--_-. m~.u~—u.‘

AN ANALYTICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE ACADEMIC TRAINING AND ASSISTANT ~
SHIP EXPERIENCES OF MASTER’S DEGREE
PROGRAMS IN STUDENT PERSONNEL
ADMINISTRATION

Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
ROBERT HUGO MINETTI
1977

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJIIIIIIIII ‘

3 )293 00992 6696

t ‘-. ‘1'?

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

AN ANALYTICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE ACADEMIC TRAINING AND ASSISTANT-
SHIP EXPERIENCES OF MASTER'S DEGREE
PROGRAMS IN STUDENT PERSONNEL

ADMINISTRATION
presented by

Robert Hugo Minetti

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph 0 D 0 degree in Department Of
Administration and
Higher Education

 

 

 

Major professor

 

 

 

ff

Pg,

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYTICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE ACADEMIC TRAINING AND ASSISTANT-
SHIP EXPERIENCES OF MASTER'S DEGREE
PROGRAMS IN STUDENT PERSONNEL
ADMINISTRATION

BY

Robert Hugo Minetti

The Purpose

 

The purpose of this study was to determine where
the locus of preparation should be for the competencies
and areas of knowledge necessary for entry-level student
personnel workers. The relationship between the formal
academic training and paid assistantship experiences of
master's degree students in selected student personnel

preparation programs was the focus of the study.

The Procedure

 

From a thorough review of relevant and related
research, a questionnaire was developed and administered
to the research sample which included forty-seven compe-
tencies or areas of knowledge which are recommended by
student personnel theorists, practitioners, and profes-
sional associations for entry-level student personnel

workers. The questionnaire was administered to faculty,

LI)

(I)

:1.

(f

Robert Hugo Minetti

graduate students, assistantship supervisors, and recent
graduates of the master's degree programs in College
Student Personnel at Bowling Green State University,
Michigan State University, and The University of Vermont.
A total of 308 out of a possible 378 (82 percent) ques-
tionnaires were completed and returned to the researcher.
Individual subject responses were transformed from the
completed questionnaires to data processing cards and
analyzed by the C.D.C. 6500 computer. Research hypothe-

ses were developed, and the techniques of the Statistical

 

Package for Social Sciences were used to test the hypothe-

 

868.

Findings

The importance of a paid assistantship was deter-
mined by this study. Of the forty-seven competencies,
all but two ("appreciate the historical and philosophical
underpinnings of higher education" and "understand the
principles of statistical analysis") were seen as having
a locus of preparation in both the formal academic pro-
cess and the paid assistantship. Moreover, with only six
exceptions, no significant differences were reported
between each of the four positions at each of the three
institutions under investigation as to the relative
importance of the academic process and paid assistantship

vis-a-vis each of the competencies or areas of knowledge.

oh

.9»

on

d.

Robert Hugo Minetti

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates tend to View the paid assistantship as
an important component of professional preparation.
Furthermore, they report that graduates who held paid
assistantships receive better professional preparation
than those who do not (82 percent). These findings imply
a partnership between faculty members and assistantship
supervisors; a partnership which may not be as cohesive
and collaborative as it should be since 42 percent of
the assistantship supervisors surveyed reported that they
do not meet with faculty to discuss their graduate assis-
tant's professional growth and development. Of those
that report that they meet with faculty, 69 percent do
so only once or less than once a term/semester.

Other significant differences exist between stu-
dents who hold and graduates who held paid assistantships,
and students who do not hold and graduates who did not
hold paid assistantships. When compared, the former are
much more likely to suggest that specific competencies
are learned through involvement in paid assistantship;
whereas the latter subjects are more likely to suggest
that specific competencies are learned through the formal
academic process.

Differences in perceptions and expectations were
not found between institutions or positions. Thus, even

though each of three programs is somewhat different in

Robert Hugo Minetti

structure, organization, and requirements, the importance
of both paid assistantships and formal academic prepar-
ation was supported by all schools under study. Given
the high incidence of "equal" responses, the subjects

in this study seem to be suggesting that to be effective,
training for each of the competencies should include both

academic and paid assistantship experiences.

AN ANALYTICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE ACADEMIC TRAINING AND ASSISTANT-
SHIP EXPERIENCES OF MASTER'S DEGREE
PROGRAMS IN STUDENT PERSONNEL

ADMINISTRATION

BY

Robert Hugo Minetti

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Administration and Higher Education

1977

© Copyright by
ROBERT HUGO MINETTI

1977

TO,

Claire and Hugo Minetti, my parents

ii

9-1

In

H1

()

(I)

'h

I).

L)

CE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer expresses his sincere appreciation to
the members of his doctoral committee: Dr. Richard
Featherstone, Chairman; Dr. Gary North and Dr. Louis
Stamatakos, Directors of the Dissertation; and Dr. Lawrence
Foster, Cognate Advisor. Without their direction, support,
and understanding, the dissertation would never have been
completed.

Appreciation is also expressed to Barbara Baker,
Sally Candon, Dr. Patricia Domeier, James Fry, Jackie
Gribbons, Dr. Les Leone, Janet Pinkerton, and James Wall
for their encouragement, advice, counsel, and friendship
during a time of personal and professional deve10pment.

The writer also wishes to thank his parents-in-
law, Marion and Wilbur Baker, for their continual words
of encouragement and support.

The writer expresses very special thanks and
appreciation to his parents and brother, Claire, Hugo,
and Guy Minetti, for a lifetime of love, teaching, dedi-

cation, and caring.

iii

Finally, the writer wishes to express his appre-
ciation and gratitude to his wife, Wendy. Her love,
patience, and faith were a constant source of emotional
support, while her academic and professional interest

sustained his enthusiasm, motivation, and self-confidence.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .

Purpose of the Study. . . . .
Questions for Investigation . .
Need for the Study . . . .
Summary of Related Literature.
Definitions. . . . . . .
Delimitations . . . . . .
Methodology. . . . . . .

Selection of the Sample . . .

Research Methods . . . . .

Methods Used To Report Findings
Organization of the Study . . .

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . .

The Objectives of Professional Prepar-

ation O O O O O O O O 0

Professional Student Personnel Workers

Objectives of Professional Student
sonnel Preparation Programs. .
Professional Preparation . . .

Suggested Areas of Study. . .
Academic Requirements. . . .
Practice as Part of Training .

Per-

Integrating the Academic and Practical

Components . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . .

Page

20
20
23
23
31
38
38

41
43

48
51

Chapter Page

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE DESIGN OF

THE STUDY 0 I C O O O O O O O O 5 3
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . 54
The Sample. . . . . . . 55
Descriptions of Individual Training
Programs 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O 56
Bowling Green State University . . . 57
Michigan State University . . . . . 59
The University of Vermont . . . . . 60
The Instrument . . . . . . . . . 61
Administration of the Instrument . . . 65
Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . 66
Delimitations. . . . . . . . . . 69
IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . 70
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 70
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . 71
Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . 73
Summary of Responses to the General
Questions . . . . . . . . . . 74
Summary of Responses to Individual
Competencies. . . . . . . . . 77
Analysis of Individual Categories . . . 82
Counseling, Human Relations, and
Interpersonal Skills . . . . . 82
Theory and Practice of Administration
and Management . . . . . . . . 89
Research, Testing, and Measurement . . 102
Historical, Philosophical, and Social
Foundations . . . . . . . . 103
Meeting Student Needs . . . . . . 110
Institution by "Discipline" . . . . 114
Institution by ”Program to Facilitate
Student Development” . . . . . . 114
Professional Purpose and Role Identity. 122
Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . 123
Hypothesis 6 . . . . . . . . . 127
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . 129

vi

 

w W'_-———__—-——_—

If"!

E?

SE

Chapter Page

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 132
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 132
Summary of the Development of the Study . 133

Chapter I . . . . . . . . . . 133
Chapter II . . . . . . . . . . 135
Chapter III. . . . . . . . . . 136
Chapter IV . . . . . . . . . . 138
Chapter V . . . . . . . . . . 139
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 139
Items 1-7: Counseling, Human
Relations, and Interpersonal
Skills 0 0 O O O I O O O O 0 l4 0
Items 8-20: Theory and Practice of
Administration and Management . . . 141
Items 21-25: Research, Testing, and
Measurement . . . . . . . . . 143
Items 26-29: Historical, Philosophi-
cal, and Social Foundations. . . . 143
Items 30-41: Meeting Student Needs. . 144
Items 42-47: Professional Purpose
and Role Identity . . . . . . . 146
Discussion. . . . . . . . . . . 150
Inferences. . . . . . . . . . . 154
Recommendations for Further Research . . 156
Concluding Statement . . . . . . . 158
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
. A. QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . 159

B. COVER LETTER . . . . . . . . . . 167

C O FOLLOW-UP MMO O C O O O O I O O O 16 8

D. INSTITUTIONAL CONTACTS . . . . . . . 169

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 170

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
3.1 COMPOSITION OF THE SAMPLE . . . . . . . 67

4.1 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, SIGNIFICANT CHI
SQUARE, AND VARIABLE EFFECTS OF ALL COM-

PETENCIES AND AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE . . . . 78
4.2 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 1-7. . . . . 82
4.3 MAIN EFFECT OF POSITION BY ITEMS 1-7 . . . 83
4.4 GROUP MEANS--POSITION BY "MEDIATE CON-
FLICTS" . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
4.5 CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 1-7 . . . . . . 85
4.6 CELL MEANS BY INSTITUTION AND POSITION FOR
COMPETENCY l4 . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.7 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 8-20 . . . . 90
4.8 INTERACTION EFFECT OF INSTITUTION BY
POSITION FOR ITEMS 8-20 . . . . . . . 91
4.9 CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 8-20 . . . . . . 94
4.10 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 21-25 . . . . 103
4.11 CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 21-25. . . . . . 104
4.12 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 26-29 . . . . 107
4.13 CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 26-29. . . . . . 108
4.14 MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 30-41 . . . . 110
4.15 EFFECT BY "POSITION," ITEMS 30-41 . . . . 111
4.16 EFFECT BY "INSTITUTION," ITEMS 30-41 . . . 112

viii

a.

