.2 55.6 38.5 36.6 i (5) . mn“““-’ STANDARD “.43 , .7_ _ .72 f . . 1.0 _ .79. 76 TABLE 13 77 The Importance of Diversity In the Future I Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior AII(%) Administrators(%) I not Important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) I not too important 0 0 0 0 0 (2) ? moderatety Impodant 0 0 11.1 7.7 4.9 (3) Important 0 33.3 0 7.7 9.8 (4) very inportant 100.0 66.7 88.9 84.6 85.4 (5) 3» STANDARD ‘_~ TABLE 2A The Importance of Budget and Finance In the Past 4 Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior All(%) Admi iatratog'lfl not Important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too Important 10.0 11.1 0 7.7 7.3 . (2) ' moderately mama 20.0 44.4 33.3 7.7 24.4 I I (3) Important 30.0 22.2 66.7 53.9 43.9 I (4) very hnportant 40.0 22.2 0 30.8 24.4 (5) \ . I O I I j~=SrANOAaO navumou 71.05 + ** ’ . 78 TABLE 28 The Importance of Budget and Finance In the Future EE— 1 Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior AII(%) Adminrstrato’ 4 130%) not Important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too Important 0 0 0 0 0 (2) ‘ moderately important 10.0 11.1 0 0 4.9 ‘ (3) hnportant 0 22.2 0 7.7 7.3 (4) very import-m 90.0 66.7 100.0 92.3 87.8 (5) i I J :73 .50 STANDARD .63 0.0 .28 DEVIATION '~ TABLE 3A The Importance of Technology In the Past I Students(%) Graduatesfit) Faculty(%) Senior AII(%) Administratoraflltl not inpartant at al 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too inportant 0 22.2 33.3 15.4 17.1 (2) moderately Inportant 70.0 33.3 66.7 23.1 46.3 I (3) hnportant 20.0 33.3 0 38.5 24.4 (4) very fingertant 10.0 11.1 0 23.1 12.2 mun—m STANDARD DEVIATION 7° 1.03” .91 '5 "W. ' .1 TABLE SB The Importance of Technology In the Future 79 (5) STANDARD . . DEVIATION ' Table 4A Students(%) Graduates(%) F aculty(%) Senior All(%) Administrators(%) not important at al 0 0 0 0 0 (1) J not too Important 0 11.1 0 0 2.4 (2) moderately Important 0 22.2 22.2 30.8 39.0 (3) r Important 40.0 33.3 55.6 30.8 39.0 (4) very inporbnt 60.0 33.3 22.2 46.2 41.5 The Importance of Diversity at Large Research Institutions Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior All(%) Administratore(%l not important at al 0 0 0 0 0 (1) ‘ not too important 0 11.1 0 0 2.4 1 (2) i moderately hnportant 0 0 0 30.7 9.8 , (3) ; Important 30.0 66.7 33.3 15.4 34.2 ‘ (4) very entertant 70.0 22.2 66.7 53.9 53.7 i STANDARD * DEVIAEON .93 KAI-(ml ‘- .57.? 80 TABLE 48 The Importance of Diversity at Mid-Size Institutions Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior AII(%) AdministratorS(%l not Important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too Important 0 0 0 0 0 (2) moderately Important 10.0 22.2 22.2 15.4 17.1 (3) I important 10.0 55.6 0 30.8 24.4 (4) very important * STANDARD , DEVIATION TABLE 46 The Importance of Diverslty at Small LIberaI Arts Colleges Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior Adminrstrato' 506) not important at al 0 0 0 0 (1) not too Important 0 0 22.2 0 (2) moderately Important 10.0 22.2 22.2 1 5.4 (3) Important 60.0 44.4 55.6 7.7 (4) i my inportant 30.0 33.3 0 76.9 i (5) l I I STANDARD .76 ' .87 , 5 DEVIATION } 81 TABLE 40 The Importance of Diversity at Community Colleges w Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior AII(%) Administrators(%) not Important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too important 0 22.2 11.1 7.7 9.8 (2) moderately important 10.0 33.3 0 15.4 14.6 (3) important 30.0 22.2 22.2 30.8 26.8 (4) very important 60.0 22.2 66.7 46.2 48.8 (5) 3 ° STANDARD DEvtAnON , TABLE 5A The Importance of Budget and FInance at Large Research Institutions Graduates(%) Administrato trators(%) not