 

Ta

Table Page

4.17 CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 30-41 . . . . . . 116

4.20 POSITION RESPONSES TO "A PAID ASSISTANTSHIP
IS A VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF MASTER'S
DEGREE PROFESSION PREPARATION FOR COLLEGE
STUDENT PERSONNEL WORK" . . ., . . . . 127

4.21 FACULTY RESPONSES TO ”HOW OFTEN DO YOU MEET
WITH THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBERS TO
DISCUSS YOUR STUDENT'S GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT?'. . . . . . . . . . . 128

4.22 ASSISTANTSHIP SUPERVISOR RESPONSES TO "HOW
OFTEN DO YOU MEET WITH FACULTY MEMBERS
TO DISCUSS YOUR GRADUATE ASSISTANT'S
ACADEMIC GROWTH AND PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT7'. . . . . . . . . . . 128

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

4.1 Graph of cell means by institution and
position for Competency l4 . . . . . . 92

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The topic of professional preparation for student
personnel administrators in higher education has received
considerable attention in recent years from professional
associations, theorists, and student personnel practi-
tioners. Prior to the 19605, "it was generally assumed
that people who became guidance and personnel workers
came chiefly from the ranks of the teaching profession."1
If any formal training was received for student personnel
positions, counselor education was the primary, if not
only, component of the formal training.2 Moreover, studies
undertaken throughout the last decade reported that the

majority of chief student personnel administrators sur-

veyed were not formally trained in student personnel, nor

 

1G. E. Hill and D. A. Green, "The Selection,
Preparation and Professionalization of Guidance and Per-
sonnel Workers," Review of Educational Research 30 (April
1960): 115-30.

 

21bid.

did they work their way up through the lower student
affairs ranks before attaining their current positions.3
However, in recent years it has been advocated
that the practice of student personnel work shift its
emphasis from a "student services administration" phil-
osophy to a "student development" orientation.4 The
expectation that student personnel workers become spe-
cialists in and practitioners of student development
while concurrently administering the traditional student
service functions has increased the importance of pro-
fessional preparation.
In a recent publication, Crookston defines student
development as
. . . the application of the philosophy and principles
of human development in the educational setting.
. . . Education for human development is the creation
of a humane learning environment within which learners,
teachers, and social systems interact and utilize

developmental tasks for personal growth and societal
betterment.5

 

3W. H. Grant and E. James, "Career Patterns of

Student Personnel Administrators," Journal of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators 10 (OctOBer

: T. A. Emmet, A Guide to Programs of Train-
ing for College and University Student Personnel Workers,"
No. 6, University of Detroit Studies in Higher Education
for College and University Student Personnel Workers,
Detroit, January—1965.

 

 

4B. B. Crookston, "Student Personne1--A11 Hail
and Farewell!" Personnel and Guidance Journal 55 (Septem-
ber 1976): 26-29T

 

51bid.

To provide for a learning environment which allows and
facilitates human/student development is the charge of
the student personnel worker of this decade. However,
since student affairs derives its legitimacy primarily
from the service functions which student personnel
workers perform (financial aids, housing, records, stu-
dent discipline, admissions, activities, counseling) the
profession will most probably have to continue with its
administrative or service tasks, while at the same time
implement student development programs. The mere act

of behaving in a pleasant, humanistic way is not in
itself facilitating student development. Rather, suc-
cessful student development programs require educators
knowledgeable in developmental philOSOphy, behavioral
science, and learning theory; and administrators skilled
in the arts of training, interrelating, programming,
managing, budgeting, supervising, and evaluating progress,
performance, and outcomes. Thus, the dilemma of how to
prepare people to assume student personnel positions is
exacerbated by the demands of the student development
movement.

Because the topic of professional preparation for
student personnel administrators in higher education is
a vital one to faculty, graduate students, student per-
sonnel workers, and ultimately to the students served in

our colleges and universities, it has received a good

deal of thought by theorists and professional associations.
In 1973, the Council of Student Personnel Associations
(COSPA) released a statement which proposed that
. . . the goal of professional programs is the prepar-
ation of persons who in addition to having obtained
the high level of self-development have skills in
collaborating with others in their self-development.
They must be able to use competencies of assessment,
goal setting, and change processes as appropriate
in implementing the roles of consultant, adminis-
trator and instructor in relationships with indi-
viduals, groups and organizations.6
In working toward this very broadly stated goal, the pro-
fessors of student personnel work, the administrators of
student personnel services, and the graduate students in
student personnel training programs should "continually
relate as full collaborators throughout the program."7
It is generally agreed that a broad-based foun-

dation of academic preparation for student personnel

positions is essential.8 Moreover, within this

 

6Council of Student Personnel Associations (COSPA),
1973 statement, p. 6. (Mimeographed.)

71bid., p. 7.

8D. L. Trueblood, ”The Educational Preparation of
the College Student Personnel Leader of the Future," in
College Student Personnelflprk in theYears Ahead, ed.

. A. K op , ACPA Student Personnel Series No.'7i(Washing-
ton, D.C.: American Personnel and Guidance Association,
1966), pp. 77-84; D. P. Hoyt and J. J. Rhatigan, "Profes-
sional Preparation of Junior and Senior College Student
Personnel Administrators,” in Colle e Student Personnel:

Readings and Biblio ra hies, e s. L. E. FitzgeraId, et al.,
pp. 35-38: T. O Ban1on, Program Proposal for Preparing

College Student Personnel WOrkers," Journal of Colle e
Student Personnel 10 (January 1973): 249-53; COSPA, I973.

 

 

 

broad-based framework, several "cores" have widespread
support among the authors and theorists of student per-
sonnel education. Generally, core areas of preparation
include: study in psychology (specifically developmental
psychology); culture and change (sociology, anthropology);
philOSOphy, finance, planning, and curriculum in higher
education; "skill" courses in counseling and testing and
measurement; research; ethical responsibilities; and a

O O 9
superv1sed work experience.

Purpose of the Study

 

Although the literature supports the areas of
preparation which the COSPA Statement, Trueblood, and
others propose, little is known with any degree of cer-
tainty how students of the student personnel profession
gain the competencies and skills necessary to assume
entry level positions within the field. It was the
intention of this researcher to engage in an in-depth
investigation of several selected master's degree programs
which prOpose to prepare professionals to assume leader-
ship positions within student personnel work in higher
education.

The primary purpose of the study is to identify
the locus of preparation for the entry-level competencies

necessary for student personnel work. And, because it is

 

9Trueblood, pp. 82-83.

the assumption of many authors, students, academics, and
practitioners that the two components of practical and
academic learning are not collaborative processes, the
relationship between the assistantships and the formal
academic process is the focus of this research project.10
Further, due to the report of the lack of intentional
cooperation between faculty members and assistantship
supervisors, the specific responsibilities of faculty and
supervisors are studied.11
This study was not intended to validate existing
studies which assess the importance of specific outcome
competencies. Rather, the focus of the research project
is the relationship between the formal academic training
process and the paid assistantship experiences of master's
degree candidates in college student personnel at Bowling
Green State University, Michigan State University, and
The University of Vermont. (A description of each pro-

gram and a rationale for its inclusion in the study

appear in Chapter III.) All three institutions in

 

loV. Kirkbride, ”Practicum Experience in the
Master's Degree Program for Personnel Work," Journal of
the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators,
and CounseIors 34 (Winter 1972): 80-84; T} V. McGovern
and Tinsley,"A Longitudinal Investigation of the Graduate
Assistant Work-Training Experience,” Journal of College
Student Personnel 17 (March 1976): 130¥33.

 

 

 

 

 

11E. C. Wallenfeldt and G. S. Bigelow, "Status of
the Internship in Student Personnel Studies," Journal of

the National Associgtion of Women Deans, Administrators,
and Counselors 34 (Summer 1971): 180-84.

 

 

 

question make student personnel paid assistantships
available on a part-time basis to graduate students.
Although the majority of the paid assistantships are
available in residence halls, a number of master's degree
candidates hold paid assistantships in other student per-
sonnel service areas (student activities, volunteer pro-
grams, counseling center). For the purpose of this study,
paid assistantships are limited to those work experiences
separate and apart from academic requirements. The paid
assistantships are in addition to practica required by

graduate students in their academic programs.

Questions for Investigation

1. What competencies or areas of knowledge should be
included as part of the academic process? The
assistantship experience? Both the formal

academic process and the assistantship?

2. Do faculty, students, assistantship supervisors,
and recent graduates share similar expectations
of the assistantship experience within the

preparation program?

3. What, if any, differences in attitudes and expec-
tations exist between the faculty, students,
assistantship supervisors, and recent graduates
at the same institution? Within groups at dif-

ferent institutions?

Do students who are employed in paid assistant-
ships have similar expectations of the formal
academic process as those students who are not

employed in paid assistantships?

Do recent graduates of student personnel training
programs who held paid assistantships have similar
expectations of the formal academic process as
those recent graduates who did not hold paid

assistantships?

How importantly do faculty, students, assistant-
ship supervisors, and recent graduates view the
paid assistantship as part of a master's degree
training program? Do these four groups perceive

the importance of the assistantship similarly?

(a) To what extent do faculty and assistantship
supervisors cooperate and collaborate in the
training endeavor? (b) Is there a difference
between the amount of collaboration in the pro-
gram which requires a paid assistantship and in
the two programs which make assistantships
available but do not require them as part of

the degree program?

Need for the Study

 

The call for practical experiences for graduate
students is repeated throughout the literature.12 Many
assumptions are made about the importance of on-the-job
experiences and the role that these experiences play in
the professional development of higher level professional

l3 Aside from the benefits

student personnel workers.
derived from suggested practicum experiences,14 it is
assumed that many graduate students accumulate signifi-
cant practical experiences in paid assistantships. Since

a large number of graduate students are engaged in these
concurrent paid assistantship experiences, the effect of
these simultaneous processes should be understood. To
date, no research studies exist which examine the relation-

ship between the experiences of paid assistantships and

the curricular requirements of formal academic programs.

 

12Kirkbride; Wallenfeldt and Bigelow; COSPA, 1973.

13J. F. Penney, Perspective and Challenge in
College Student Personnel Wgrk (Springfield, Ill.:
Cfiarles C. Thomas, 1972); Hoyt and Rhatigan.

 

 

 

14R. B. Caple, "Molar Model for the Training of
Student Personnel Workers," Counselor Education and
Su ervision 12 (September 1972): 3I-ZI; E. A. Greenleaf
ans R. H. Shaffer, "Evaluating the Intern and Practicum
Experiences,” UCEA Review 18 (September 1976): 24-25.

 

 

 

10

Summary of Related Literature

 

A review of the literature and related research
supports the previously stated core areas of preparation.
Penney, however, in an evaluation of student personnel
as a profession, raises some serious questions regarding
the generally accepted program for professional prepar-
ation. In short, he questions whether or not professional
academic preparation is necessary at all,

. . . training in student personnel work is not uni-
versally recognized as an essential prerequisite for
appointment to major student personnel posts. Many
institutions, including some of the most prestigious
universities, have in recent years chosen to ignore
professional preparation in favor of selecting stu-
dent personnel administrators from widely divergent
backgrounds in other professions and occupations.
Penney implies that the formal academic training is not
as important as the ability to display various competen-
cies in on-the-job situations. The results of a study
by Donald Hoyt and James Rhatigan lends additional support
to practical experience. Their study shows that ”despite
the fact that practitioners perceived academic training
as generally relevant, they clearly believed that on-the-
job training was more important" for the administrative
tasks and program develOpment responsibilities which stu-

dent personnel workers are called upon to perform.16

 

15Penney, Perspective and Challenge, p. 27.

 

16Hoyt and Rhatigan, p. 40.

11

Ostroth, in a similar study, surveyed chief student per-
sonnel administrators to determine what they considered
to be valuable for master's level student personnel pro-
fessional training programs. The most frequent response
called for supervised practice in student personnel work.
”More specifically, 88.9 percent of the respondents indi-
cated practical experience as being essential."17 And
in a study of the status of internships in student per-
sonnel training programs, Wallenfeldt and Bigelow rate
on-the-job experiences as more important than any course
work students are required to complete.18
However, where Trueblood calls for supervised
work experiences carried out by competent persons which
must be "meaningfully related to course work and . . .

19 other authors

significant (to) professional practice,"
support a more broad—based theoretical and philosophical
foundation and propose work-study (paid assistantship)

to a lesser degree. Miller, in a recent article, calls

for preparation of "future leaders of professional calibre"

 

17D. D. Ostroth, "Master's Level Preparation for
Student Personnel Work," Journal of College Student Per-
sonnel 16 (July 1974): 31§:§2.

 

18Wallenfeldtand Bigelow.

lgTrueblood, p. 83.

12

rather than "technical-specialists."20 Even though entry
level work requires people to do technical-specialist
work, Miller maintains that the formal academic training
program is the means for deve10ping such future leaders.
Moreover, McGovern and Tinsley's recent research project
at Southern Illinois University shows that work-study
(paid assistantship) experiences tend to be limited to
the local institution. Training done by most work-study
supervisors is aimed at accomplishing locally defined
tasks rather than at long-term professional development
in collaboration with the classroom experiences of the
students. While academic programs depend upon the on-
the-job training experiences to relate the formal academic
process to the responsibilities of the practitioner,
McGovern and Tinsley propose that the formal academic
process is not a concern of the professional practitioner

21 Further-

who supervises the work of the paid assistant.
more, even though the formal academic process may be a
concern of the practitioner, it may not mesh with the

immediate aspects of the job.

 

20T. K. Miller, "College Student Personnel Prepar-
ation: Present Perspective and Future Directions,"
Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators 4 TApril l967):‘I7l-76.

 

 

21McGovern and Tinsley.

13

Thus, the question of the relationship between
the formal academic process and the paid assistantship
experiences of graduate students in student personnel
training programs is unresolved. Are work-study exper-
iences concerned solely with local issues, or do they
call for an application of the theories and philosophies
that are presented in the classroom? Are the classroom
activities concerned solely with theory and philosophy,
or do they prepare students for the practical realities
of the job and specialized skills required of professional
student personnel workers? Although an extensive review
of the related literature will follow, no significant
studies or articles which directly relate to these
questions were found. The literature supports the need
for practical experience, yet the assumption that graduate
students, in general, do receive this desired practical

experience in paid assistantships is speculation.

Definitions

 

The following terms are defined by the researcher

for use in this study:

Student Personnel.--The college or university

 

program which is concerned with both the educational

and personal development of students in primarily non-
classroom activities and the administration of services
which support and complement the formal academic learning

process.

14

Student Personnel Worker/Practitioner.--Profes-

 

sional educators engaged in full-time employment in
student personnel functions. They may be administrators,

counselors, program facilitators, or consultants.

Assistantship.--On-going work experiences of a

 

professional or paraprofessional nature which are under-
taken by graduate students on a long-term, usually, but
not always part-time basis. These experiences are super-
vised by professional student personnel workers. They
are not an academic requirement, and students receive
financial remuneration rather than academic credit for

services performed.

Assistantship Supervisor.--The professional stu-
dent personnel worker who directs and coordinates the

activities of graduate assistants.

Practicum.--A part-time (six to twelve hours per
week) practical work experience afforded to graduate
students, usually of short duration (term or semester)
and a degree requirement. Students receive academic
credit as a result of their participation in these activ-
ities. Faculty cooperation, supervision, and evaluation

are major components of a practicum.

Student.--Those individuals currently enrolled in

a master's degree program in student personnel.

15

Recent Graduate.--Those individuals who are

 

employed as full-time student personnel workers who
received a master's degree in student personnel from

June 1975 to December 1977.

Delimitations

 

The institutions included in the study were not
selected randomly. Therefore, generalizations from the
results presented in Chapter IV should be made only to
the extent that individual graduate professional training
programs in college student personnel closely resemble

the programs reported.

Methodology

Selection of the Sample

1. Data were collected on assistantship supervisors,
faculty, students, and recent graduates of
master's degree programs at Bowling Green State
University, Michigan State University, and The
University of Vermont. These three institutions
were included in the study because of their simi-
1arities--all have a master's degree program in
college student personnel; all strongly encourage
or require a paid assistantship for their student
personnel majors; all have similar curricular
requirements; and because of their differences--
size, whether or not a paid assistantship is a

degree requirement, presence or absence of a

l6

doctoral program. Their similarities and dif-
ferences allowed for both comparison and contrast

between institutions.

The sample was nonrandom. The number of subjects
in each group is not large enough to accommodate
a random sample. At each institution all faculty,
assistantship supervisors, students, and recent

graduates were included in the sample.

Faculty assistance was solicited to identify
respondents in all four categories at each

institution.

Research Methods

 

l.

The available and directly related literature was
thoroughly reviewed. From the literature, forty-
seven outcome competencies and areas of knowledge
were extracted and organized into six general

clusters of competency.

A questionnaire was developed and pilot tested.
As a result of the pilot test, appropriate
revisions were made. The questionnaire was then
either mailed or hand delivered to the subjects

of this study.

17

3. The researcher made personal visits to each
institution to administer the questionnaire and
to solicit the support of the chairperson of the

department under study.

4. A follow-up postal card was sent to each person
who was mailed a questionnaire reminding him/her
to complete the questionnaire and return it to
the researcher.

Methods Used To Report
Findings

 

 

l. The questions for investigation which were
suitable for statistical analysis were restated

in research hypothesis form.

Hypothesis 1:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates perceive no significant differences
in expectations of the assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2a:

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates within each institution perceive no
significant differences in expectations of the
assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2b:

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates at different institutions perceive
no significant differences in expectations of the
assistantship experience.

l8

Hypothesis 3:

 

There are no significant differences in expectations
of the formal academic process between students who
hold paid assistantships and students who do not hold
paid assistantships.

Hypothesis 4:

 

There are no significant differences in expectations

of the formal academic process between recent graduates
who held paid assistantships and those graduates who
did not hold paid assistantships.

Hypothesis 5:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates report no significant differences

in perceptions of the importance of a paid assistant-
ship as part of the preparation process.

Hypothesis 6:

 

There are no significant differences in collaboration

of the paid assistantship and the formal academic

process between the program which requires a paid
assistantship and those which do not require a paid
assistantship.

2. Multivariate Analysis of Variance, Condescriptive,
and Crosstabulation techniques were used to pro-
vide basic descriptive information about the data
received from the questionnaire. The chi square
test for independence and a multivariate analysis

of variance procedure were employed to test the

research hypotheses.

19

Organization of the Study

 

Chapter I presents the introduction, statement
of the problem, definitions, and general overview of the
study. Relevant and related literature and research
dealing with student personnel professional preparation
are presented in Chapter II. The design of the study is
detailed in Chapter III. Chapter IV includes the results
of the study. A discussion of the results, and recommen-
dations and speculations based upon the findings of the

study are articulated in Chapter V.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction
F. R. Rudolph suggests that until the Civil War
most institutions functioned with a president, a treasurer,
and a part-time librarian. Subsequently an enlarged
scope of college administration resulted in a splintering
of administrative responsibilities:
First a secretary of the faculty, then a registrar,
then in succession a vice-president, a dean, a dean
of women, a chief business officer, an assistant
dean, a dean of men, a director of admissions, and
in time a corps of administrative assistants to the
president who were in charge of anything and every-
thing; public relations, church relations, civic
relations, student relations and faculty relations.
Those services which eventually came to be
assigned to student personnel departments resulted from
the enlargement of administrative functions and responsi-
bilities. Student personnel gradually developed an edu-
cational philosophy which supported the activities of

practitioners in various capacities from discipline to

counseling; from record keeping to student activities;

 

1F. R. Rudolph, The American College and Uni-

versity: A History (New York: Vintage Books, 1962),
pp. 434-35.

20

21

from recruitment to job placement. As the field evolved,
so too did the need for professional training. The

people who originally carried out student personnel
responsibilities were faculty members whose training

and interests were in their academic field. Gradually,
individuals trained as counselors began to assume student
service responsibilities.2 With these increased responsi-
bilities came the need for professional training.

To augment academic training, E. G. Williamson
called for on-the-job learning experiences. In a speech
before the American Personnel and Guidance Association
in 1958, he indicated that:

. . . desirable competencies could be acquired
through general experience or through formal train-
ing supplemental to professional preparations in
one's specialty. Obviously, one does not acquire
even minimum competence in all of these diverse
areas of functioning at any one particular time
in one professional career.
Training for the specific task to be performed was seen
as the result of experience complemented by in-service

professional training.4 Student personnel was seen as a

”point of view” rather than as an educational philosophy.