Important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too important 0 0 0 0 0 I , (2) moderately Important 0 11.1 0 0 2.4 i (3) Important 20.0 33.3 22.2 53.9 34.2 (4) very inportant 80.0 55.6 77.8 46.2 63.4 (5) ' 1 STANDARD * , DEVIAIION ‘ - air—iii- "a... ‘W ‘ I I 82 TABLE 5B The Importance of Budget and Finance at Mid-Size Institutions — -— — — ~ — —-- - -- -—~-—~—-- —— — m Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior All(%) Miminisggtorsmi) not important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too Important 0 0 0 0 0 w (2) I ' moderately important 10.0 0 0 0 2.4 (3) important 10.0 33.3 55.6 38.5 34.2 (4) very important 80.0 66.7 44.4 61.5 63.4 (5) m-nnn STANDARD .67 .50 .53 .51 DEVIATION TABLE 5C The Importance of Budget and Finance at Small Liberal Arts Colleges Students(%) Greduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior All(%) Administratog'm ' not important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too Important 0 0 0 0 0 (2) moderately hnportant 0 0 11.1 7.7 4.9 (3) important 40.0 11.1 55.6 23.1 31.7 (4) very inportant 60.0 88.9 33.3 69.2 63. 4 I STANDARD T ‘ .52 ’ .33 . .67 p [65. ; DEVIATION ~ - ‘ ' 5 TABLE 50 The Importance of Budget and Finance at Community Colleges 83 STANDARD DEVIATION Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior All(%) Administrators(%) not important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too important 0 0 0 15.4 4.9 (2) moderately important 20.0 0 0 7.7 7.3 (3) important 20.0 33.3 22.2 38.5 29.3 (4) very important 60.0 66.7 77.8 38.5 58.5 TABLE 6A ‘ The importance of Technology at Large Research Institutions _ — Graduates(%) Facuiiy(%) Senior All(%) Administratogsu not important at all 0 0 0 0 0 (1) not too important 0 0 0 0 0 (2) moderately important 0 0 0 0 0 (3) I important 20.0 11.1 77.8 69.2 46.3 I (4) very important STANDARD DEVIATIDN 84 TABLE 6B The importance of Technology at Mid-Size institutions Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior Aii(%) AgginisLatomCfl not important at all 0 0 O 0 0 (1) not too important 0 0 0 0 0 (2) moderately important 0 11.1 33.3 0 9.8 (3) important 50.0 55.6 66.7 76.9 63.4 (4) very important 50.0 33.3 0 23.1 26.8 (5) STANDARDS" " ‘ .oEVIAnoN“ TABLE 6C The importance of Technology at Small Liberal Arts Colleges I Students(%) Graduatss(%) Facuiiy(%) Senior A|i(%) Administratorsl'iir) not important at afl 0 0 0 0 0 (1) nottoo important 0 11.1 11.1 0 4.9 (2) moderately inportant 20.0 1 1 .1 66.7 15.4 26.8 (3) inportant 60.0 55.6 11.1 84.6 56.1 (4) very inportant 20.0 22.2 1 1.1 0 12.2 (5) 85 TABLE SD The importance of Technology at Community Colleges L 4“ Students(%) Graduates(%) Faculty(%) Senior Aii(%) Administratommr) not importantatali 0 0 0 0 0 <1) i nottoo important 0 0 O 0 0 i (2) moderately important 10.0 22.2 44.4 7.7 19.5 i (a) ' important 50.0 55.6 22.2 76.9 53.7 (4) i very important 40.0 22.2 33.3 15.4 26.8 ‘ (5) r mn—nnm. } ' STANDARD .68 w. ‘ _.71.; . ".93. ,. .49 * 69 ~~oevrAn0N ’ ‘ ' TABLE 7 Best Approach for Addressing Diversity in the Curriculum m! _ -— 7 Studentsfi) Graduates“) Facuity(%) Senior W) required course 10.0 11.1 11.1 0 elective course 0 0 O 0 integrated throughout required courses 40.0 33.3 55.6 76.9 ‘ topic in a comprehensive required course 10.0 11.1 22.2 0 practicum, assistantship or extemshb 30.0 33.3 1 1.1 15.4 ”POM“! other: 10.0 1 1.1 O 7.7 (interaction (Capstone (Required Pmnm) Seminar) Praoucum) 86 TABLE 8 Best Approach for Addressing Budget and Finance in the Curriculum Students“) Graduates“) Faculty“) Senior All“) Administrators“) required course 40.0 55.6 44.4 61.5 51.2 elective course 20.0 11.1 22.2 7.7 14.6 integrated throughout required courses 10.0 22.2 0 7.7 9.8 topic