 

2Hill and Green.

3E. G. Williamson, "Professional Preparation of
Student Personnel Workers,” School and Society 86 (1958):
3-4 0

41bid.

22

However, with the advent of the "student deve10p-
ment" philosophy which began emerging in the late 19605
and early 70s, professional preparation became a topic
of concern within the profession. The goals of student
development call for a highly skilled professional edu-
cator; one skilled in the art of administration, knowl-
edgeable in the realm of human behavior, and trained in
methods of evaluation and research, and in spite of
the criticism aimed at the profession, many academic
programs exist to train individuals to assume entry level
and leadership positions in student personnel. As was
seen from the literature, a great deal of controversy
exists relative to professional training programs.
Whether or not these training programs make a difference
has been articulated by a number of specialists in the
field. In a summary of student personnel training pro-
grams, Emmet indicated his belief that "student personnel
work on the college level has always been a learn-by-
doing process."5 Similarly, in a more empirical study
by Upcraft, the author concluded that "on the basis of
the data, (there is) little connection between the way
in which a chief student personnel administrator in a
large university is trained and the way in which he per-

ceives his role. In that sense, training did not make a

 

Emmt,p.3.

23

difference."6 Rhatigan, in a study of the perceptions
of professional preparation of student personnel workers
of faculty and practitioners, suggests that "professional
preparation historically has been controversial."7

The following is a review of the related litera-
ture and research which focuses on the professional
preparation of student personnel workers. Included are
the objectives of professional preparation, suggested
areas of study, the academic requirements, practice as
part of training, and integration of the academic and
practical components of training.

The Objectives of Professional
Preparation

 

 

Professional Student Per-
sonnel Workers

 

 

In an attempt to place student personnel work
within a philosophical framework, Walter Johnson proposed
that:

. . . student personnel work is a creature produced
in part by the school's philosophical position,

and in part by its own indigeous qualities and
characteristics. Basically, however, it is com-
mitted to the students and their welfare and

 

6M. L. Upcraft, "Does Training Make a Difference?"
Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators 9 (October I971): 137.

 

 

7J. J. Rhatigan, ”Professional Preparation of
Student Personnel Administrators as Perceived by Prac-
titioners and Faculty," Journal of College Student Per—
sonnel 9 (January 1968): 17-23.

 

24

development both as individuals and as groups. Thus,

although programs and practices in various institu-

tions may differ in emphasis, the point of view and

purposes of these endeavors are fundamentally held

in agreement by both practitioners and theoreticians

in the field.8

Mueller, while accounting for individual dif-

ferences between institutions (religious orientation,
state vs. public, coeducational vs. single sex) indicates
that four primary objectives for student personnel remain
consistent in higher education. They are: (l) preserv-
ing, transmitting, and enriching the culture; (2) develop—
ing all aspects of the culture; (3) training for citizen-
ship; (4) training for leadership.9 Although these four
objectives are broad and general, she argues that they
are the primary goals of student personnel work. While
administrators of student personnel programs perform a
wide variety of tasks, they function within the boundaries
of these four primary objectives. Admissions, regis-
tration and records, counseling, health service, housing
and food service, student activities, financial aid,

placement, discipline, special programs and services

such as study skills, orientation, religious activities

 

8W. F. Johnson, "Student Personnel Work in
Higher Education: Philosophy and Framework," in College
Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies, eds.
L. E. Fitzgerald, et a1. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1970), p. 8.

 

9K. H. Mueller, Student Personnel Work in Higher
Education (Boston: HougHton Mifflin Company, 1961),
pp. 65-660

 

 

25

represent functions where the professional can act on
these four primary professional objectives.10
Mueller's philosophy is consistent with a number

of other theoreticians who view the student as the focal
point of student personnel work rather than the specific
function which the student personnel worker executes.
Johnson summarizes the writing of several major theorists11
by focusing on the similarities of their findings. In
short, these theorists see students as individuals who
must be treated as functioning integrated beings within an
institution. Moreover, the institution must organize its
educational efforts " . . . from where the individual
student is, not from the point of development at which
the institution would like to find the hypothetical
average student."12 This view is consistent with the
position taken in 1949 by the Committee in College Per-
sonnel of the American Council on Education in a statement
entitled "The Student Personnel Point of View":

The student personnel point of view encompasses the

student as a whole. The concept of education is
broadened to include attention to the students'

 

loIbid., p. 57.

11Mueller; R. R. McDaniel, "Organization Theory
and the Preparation of Student Personnel Workers,”
Journal of the Natipnal Association of Student Personnel
Administrators)10’(October 1972): IDl-OS; Williamson,
1"ProfessionafPreparation"; Gilbert C. Wrenn, Student Per-
sonnel Work in College (New York: Ronald Press Co., 195I).

 

 

 

12Johnson, p. 9.

26

well-rounded development--physically, socially,
emotionally, and spiritually, as well as intel-
lectually! The student is thought of as a
responsible participant in his own development
and not as a passive recipient of an imprinted
economic, political, or religious doctrine, or
vocational skill. As a responsible participant
in the societal process of our American democracy,
his full and balanced maturity is seen as an end-
goals of education.1

Shaffer and Martinson propose that "the student
personnel point of view considers each student an indi-
vidual with a unique constellation of traits to be
treated as an indivisible personality functioning and
reacting to his environment as a whole."14 Thus, the
professional student personnel worker is seen as a person
who is concerned about the student as a complex and
multifaceted entity and who realizes that learning takes
place in many ways and in many arenas. To function as
an educator, Shaffer and Martinson propose the following
goals for student personnel work:

1) To assist in providing a campus climate in student
residences and campus affairs which is conducive
to academic achievement while providing maximum
intellectual stimulation . . .

2) To provide those services which will assist in
the self-development of each student and promote

the understanding of his own purpose for being
in college . . .

 

13R. H. Shaffer and W. D. Martinson, Student Per-
sonnel Services in Higher Education (New York: The
Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1969),
p. 2.

 

14Ibid.

27

3) To provide through student government and other
activities an opportunity to practice democratic
living with both its rights and responsibilities
and to learn to work effectively with other . . .

4) To provide the Opportunity for faculty-student
contacts outside the classroom as a means for
encouraging respect for learning and an under-
standing of the approach to life's problems . . .

5) To provide an opportunity for every worthy stu-
dent to complete his education providing financial
assistance, when necessary . . .

6) To help each student develop a sense of individual
responsibility and self-discipline . . .

7) To interpret university objectives, policies,
rules and administration to students, faculty,
alumni, and citizens in general; and to communi-
cate student attitudes, opinions and activities
to the faculty and general public . . .

8) To help create an atmosphere of high morale and
loyalty towards the institution.15

The way student personnel workers should oper-
ationalize this philosophy and these objectives is
stated by the Council of Student Personnel Associations
in a 1967 statement regarding the professional prepar-
ation of student personnel workers.

It is the college student personnel worker who:
carries out a careful admissions process; orients
students from all types of socio-economic back-
grounds to the social system that is the college;
tests their aptitudes, their achievements and their
interests, and in cooperation with faculty col-
leagues advises them about curricular and courses
as well as other experiences which the institution
provides that will best implement their purposes.
The student personnel worker guides students in
relation to the many out-of-class resources the
college affords, maximizes the rich educational
potentialities of their life together in residence
halls; works with group and individual standards
of student behavior; provides informed and skilled
help to students with special needs such as the
foreign student, the physically handicapped, or

 

15Ibid., pp. 6-11.

28

students from a deprived economic or cultural
background. Still others coordinate the
increasingly vast programs of financial aid and
counsel students regarding loans, work-study, and
scholarship programs. Student personnel workers
also are responsible for the development and man-
agement of these resources.16

The 1967 statement of the Council of Student
Personnel Associations articulates the assortment of
functions performed on American campuses to supplement
educational programs. In short, these functions recruit
students to the campus, orient them when they begin their
studies, and provide services and activities which assist
them to grow, develop, and succeed academically and
socially.

While the philosophies presented focus on the
student as the more important component of student per-
sonnel work, critics see the implementation of the
theories in isolation of students. "To many practitioners
the program of student personnel services was perceived
as services to students or for students, and the students
themselves were only minimally involved in planning,
developing and executing the functions to be performed."17

Expanding this criticism, Crookston argues that

"Student personnel work as historically defined is no

longer a viable concept. . . . 'Student Affairs' should

 

16cospA, 1967, p. 2.

17Johnson, p. 9.

29

be used to describe an area, sector, or administrative

sub-division.”18

Critics, like Crookston, of the tra-
ditional Student Personnel Point of View philosophy,
which provides services to facilitate academic, social
success among students, call for more student involvement
and propose a different operational philosophy for stu-
dent personnel workers. In Crookston's words, "'Student
development' should be used to describe the underlying
philosophy of the field and operating concepts therein."19
The major difference is that the student affairs concept
functions as an adjunct to the formal educational process;
"while the student development concept demands that the
educational process be viewed as an integration of the
formal, in-class learning and the extra-curricular edu-
cational process in which students are involved."20
Supporting this distinction between student

affairs and student development, Crookston defines
student development as:

The application of the philosophy and principles of

human development in the educational setting.

Human development refers to the growth, develop-

ment, and fulfillment of the individual throughout

life a realized person and effective, productive l
citizen, and the growth and develOpment of society.

 

18Crookston, p. 26.

19 20

Ibid. Ibid., p. 27.

21Ibid., p. 28.

30

Crookston limits the application of the concept of human
development by the word "student." "Student development
by definition must imply a developmental process limited
to an educational setting; it is, therefore, the more
preferable term to describe our particular field."22
In a study developed for the United States
Federal Department of Health, Education and Welfare,
Ayers, Tripp, and Russell conclude that "the great
majority of colleges and universities now provide admin-
istrative leadership and delegate administrative respon-
sibility to persons identified as student service
officers."23 Newton and Hellenga in a recent article
assessing the learning objectives of student personnel
training programs state that "Student personnel work in
American institutions of higher learning has been char—
acterized as a field that developed haphazardly as col-
leges felt a need for staff members to handle the auxiliary

or outside class affairs of their students."24 Thus, the

 

22Ibid.

23A. R. Ayers, P. Tripp, and J. Russell, Student
ServicesHHdministration in Higher Education (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1966): P. 7.

24F. B. Newton and G. Hellenga, "Assessment of
Learning and Process Objectives in Student Personnel
Training Programs," Journal of College Student Personnel
15 (November 1974): 492.

 

31

practice of student personnel work in today's higher
education responds to both the Student Personnel Point
of View philosophy and the more recent emphasis on Stu-

dent Development.

Objectives of Professional Student
Personnel Preparation Programs

According to the 1973 statement of the Council of
Student Personnel Associations, "a Master's Degree pro-
gram (in college student personnel) should be directed
toward the development of a beginning professional who

has the basic values and competencies for facilitating

25

student developments.” However, as Williamson was

quick to point out as early as 1958:

. . . desirable competencies (can) be acquired
through general experience or through formal train-
ing supplemental to professional preparation in
one's specialty. Obviously, one does not acquire
even minimum competence in all of (the) diverse
areas of functioning at any one particular time

in one professional career . . . and, while an
administrator hopes to find many of these compe-
tencies at the time of initial employment, he does
recognize that management must assume responsi-
bility for continuous in-service professional
training.

While all of the skills cannot be adequately assimilated
prior to entry into the professional work world, J. R.

Penn argues that it is the responsibility of professional

 

25own, 1973, p. 8.

26
pp. 3-4.

Williamson, "Professional Preparation,"

32

preparation programs "to supply institutions of higher
education with an effective and well—prepared group of
individuals who can meet the complexities of higher edu-
cation."27 Moreover, R. R. McDaniel states that student
personnel training programs cannot "ignore the fact that
a student personnel worker is part of an administrative
structure and that the future success or failure of the
trainee will largely be a function of his ability to
contribute to the effectiveness of the organization."28
He further argues that although training programs have a
responsibility to teach theory in its ideal state, future
administrators have to learn how to distinguish between
the various and differing roles which they will have to
play. And, although theory must be a part of any prepar-
ation program, students need to tolerate ambiguity and
accept the fact that the ideal state will never be fully
realized.29
Since student personnel administrators are
involved in such a vast array of differing professional

responsibilities and specialties, the task of developing

a preparation program is not an easy one. J. F.

 

27J. R. Penn, "Professional Accreditation: A
Key to Excellence,” Journal of College Student Personnel
15 (July 1973): 257.

28McDaniel, p. 110.

291bid., pp. 102-03.

33

Cottingham has suggested three approaches to the problems
of developing programs of professional preparation for
student personnel workers: training programs must first
try to find out what student personnel workers actually
do; what their duties and responsibilities are; training
programs need to discover the patterns, knowledge and
skills, attitudes, interest and characteristics necessary
for successful performance of these duties and responsi-
bilities; and more pragmatically, training programs need
to determine the types of courses, training, and exper-
iences that are most effective in the developing of
patterns of abilities necessary for success on the job.30
It is the)responsibility of the training programs
to identify the best ways to prepare graduate students to
assume leadership positions within higher education; to
assimilate into and become effective members of adminis-
trative organizations; and to successfully execute the
routines and responsibilities of the specialized func-
tional areas within the student personnel profession. As

Williamson, Penn, and Cottingham have indicated,31 not

 

3OJ. F. Cottingham, "Roles, Functions and Train-
ing for College Personnel Workers," Personnel and
Guidance Journal 33 (1955): 534-38.

 

 

31Williamson, "Professional Preparation"; Penn;
Cottingham.

34

all areas can be included in an academic program. How-

ever, the COSPA (1967) statement states that:

In fulfilling the responsibilities (of the diverse
specialties within the profession) there are some
functions unique to each area of student personnel

work.

But, there are also basic functions which

must be performed by the majority of student per-
sonnel workers regardless of area of specialization.
These include:

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

Understanding the college student as a
learner;

Accurately and effectively interpreting the
values, goals, objectives, and actions of

the student to the institution and others;
Interpreting the goals, values, objectives
and actions of the institution to the student;
Understanding the significant political,
cultural, and social forces operating within
the college community as they affect both the
individual and groups of students;

Counseling on a one-to-one basis at some level
ranging from the relatively perfunctory to
psychotherapy;

Group work ranging from advising student
interest organizations and influencing stu-
dent attitudes and behavior to group counseling;
Programming of educative experience which
supplement classroom learning as well as the
development of meaningful recreational oppor-
tunities;

The collection, organization and dissemination
of information about students ranging from
the simple descriptive to that needed for

the study of student behavior;

The performance of administrative functions
such as policy formulation and implementation,
student development and budget making;
Research ranging from the demographic and
evaluative to basic studies of psychological,
social, and cultural forces influencing stu-
dent performance and behavior.32

In a later statement, the Council of Student Per-

sonnel Associations translates these ten areas of specific

responsibility into three all-encompassing areas, or types,

 

32

COSPA, 1967, pp. 2-3.

35

of involvement: administration, instruction and consul-
tation. The document expanded these areas and provided
operational definitions of the terms. In identifying
these areas of involvement, the Council embraced the
concept of student development and called for preparation
for student development specialists.
The field of student personnel is a diverse one.

How, then, should people be prepared to assume leadership
positions within the field? In a study of preparation
programs, Emmet found that:

There seems to be more emphasis on the development

of a person who is a generalist rather than a

specialist in a particular field. This generalist

is someone who is well versed in the liberal arts,

and is able to grasp the whole field of student

personnel work and to place his or her perspective

in the discipline that pertains to the field of

student personnel work. 3
Greenleaf and Lloyd-Jones in separate statements address-
ing the goals of training programs both underscore the
needs for a generalist. As Greenleaf contends, "the
student personnel worker, administrator must be a manager
. . . be skilled in the art of communication . . . be

sharp intellectually . . . be traveled . . . be a skilled

administrator . . . be a generalist . . . be a catalyst

 

33Emmet, p. 2.

36

. . . be able in dealing with students as individuals."34

Lloyd-Jones reflects a more general view when she says
that a student personnel worker should "work with others
using the resources and techniques of discussion, sym-
posia, exposition, colloquia, dialogue, clarifying
questions, literature, art, history, religion, philosophy,
social fellowship, and sustained search."35
Clearly, however, a master's degree training
program cannot provide for all that Greenleaf and Lloyd-
Jones suggest; nor does the literature contain an abun-
dance of material which proposes learned outcomes for
a master's training program. The few studies which do
exist (Keller, Yates, Rhatigan, Hoyt and Rhatigan for

doctoral programs, and Ostroth, Newton and Richardson,

Newton and Hellenga for master's programs)36 suggest

 

34E. Greenleaf, "Who Should Educate the College
Student Personnel Worker and To What End," Journal of
the National Association of Student Personnel Adminis-
trators 6 (JuIy 1968): 31-32.

 

 

3SE. Lloyd-Jones, "How To Prepare for the Unknown,
Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators 67(July 1968): 28.

 

 

36L. I. Keller, "Evaluation of a Student Personnel
Training Program Through the Opinions of Its Trainees"
(Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, 1962); J. M.
Yates, Mimeographed questionnaire currently being used
for a doctoral dissertation (Memphis State University);
J. J. Rhatigan, "The Professional Preparation of Student
Personnel Administrators as Perceived by Practitioners
and Faculty-Trainers" (Ph.D. dissertation, The University
of Iowa, 1965); Hoyt and Rhatigan; Ostroth; F. B. Newton
and R. L. Richardson, "Expected Entry-Level Competencies

37

similar outcome competencies for training programs.

These similarities are best summarized by the results

of Ostroth's study of sixty randomly selected insti-
tutions offering a master of arts degree in student
personnel.37 He found that the areas of competency
clustered around five primary categories: counseling
competencies, competencies in administration and manage-
ment, understanding of the field of higher education,

and competency in research and evaluation. One inherent
problem with all of the studies cited is the generalities
which they all employ. As stated previously, the student
personnel profession is a conglomeration of many job
responsibilities relying upon a wide range of demonstrable
skills and defining needed competencies in clear and
specific terms is an arduous task at best. Each study
found in this review of the literature assumes that the
terminology used is generally understood by the members
of the profession and that the terminology is applied

universally within the profession.

 

of Student Personnel Workers," Journal of College Student
Personnel 17 (September 1976): 426-31; Newton and Hellenga.

 

 

37Ostroth.

38

Professional Preparation

 

Suggested Areas of Study

 

Differing expectations of a master's degree pro-
gram in student personnel compound the problem of pro-
fessional preparation of student personnel workers.
Theodore Miller presents the dilemma rather succinctly
by indicating that:

Master's programs, it is felt, should be organized
in such a way that, by student option, they may be
terminal for those interested in finding employment
in subordinate personnel positions or as foundations
for entrance into an advanced program of academic
study. Further, completion of these programs should
take a minimum of two years or four semesters of
full-time study. Unless the student is given ample
time and opportunity to assimilate and integrate

the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary, he
will, at best, become a technician in a field which
needs more than technique. He should, of course,
have a real grasp of the specialized substantive
aspects within the field, but this is not enough.
Let us not emphasize the production of technician-
specialists; let us, instead, prepare future leaders
of a professional caliber.

In order to provide for leadership in the field
of student personnel, Trueblood proposes the following
seven core areas for study: psychology (specifically
developmental); the study of culture and change (sociology,
anthropology, and other behavioral sciences); Philosophy,
finance, planning, and curriculum in higher education;
"skill" courses in counseling and measurement; and super-

vised work experience; research; and ethical

 

38Miller, p. 52.

39

reaponsibilities.39

Further, Rhatigan and O'Banian
found empirical evidence to support Trueblood's core
areas. In a study of both student personnel adminis-
trators and faculty trainers at randomly selected insti-
tutions offering advanced degree programs in student
personnel, Rhatigan found significant support for pre-
paring future administrators in areas which he labeled:
Background in Basic Disciplines (psychology, social-
cultural influences on development . . .); Higher Edu-
cation (philosophy, history, the college student, spe-
cialty courses about junior colleges); Specialty Courses
in Student Personnel Work (structure, function, counseling,
internship in student service areas); Administration and
Management; Research.40 O'Banian in a study of thirty
student personnel workers also found support for the core
areas proposed by Trueblood. He reported that his find-
ings:

Suggest that the core of experiences which should

be common to all college and university student

personnel work includes:

1) Psychology, including social psychology,
developmental psychology, personality theory,
learning theory, and development and charac-
teristics of young adults;

2) Counseling Principles and Techniques--theory
and case study;

 

39Trueblood, pp. 77-78.