it a comprehensive required course 20.0 0 33.3 7.7 14.6 practicum. assistantshb or extemship 10.0 11.1 0 7.7 7.3 Opportunlv other: 0 0 O 7.7 2.4 (Requked Practicum) 1 TABLE 9 Best Approach for Addressing Technology in the Curriculum Students“) Graduates“) Faculv“) Senior AI“) ' W) required course 50.0 11.1 A 33.3 23.1 29.3 elective course 0 22.2 0 7.7 7.3 integrated throughout required courses 20.0 44.4 11.1 46.2 31.1 topic at a comprehensive requaed course 0 0 22.2 7.7 7.3 practicum, assbtantshb or extemshb 30.0 22.2 33.3 7.7 22.0 0990mm! other: 0 O 0 7.7 2.4 (Required Practicum) M 87 TABLE 10A The Mission of Preparation Programs is to Teach General Skills 1=disagree 5=agree — _l Students“) Graduates“) Faculty“) Senior All“) Administrators(%) 1 0 0 11.1 0 2.4 2 0 o 11.1 15.4 7.3 3 30.0 11.1 11.1 7.7 14.6 4 70.0 66.7 66.7 61.5 65.9 5 0 22.2 0 15.4 9.8 TABLE 108 The Mission of Preparation Programs is to Teach Specific Skills 1=disagree 5=agree Graduates“) Faculty“) Senior All“) Administrators“) 1 10.0 0 11.1 30.8 14.6 2 40.0 55.6 33.3 15.4 34.2 3 40.0 22.2 22.2 30.8 29.3 4 10.0 11.1 22.2 23.1 17.1 5 0 11.1 11.1 0 4.9 TABLE 11 The Same Skills are Used at All Types of institutions, But Applied Differently . 1=disagree 5=agree Students“) Graduates“) Faculty“) Senior All“) Administratog“) 0 0 1 1.1 O 2.4 10.0 11.1 11.1 0 7.3 20.0 11 .1 O 7.7 9.8 60.0 44.4 44.4 53.9 51 .2 10.0 33.3 33.3 38.5 29 88 TABLE 12A Diversity Being Adequately Addressed in the CUA Program 1=disagree =agree Faculty“) 0 22.2 33.3 22.2 22.2 All“) 5.3 36.8 31.6 15.8 10.6 TABLE 123 Budget and Finance Being Adequately Addressed in the CUA Program 1=disagree 5=agree _ 3 4 5 Students“) 30.0 50.0 10.0 0 10.0 Faculty“) 11.1 33.3 33.3 22.2 0 All“) 21.1 42.1 21.1 10.5 5.3 TABLE 12C Technology Being Adequately Addressed in the CUA Program 1=disagree 5=agree 000r r :“1 TABLE 13A Graduates' Perceptions of Their Preparedness to Deal With The Issues 1=disagree 5=agree Percentages of Graduates 1 2 3 4 5 Diversity 0 22.2 33.3 22.2 22.2 Budget and 11.1 33.3 33.3 22.2 0 Finance Technology 2.2 55.6 22.2 0 0 TABLE 138 Senior Administrators' Perceptions of New Professionals' Preparedness Deal with the Issues 1=disagree 5=agree Percentages of Senior Administrators 2 3 4 5 Diversity 0 33.3 41 .7 25.0 0 Budget and 15.4 46.2 38.5 0 0 Finance I Technology 15.4 23.1 30.8 30.8 0 BIBLIOGRAPHY I: ...‘ .- -. . ~ BIBLIOGRAPHY Astin, A. 1984. "A Look at Pluralism in the Contemporary Student Population." NASPA Journal, 21(3), 2-11. Barr, M. J., Upcraft, M. L., and Associates. 1990. New Futures for Student Affairs: Building a Vision for Professional Leadership and Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/Development Programs. 1986. CAS Standards and Guidelines for Student Services/Development Programs. Consortium of Student Affairs Professional Organization. Creamer, D. 1989. "Changing Intemai Conditions: Impact on Student Development" in Perspectives on Student Development. ERIC-New Directions for Community Colleges. W. Deegan and T. O'Banion (Eds). Number 67, Volume 28, Number 3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Deegan w. L. 1981. Managing Student Ali‘airs Programs: Methods, Models, and Muddles. Palm prings: ETC Publications. Deegan, W. 1982. The Management of Student Affairs Programs in Community Colleges: Revamping Processes and Stmctures. Horizons iEsgues Monograph Series. Washington D. 0.: National Institute of ucation. Deegan W. and O'Banion, T. (Eds). 1989. Perspectives on Student Development. ERIC-New Directions for Community Colleges, Number 67, Volume 28, Number 3. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass. Domeier, P. E. 1977. "A Study to Examine the Training of Student Affairs ' Administrators for Specified Competency Tasks." Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 2580A. Forbes, O. 1984. "The Middle Management Professional" in Career Perspectives in Student Alfairs. A.F. Kirby and D. Woodard (Eds). NASPA Monograph Series, Volume 1. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc. Garland, P. H. 1985. Serving More Than Students: A Critical Need for Student Personnel Services. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Number 7. Washington D. C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. ‘ rim-*1 91 Bibliography Glenny, L. A. 1980. "Demographic and Related Issues for Higher Education in the 19805." Journal of Higher Education, 51, 363-380. Greenleaf, E. A. 1977. "Preparation of Student Personnel Staff to Meet Flexibility and Diversity in Higher Education," in Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals. G. H. Knock (Ed.). Student Personnel Series Number 22. Washington DC: American College Personnel Association Media Board. Hodgkinson, H. L. 1984. "Students in the 19805: Demography and Values." Paper presented at the National Conference in Higher Education, American Association for Higher Education, March, Chicago, Illinois. Hood, A. B. and Arceneaux, C. 1990. Key Resources on Student Services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Hyman, R. E. 1988. "Graduate Preparation for Professional Practice: A Difference of Perceptions." NASPA Journal, 26(2), 143-150. Kuh G. and A. McAIeenan (Eds). 1986. "The Future..." In Private Dreams, Shared Visions: Student Affairs Work in Small Colleges. NAS PA Monograph Volume 5. Washington DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, inc. Kuh, G. 1990. "The Demographic Juggernaut", in New Futures for Student Affairs: Building a Vision for Professional Leadership and Practice. M. Barr, L. Upcraft and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mills, D. B. 1990. "The Technological Transformation of Student Services", in New Futures for Student Affairs: Building a Vision for Professional Practice and Leadership. M. Barr and L. Upcraft (Eds). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Moore, D. S. and McCabe, G. P. 1989. Introduction to the Practice of Statistics. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. 1987. Points of View, A Perspective on Student Affairs. Washington DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc. Newton, F. B. and Richardson, R. L. 1976. "Expected Entry-Level Competencies of Student Personnel Workers." Joumal of College Student Personnel, 17(5), 426-430. Ostroth, D. D. 1981. "Competencies for Entry-Level Professionals: What Do Employers Look for When Hiring New Staff?" Journal of College Student Personnel, 22(1), 5-11. Rodenhouse, M. P. (Ed). 1993. HEP 1993 Higher Education Directory. Falls Church, VA: Higher Education Publications, Inc. 92 Bibliography Sandeen, A. 1982. "Professional Preparation Programs in Student Personnel Services in Higher Education: A National Assessment by Chief Student Affairs Officers." NASPA Journal, 20(2), 51-58. Shaffer, R. H. 1984. "Critical Dimensions of Student Affairs in the Decades Ahead." Journal of College Student Personnel, Whyte, C. 1989. "Student Affairs-The Future." Journal of College Student Personnel, 30(1), 86-90. GENERAL REFERENCES. . GENERAL REFERENCES Beatty, D. L. and Stamatakos, L. C. 1990. " Faculty and Administration Perceptions of Knowledge, Skills and Competencies as Standards for Doctoral Preparation Programs in Student Affairs Administration." Journal of College Student Personnel, 31(3), 221-229. Conrad, C. F. and Wilson, R. F. 1985. Academic Program Reports: Institutional Approaches, Expectations and Controversies. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports Number 5. Washington D. 0.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Evans, N. J. 1985. "Practicing What We Teachzimplications of the New Scholarship on Women for Student Affairs Preparation." Journal of College Student Development, 29(6), 499-501. Gordon, S. E. and West, D. C. 1988. "Critical Steps in Developing Program Evaluation for Student Services." NASPA Journal, 26(2), 110-117. Hossier, D. 1985. "Enrollment Management: A Paradigm for Student Affairs Professionals." NASPA Journal, 23(2), 2-8. Janasiewicz, B. A. 1983. "Job Market Trends in Student Personnel Work." NASPA Journal, 21(1), 48-53. Keim, M. C. 1991. "Student Personnel Preparation Programs: A Longitudinal Study." NASPA Journal, 28(3), 231-242. Minetti, R. H. 1978. "An Analytical Description of the Relationship Between The Academic Training and Assistantship Experiences of Masters Degree Programs in Student Personnel Administration. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 5955A. Mooney, C. J. 1992. "As Wave of Curriculum Reform Continues, Its Scope and Effectiveness are in Question." Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan 8, 38(18), A15+. Morrison, J. L., Renfro, W. L. and Boucher, W. I.. 1984. Futures Research and the Strategic Planning Process: Implications for Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report Number 9. Washington D. 0.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. 93 94 General References Kirby, A. F. and Woodard, D. (Eds). 1984. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Career Perspectives in Student Affairs. NASPA Monograph Series Volume 1. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc. Kramer, M. 1990. "Curriculum Reform: Rules of Engagement." Change, 22(4), 54. Newton, F. B. and Helienga, G. 1974. "Assessment of Learning and Process Objectives in a Student Personnel Training Program." Journal of College Student Personnel, (15), 492-497. Ostroth, D. D. 1975. "Master's Level Preparation for Student Personnel Work." Joumal of College Student Personnel, (16), 319-322. Palm, R. L. 1984. "Student Personnel Administration at the Small College." NASPA Journal, 22(2), 48-54. Preusz, G. C. 1986. "College Student Personnel Preparation Programs in Commuter Institutions." College Student Journal, 20(4), 370-373. Richmond, J. and Sherman, K. 1991. "Student Development Placement: A Longitudinal Study of Graduate Students' and New Professionals' Experiences. Journal of College Student Personnel, 32(1), 8-17. Sandeen, A. 1988. Issues, Problems and Trends. ERIC Clearinghouse on Counseling and Personnel Services, Ann Arbor, Mi. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Seymour, D. T. 1988. Developing Academic Programs: The Climate for Innovation. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Number 3. Washington D. C.:Association for The Study of Higher Education. Shaw, W. B. 1985. "Graduate Student Affairs Education and the Small College." NASPA Journal, 22(3), 44-47. Toombs, W. and Tierney, W. G. 1991. Meeting the Mandate: Renewing the College and Departmental Curriculum. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports Number 6. Washington D. C.: The George Washington University. Young, R. B. 1986. "Notes on Student Affairs Administration in Small Colleges." in Private Dreams, Shared Visions: Student Affairs Work in Small Colleges. G. Kuh and A. McAIeenan (Eds). NASPA Monograph, Volume 5. Washington, DC: National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Inc. Young, R. B. and Eifrink, W. L. 1991. "Essential Values of Student Affairs Work." Journal of College Student Personnel, 32(1), 47-55. "IIiiiiiii'fliiiiiiiiiiI“