4oRhatigan.

40

3) Practicum in Student Personnel Work--an oppor-
tunity to observe and obtain supervised
practice in ongoing programs of student per-
sonnel work;

4) An overview of student personnel work in
higher education . . .,

5) The Study of the College Student--nature,
characteristics, needs, differing life
patterns of men and women;

6) Sociology and Anthropology, including processes
of social and cultural change, urban society,
sociometrics, social institutions, populations,
uses of leisure, and assessment of cultural
mores and folkways;

7) Higher Education--history, setting, objectives,
curriculum, organization, administration,
finance.41

In a more theoretical proposal, Cosby states that
the student personnel worker's primary responsibility is
to:

. . . teach the university . . . (and) in order to
teach the university, one must have studied the
university. This requires that the student per-
sonnel curriculum be developed within the context
of the study of higher education, the development
of a college as a socio-cultural institution.42
Cosby proposes a study of the university which includes
five primary categories: the university as a socio—
cultural institution; the sociology of undergraduate

life; group processes, peer group entrance, assimilation,

influence, intergroup tensions; jurisdictional areas of

 

41O'Banion, p. 25.

423. Cosby, "Professional Preparation for Student
Personnel Work in Higher Education," Journal of the
National Associgtion of Women Deans, Administrators and
Cbunselors’29 (Fall 1965): 16417.

 

41

student personnel work; learning by doing which she calls
an "essential element in the professional education of
student personnel workers."43
Finally, a more recent study, undertaken by Newton
and Richardson, cited the outcome competencies of master's
training programs desired by a sample of student personnel
workers. These competencies (skills in human relations,
leadership, administration) support the need for the core

training areas cited above.44

Although word usage may
differ from study to study, the research tends to support

the seven core areas proposed by Trueblood in 1966.

Academic Requirements

 

The suggestions in the literature regarding aca-
demic preparation are quite consistent with the findings
previously cited. There is strong support for foundations
in the liberal arts. Greenleaf theorizes that ”the
broader the multi-disciplinary approach, the broader
base the young personnel worker has to challenge students
as individuals and to understand the institutional

45

structure and functions." Robinson, in an analysis of

statements relative to preparation programs, indicates

 

53Ibid., p. 17.

44Newton and Richardson.

4SGreenleaf, p. 32.

42

that ”the student personnel worker must have a grounding
in the behavioral sciences with emphasis on psychology
and sociology; . . . an understanding of higher education
principles philosophy, and administration is necessary,

as is basic understanding of human development, the
college student and college culture."46 Schreck feels
that the nature of campus organizations is one of change,
and he proposes that "training in group work, sensitivity,
perception and group dynamics have increased in impor-

47 Clyde Parker supports Schreck when he indi-

tance.”
cates that "the education appropriate for counselors is
an important part of the preparation for all student per-
sonnel workers."48 However, Emmet, fearing that student
personnel as a discipline is not one which prepares an
individual to teach at the college level, maintains that
"it would seem desirable in terms of employability that

persons entering this field do graduate work of enough

 

46D. W. Robinson, "Analysis of Three Statements
Relative to the Preparation of College Student Personnel
Workers," Journal of College Student Personnel 7 (July
1966): 255.

 

47T. C. Schreck and R. H. Shaffer, "Implications
of the Campus Organization Power Structure for Student
Personnel Administrators," Journal of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators 5
(ApriI I968): 355.

 

 

48C. A. Parker, "The Place of Counseling in the
Preparation of Student Personnel Work," Personnel and
Guidance Journal 45 (November 1966): 260.

 

 

43

depth in an academic discipline so as to be able to
teach this discipline at at least the freshman-sophomore
level."49
I In summary, the areas of study suggested by True-
blood, Rhatigan, O'Banian, Cosby and Miller are supported
in the literature. Although specific emphases vary from
author to author, the literature discloses that philosophy
and history of higher education, developmental psychology
and counseling, leadership, management, decision-making,
planning and financial management, sociology and anthro-

pology should be presented in the academic component of

graduate programs in College Student Personnel.

Practice as Part of Training

 

The importance of a practical component as part
of a master's degree preparation program in student per-
sonnel is well documented in the literature. Moreover,
the importance of practical experience is supported both
in theory and in empirical investigations. The theoreti-
cal support is best articulated by R. B. Caple's "Molar
Model for Training Student Personnel Workers." In his
model, Caple proposes that "the formal training program
is made up of the following elements: didactic instruc-

tion, self-exploration, supervision and practice."50

 

49Emmet, p. 3.

50Caple, p. 32.

 

 

44

His support of the practical component is obvious when
he suggests that "the central experience in an effective

training program is supervised work."51

Caple's point
of view is reinforced by the American Personnel and
Guidance Association position that a practical component
in the form of laboratory, practicum, and internship
experience is recommended for any student personnel
training program. Moreover, in.a report on the status
of internships in student personnel preparation programs,
Wallenfeldt and Bigelow state that "on-the-job learning
experiences are important, perhaps more important than
any course work students are required to complete."52
These authors underscore their belief in the practical
component by proposing that "the internship is valuable,
perhaps the most valuable portion of graduate education
in student personnel."S3
Furthermore, in a summary of recommendations
regarding the practicum experience in master's degree
programs in personnel work for the National Association
of Women Deans, Administrators and Counselors, Virginia

Kirkbride stated that the "primary purpose of the practicum

experience should be to provide opportunities to integrate

SlIbid., p. 34.

52Wallenfeldt and Bigelow, p. 183.

531bid., p. 184.

45

knowledge and skills, theory and practice, and not to
provide an overview or introduction to the field."54
She further contended that "The practicum should be of
significant duration to offer extensive involvement of
the student with the professional staff."55 Moreover,
when Trueblood expands upon his core areas, he calls for
practical experience which "must be meaningfully related
to the content of course work and its significance in
professional practice. Early work experiences in per-
sonnel related tasks are important in helping solidify
the neophyte's career decision."56
Other statements by the Council of Student Per-
sonnel Associations, the American College Personnel
Association, and theorists like Houtz, Miller, and
McDaniel have, in recent years, underscored the importance
of a practical componentto a training program in student
personnel work.57 The importance of practical experience

has also been clearly demonstrated in several research

findings which are reported in the professional

 

S4Kirkbride, p. 82.

551bid., p. 84.

56Trueblood, p. 83.

S7COSPA, 1973; American College Personnel Associ-
ation, "The Role and Preparation of Student Personnel
Workers in Institutions of Higher Learning," Journai of
College Student Personnel 8 (January 1967): 62-65; P.
Hautz, "InternShips in Student Personnel Programs," in

 

 

46

literature. O'Banion's study of selected student per-
sonnel workers led him to conclude that a practicum in
student personnel work is "necessary to allow the student
an opportunity to try out his theory."58 Newton and
Hellenga's recent study indicated a "need for extended
practical experiences."59 Their study, as well as a
similar survey by Tracy, called for extended practical
experiences. Tracy cited institutions which plan changes
in their programs that include "longer practical exper-
iences . . . development of programs which will offer
paid internships . . . more relevant internships . . .
change the requirements of a master's thesis to an
internship."60

Moreover, attempts to survey attitudes of pro-
fessional student personnel administrators have yielded
a common result in that there is agreement that the
importance of a practical component in a student personnel
training program is crucial. Hoyt and Rhatigan indicate

that "despite the fact that practitioners perceived

academic training as generally relevant, they clearly

 

College Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies,
e s. L. E. Fitzgerald, W. Johnson, and W. Norris (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970); Miller; McDaniel.

58O'Banion, p. 251.

59Newton and Hellenga, p. 495.

60J. L. Tracy, "The Current Status of Master's
Programs in College Student Personnel," Journal of the
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
9 (Octdber 1971): 107.

47

believed that on-the-job training was more important."61

In a nation-wide survey of chief student personnel admin-
istrators, Ostroth found that 88.9 percent of the respon-
dents indicated that supervised practice in student per-
sonnel work was essential to a training program.62 These
findings are also supported by survey research undertaken
by Emmet and a recent study by McGovern and Tinsley at

63 McGovern and Tinsley

Southern Illinois University.
studied student perceptions and found that "the graduate
assistant work-training experience is usually seen as an
opportunity for . . . more intensified professional
development . . . the students appeared to value the
experiential form of learning and saw it as critical
in terms of their career objectives."64
Thus, the importance of practical, on-the-job
experience is well documented as a critical component of
the preparation necessary for student personnel work.

And, as Tracy, Kirkbirde, Caple, and Newton and Hellenga

conclude, the role of practice is increasing in

 

61Hoyt and Rhatigan, p. 40.

62Ostroth, p. 321.

63Emmet; McGovern and Tinsley.

64McGovern and Tinsley, pp. 132-33.

48

importance.65 Extended practical experiences, where

the student is able to integrate theory and practice by
actually testing his behavior in a real work experience,

is being perceived as a critical, if not the most valuable,
component of the training program.

Integrating the Academic and
Practical Components

 

 

In a recent article on field-based learning activ-
ities at Texas A & M University, G. G. Gordon cites Dene-
mark's proposition that:

There is no magic in field experience. It is not
meaningful simply because it is "out there." Rather
it is meaningful as it is carefully planned, struc-
tured, interpreted, and limited with theoretical or
foundational studies, contact with reality without
the perspective of theory fosters adjustment to what
i3 gather than stimulating realization of what could
be.
Gordon proposed planning and integration of the theoreti-
cal and practical experiences of graduate students. Addi-
tionally, in a study of internships in student personnel
programs, Patricia Houtz indicates that graduate students
and professionals agreed that "organized internship pro-

grams would be beneficial for workers in student personnel.

The majority of both groups agreed that practical and

 

65Tracy; Kirkbride; Caple; Newton and Hellenga.

66G. G. Gordon, "FLAGS: Field Based Learning
Activities for Graduate Students," Phi Kappa Phi Journal
56 (Summer 1976): 25.

 

49

content courses should be concurrent. . . ."67 Robinson,

in an analysis of statements regarding training programs
and practicums, stated that "understanding of college
student personnel work both through formal course work,

I O 0 68
practicums, and 1nternsh1ps are necessary. . . .

Further,
McGovern and Tinsley underscore the necessity of an inte-
grated program.69

Thus, these studies lend support to the conten-
tions made by the Council of Student Personnel Associ-
ations, American Personnel and Guidance Association and
the American College Personnel Association which call for
practical experiences as a necessary component of profes-
sional preparation programs.70 However, the common theme
expressed by these researchers, professional organizations,
and practitioners is that the practical and theoretical
experiences should be concurrent and integrated. Cosby
theorized that work-study and academic experiences which

are not integrated can limit the learning of the student

by placing him in a subordinate position where he is

 

67Houtz, p. 46.

68Robinson, p. 255.

69McGovern and Tinsley.

70COSPA, 1973; ACPA; American Personnel and
Guidance Association, "Guidelines for Graduate Programs
in the Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Higher
Education," Personnel and Guidance Journal 47 (1969):
493-98.

 

50

expected to follow without questioning the instructions
of the supervisor. In short, she indicates that the
balance of the academic program and practical experience
is critical.
Too much emphasis on the practice of student person-
nel work while one is still a student suggests a
guild apprenticeship rather than professional study
for professional admission. Certain of these prac-
tices could be ameliorated if the practicum would
be viewed as a place for the practice of theory.71
Goldstein in a more recent article echoes Cosby's concerns
and cautions that
. . . all is not peaceful in the world of academic
internships. A conflict (can emerge) pitting pro-
fessor against practitioner and forcing the student
to decide whether to take part in an internship
program on grounds that are related to academic,
intellectual needs.72
Cosby and Goldstein imply that the academic and assistant-
ship experiences should be integrated to enable the stu-
dent to see each experience as an extension of the other.
Academic preparation alone is inadequate for training
future student personnel workers. However, paid assistant-
ships which do not relate theory to practice are also

inadequate since they force the student to separate

experiences which should be collaborative.

 

71Cosby, p. 17.

72M. B. Goldstein, "Academic Internships: Can
Cash and Credit Coexist?" Synergist 5 (Spring 1976): 27.

 

51

Thus, while the literature supports the need for
work experiences in student personnel training programs,
the call is for field experiences which are coordinated

with the formal academic program.73

Summary

An intensive review of the literature discloses
no evidence which describes the relationship between paid
assistantships in student personnel and formal academic
training programs. Practical experiences are almost uni-
versally prescribed as a component of the academic program
along with recommended core areas of study (psychology,
educational foundations, administrative skills, research
and evaluation skills, group dynamics, student personnel
courses). In addition to these prescribed components,
the importance of professional preparation for entry
level student personnel workers is supported in the
literature. Entry level professionals are expected to
perform specific tasks and employers have a right to
expect proficiency in these tasks.74 The literature
also discloses consistent expectations regarding the
competencies and areas of knowledge which graduates of
training programs should have. Although publications

which suggest specific outcomes differ somewhat from

 

73Cap1e; Wallenfeldt and Bigelow.

74Wallenfeldt and Bigelow.

52

author to author, the competencies (which are presented
in Chapter III) can be clustered into the following six
categories: counseling human relations and interpersonal
skills; theory and practice of administration and manage-
ment; research, testing, and measurement; historical,
philOSOphical, and social foundations of higher edu-
cation; meeting student needs; and professional purpose
and role identity.

Finally, every author who prescribes content for
master's degree training programs calls for a practical
component to be included in the program. Although it
can be assumed that graduate students obtain practical
experiences in paid assistantships, no studies are cur-
rently reported in the literature which describe how
the practical and academic components should be coordi-
nated and integrated in this context. Although emphasis
is placed upon the assistantship (and many programs are
recommending that these practical experiences be of
longer duration), no study attempts to show how these
two learningexperiences should be effectively combined.
Wallenfeldt and Bigelow describe the lack of collaboration
between faculty and assistantship supervisors. The
apparent result is that the student is left with the
task of making the transition from the general theory

to the specific demands of the job.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE DESIGN

OF THE STUDY

The competencies and areas of knowledge necessary
for entry level student personnel workers have been
defined and articulated by the theoretical propositions
and empirical studies reported in Chapter II. The purpose
of this research was to define where the locus of prepar-
ation should be relative to the formal academic process
and the paid assistantship experiences of three student
personnel preparation programs. The perceptions of the
faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and recent
graduates of the master's degree programs in college stu-
dent personnel were studied at Bowling Green State Uni-
versity, Michigan State University, and The University
of Vermont.

This chapter describes the hypotheses tested,
the population sampled, the instrument utilized, the
administration of the instrument, and the statistical

methods used to test the hypotheses.

53

54

Hypotheses

 

The hypotheses were presented in Chapter I.
They are restated in this chapter for the convenience

of the reader.

Hypothesis 1:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates perceive no significant differences
in expectations of the assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2a:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates within each institution perceive no
significant differences in expectations of the
assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2b:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates at different institutions perceive
no significant differences in expectations of the
assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 3:

 

There are no significant differences in expectations
of the formal academic process between students who
hold paid assistantships and students who do not
hold paid assistantships.

Hypothesis 4:

 

There are no significant differences in expectations
of the formal academic process between recent
graduates who held paid assistantships and those
graduates who did not hold paid assistantships.

55

Hypothesis 5:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates report no significant differences

in perceptions of the importance of a paid assistant-
ship as part of the preparation process.

Hypothesis 6:

 

There are no significant differences in collaboration
of the paid assistantship and the formal academic
process between the program which requires a paid
assistantship and those which do not require a paid
assistantship.

The Sample

 

No studies are reported in the literature which
investigated the perceptions of faculty, students, assis-
tantship supervisors, and recent graduates toward paid
assistantship and formal academic experiences. Instead,
the studies surveyed either faculty trainers or student
personnel practitioners. Also, the group of practitioners
most often studied was restricted to chief student person-
nel administrators. Therefore, in order to obtain a more
thorough understanding of the relationship between paid
assistantships and the formal academic process, this study
involved populations in the training process which were
either overlooked or neglected in previous research. Each
population's expectations of the training being provided
in master's programs at Bowling Green State University,
Michigan State University, and The University of Vermont

were investigated.

56

Another deficiency in the literature is the
absence of studies which compare various types of training
programs. While several researchers report the per-
ceptions of training needs on a nation-wide sample, no
investigations attempted to compare, contrast, or
identify significant differences between types of pro-
grams or institutions offering master's degrees in col-
lege student personnel. Thus, while studying perceptions
of various groups involved in professional preparation,
it was deemed worthwhile to investigate several different
institutions, each possessing commonly prescribed courses
and practica experiences while at the same time appearing
to be somewhat different than each other.

Descriptions of Individual
Training Programs

 

Bowling Green State University, Michigan State
University, and The University of Vermont were selected
for this study. All three institutions offer master's
degrees in college student personnel. Each of the
institutions requires practica experiences as part of
the curriculum. Furthermore, each of the institutions
studied has several faculty members specifically
assigned to instruction in student personnel. In
addition, each institution's program also relies upon
adjunct faculty or faculty assigned to other departments
or specialized areas to teach both core and elective

courses to the student personnel majors.

57

Thus, each institution in question shares several
basic and fundamental characteristics. Their curricula
follow the prescriptions of the professional organizations
thus providing courses in student personnel work, counsel-
ing, research and evaluation, testing, educational foun—
dations (history, philosophy), and administrative theory.
However, differences between the programs are also evi-
dent. In order to portray the similarities and differ-
ences, the individual descriptions focus on: the size of
the program, the commitment of the program to paid assis-
tantships offered; practica requirements, length of time
required to complete the degree program, and specific
institutional differences (characteristics which might

be considered unique to each institution).

Bowling Green State Universigy

While all three institutions make assistantships
available to master's degree candidates, Bowling Green
requires that all students without previous employment
in a professional student personnel position spend an
academic year involved in a paid assistantship exper-
ience. Unlike Michigan State university and The Uni-
versity of Vermont, paid assistantships offered by
Bowling Green are available at a number of other insti-
tutions in a wide variety of work settings. Although
it is uncommon, students may undertake a number of dif-

ferent assistantships during their degree programs.

58

Bowling Green students are required to begin
course work prior to becoming involved in their assis-
tantships. They enroll in summer classes at the start
of their program and begin either full or part-time super-
vised work experiences in the fall. Since students are
often involved in assistantships at other institutions,
they complete a significant amount of course work in
summer sessions and enroll for a minimum number of
courses during the regular academic year. It is common
for a student involved in an off-campus assistantship
to return to the Bowling Green campus only one day per
week. To accommodate the demands of this regimen, the
courses offered to master's candidates in student per-
sonnel are all scheduled on the same day. After complet-
ing nine months of on-the-job training, the students
usually enroll in an additional fifteen hours of summer
session course work. A total of fifty-two quarter hours
of course work is required by the program. In addition
to the course work, a minimum of three practica are
required of graduate students. A student may complete
all of the degree requirements in one year although
faculty members generally advise a two-year experience.

'To insure a productive and worthwhile experience
for the students, the assistantship supervisors meet
en masse with the faculty once during the year to discuss

the goals of the assistantship experience and the academic

59

program. As needs arise, supplemental contacts occur
between supervisors and faculty members.

Among the three institutions under study, Bowling
Green offers the widest variety of assistantships and
has graduated the largest number of entry level profes-
sional student personnel workers within the last two
years. The institution also offers a doctoral degree
in student personnel, but the doctoral program is much

smaller than the master's program.

Michigan State University

 

While it does not require paid assistantships,
Michigan State University's program makes assistantship
experiences available to graduate students, strongly
encourages students to be so employed, and the vast
majority of student personnel master's degree candidates
are involved in one or more during the process of com-
pleting their degree requirements. All of Michigan
State's assistantships are located on the East Lansing
campus and all but a few are related to residence halls.
At Michigan State, students are more likely to be super—
vised by individuals who are also part-time master's or
doctoral students than at either of the other two
institutions included in this study because of the
presence of a rather large doctoral program which

attracts advanced graduate students to the campus.

60

For the purposes of this study, these graduate students
are identified as assistantship supervisors since their
primary responsibility to the institution is to their
employment rather than to their academic programs.

The master's degree program requires a minimum of
three supervised practica experiences. The program also
requires a cognate, or minor, area in a non student per-
sonnel but related academic discipline such as one of
behavioral sciences, management, etc. The program requires
sixty quarter hours of course work and in almost all cases,
the degree program takes two years to complete. The size
of the program is intentionally maintained consistent
and currently enrolls approximately fifty students in the

first and second year of their programs.

The University of Vermont

 

Like Michigan State, The University of Vermont's
master's program in college student personnel makes
available, but does not require, a paid assistantship
experience. Moreover, the Vermont assistantships are
primarily available in residence halls and a few are
offered which provide part-time experiences in student
activities, academic advising, and volunteer programs.

Faculty members in this program boast of a close
relationship with the students and articulate the per-
ception that since they do not have a doctoral program

the master's degree candidates receive a good deal of

61

personalized attention from the faculty and supervisors.
Vermont's is also the smallest program under study, and
the number of actively enrolled candidates is held con-
stant at approximately thirty students. Vermont also
requires several practica experiences (three are sug-
gested) and makes available one-credit courses or
"modules” in topical areas which neither necessitate
nor accommodate a regular three-credit course (writing
behavioral objectives, basic budgeting techniques). The
degree program requires thirty semester hours of course
work and students are encouraged to take two years to
complete the degree requirements.

Thus, all three institutions included appear to
be similar enough to permit comparison, yet different
enough to provide contrast} All three institutions report
casual, informal relationships between faculty members
and assistantship supervisors, but only Bowling Green
regularly schedules opportunities for supervisors and
faculty to discuss the experiences which they either
require of or provide for the graduate students involved

in professional student personnel preparation.

The Instrument

 

As a result of an extensive review of the
literature, a selected list of competencies and areas
of knowledge necessary for entry-level student personnel

workers was developed. This list was compiled from

62

competencies included in the Yates, Rhatigan, Keller,
Newton and Hellenga, and Newton and Richardson studies,1
as well as prescribed by the COSPA and APGA documents.2
A questionnaire listing these competencies and areas of
knowledge was developed and was pilot tested at Michigan
State among faculty, students, selected graduates, assis-
tantship supervisors, and selected student personnel
workers who would not be included in the study. The
pilot test questionnaire asked the respondents to rate
the importance of each of the competencies to assure the
inclusion of only relevant competencies. All of the
competencies were judged to be important by the pilot
test respondents. One hundred percent of the pilot test
group returned the original questionnaire. As a result
of the pilot test and extensive evaluation and critique
by members of the faculty, face validity was claimed for
the instrument.

The competencies were deductively grouped into
six major categories. The composition of each category
was reviewed and approved by members of the student per-

sonnel faculty at Michigan State University.

 

1Yates, Rhatigan, Keller, Newton and Hellenga,
and Newton and Richardson.

2COSPA, ACPA.

63

COMPETENCIES AND AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY FOR
ENTRY LEVEL POSITIONS:

Counseling, Human Relations, and Interpersonal Skills

 

mew N H

\IO‘

cite and interpret theories of personality develop—
ment

counsel and advise students involved in career

choice and career development

mediate conflicts between individuals and groups
recognize and evaluate group dynamics

manifest well-developed interpersonal relations and
communications skills

advise groups

display competence in individual and group counseling

Theory and Practice of Administration and Management

 

16
17
18
19
20

formulate and monitor a budget

administer salaries

select and evaluate staff

train and supervise staff

engage in systematic planning

evaluate programs

formulate and interpret policy

recognize legal implications, understand state and
federal legislation affecting the administration of
student personnel and education programs
appreciate the computer as a management tool
manage physical resources and facilities
distinguish between theory and practice

engage in effective decision-making

display leadership skills

Research, Testing, and Measurement

 

21
22
23

24
25

conduct independent research

understand the principles of statistical analysis
interpret research as reported in professional
literature

interpret personality tests and measurements
administer personality tests and measurements

‘ Historical, Philosophical, and Social Foundations

 

26
27
28

29

articulate the social and cultural foundations of
higher education

appreciate the historical and philosophical under-
pinnings of higher education

recognize and analyze political processes in higher
educational organizations

understand the financing of higher education

64

Meeting Student Needs

 

30
31

32
33
34
35
36
37

38
39

40
41

tolerate and appreciate differing life styles
recognize and interpret the special needs of ethnic
and racial minorities

articulate the characteristics of the American
college student

represent student concerns to other campus popu-
lations

interpret the concerns, goals, problems of the

other campus populations to students

work effectively with a wide range of individuals
assess student needs and interests

perform fair and effective discipline of student
misconduct

work cooperatively with others

meet student needs through co-curricular programs
and activities

identify the developmental stages of college students
use strategies and purposeful programs to facilitate
student development

Professional Purpose and Role Identity

 

42
43
44

45

46
47

appreciate and understand the specialized functions
of student personnel work

appreciate and internalize professional standards
and ethics

articulate and interpret the goals of student per-
sonnel work to the wider population (on and off
campus)

cite and describe issues and trends in student
personnel work

display familiarity with the professional literature
distinguish between and use the resources of the
professional organizations

The questionnaire appears in Appendix A to this

study. Subjects were asked to respond to questions

regarding their position, institution, the importance of

a paid assistantship, the impact of a paid assistantship,

the impact of a paid assistantship on professional

preparation. Faculty were asked how often they met with

assistantship supervisors; assistantship supervisors

65

were asked whether or not they supervised practicum
students, taught on a part-time basis, or if they were
also part or full-time students. Students and graduates
were asked if they were or had been involved in a paid
assistantship. For each of the competencies, the sub-
jects were asked to respond to the following statement:
Please indicate where you believe the locus of

preparation should be for each of the competencies
or areas of knowledge.

 

The respondents were asked to circle the number which
best expressed their Opinion. Their choices were:

Entirely in the academic program

Mostly in the academic program

Equally in the academic program and paid
assistantship

Mostly in the paid assistantship
Entirely in the paid assistantship

l-‘N (new

Administration of the Instrument

 

A faculty contact was established at each program
and they provided the researcher with names and addresses
of each faculty member, student, assistantship supervisor,
and recent graduate. Through the chairperson of the
department or unit of college student personnel at each
institution, additional faculty, staff, and student sup-
port was solicited. Personal visits were made by the
researcher to the individual campuses during the month
of February 1977. The campus contacts provided the
researcher with the opportunity to hand deliver the

questionnaire to many of the subjects. During the third

66

week of February the questionnaire was mailed to those
individuals who were not available for a personal contact.
Cover letters introducing the study, defining the specific
terms used in the investigation, and requesting that the
recipient complete and return the questionnaire by self-
addressed, pre-paid postage envelope were sent with the
questionnaire. Each cover letter included the name of

a faculty sponsor from the specific institution (see
Appendix B). To insure a viable rate of return from the
respondents who were solicited by mail, a follow-up post
card urging their participation was sent two weeks after
the original mailing (first week of March). This request
asked that the questionnaires be returned by March 21,
1977. Results received after April 1, 1977 were not

included in the analysis of data.3

Treatment of the Data

 

All of the statistical techniques applied to the

data are procedures programmed by the Statistical Package

 

3Only those recent graduates who had received
master's degrees in college student personnel from
June 1975 to December 1976, and who were also employed
in a student personnel position, were included in this
study. The faculty contact at each institution identi-
fied these persons for the researcher.

.mosum on» :w oocsaocfl mums uncenm> mo
huwmuo>flco one can .muflmuo>«co oumum someone: .muflmno>wco mumum cmouo mcaH3om Scum

67

mmuoscmno ucmoou can .mMOmw>Hom5m mflnmucmumammm .mucocsum .huaaomm Had .ouoz

 

 

mm mom mum Hmuoa m>wumasaso
om mm as Houoe
OOH m m muasomm
hm mm on mumzomuo
mm o m HOmH>Homsm
mm mm mm unocnum ucoenm> mo huflmum>wco
mm boa omH Hmuoe
ooa v v huanomm
he mm mv mumscmuo
mm on om Memfl>ummsm
mm ee mm ucoosum ououm nooenoez
mo and one Houoe
00H e e Muasomm
mm No om mumavmuw
ooa mm mm Homw>uomam
we on em peoosuo compo oeeesom
mmmucmoumm cocusumm z Hm>mq scenauwumcH

 

mAmZ<m WEB m0 ZOHBHmOQZOU

H.m Mauda

68

for Social Sciences (SPSS).4 A Multivariate Analysis of

Variance (MANOVA) was completed on each of the categories
for Interaction Effects between Institutions (Bowling

Green, Michigan State, and Vermont) and Positions (faculty,
student, assistantship supervisor, and recent graduate),
and the Main Effects of Position and Institution by each
of the competencies and areas of knowledge in each cate-
gory. If significant differences were suggested by the
multivariate analysis, one-way analyses of variance were
applied to the variable and competency which indicated
difference. For the purpose of making pair-wise com-
parisons the Scheffé Post-Hoc technique was used.

To test each of the specific hypotheses, SPSS
Condescriptives and Crosstabulations were applied to the
specific variables under investigation. These procedures
yielded measures of central tendency and F-distribution
*statistics. The specific F-distributions yielded chi
square scores which measure independence between variables.
Crosstabulations were done by collapsing the cells (5 and
4 responses = 2, 2 and 1 responses = 1) and omitting the
"equal" (or 3) response. This disclosed difference
between respondents who selected a locus of preparation
in either the academic or paid assistantship arena.

Hypotheses 1, 2a, 2b, 3, and 4 were tested against each

 

4N. H. Nie, D. H. Bent, and C. H. Hull, Statis-
tical Package for the Social Sciences (New York: McGraw-
Hill Book Co., 1970).

69

competency. Hypotheses 5 and 6 were tested independently
of the competencies since these hypotheses do not apply

specifically to the competencies and areas of knowledge.

Delimitations

 

Although F-tests for analysis of variance do not
require equal numbers of subjects (N) in each sub-popu-
lation, a major assumption of F-statistics is that Ns are
approximately the same size. Furthermore, F-statistics
assume that the Ns are normally distributed. The power
of F-tests depends, in part, upon a rather large sample
size. A major limitation of these research findings is
the radical inequality in cell sizes; especially critical
is the small number of faculty (13 out of 308). While
the return from the faculty represents 100 percent of the
population, it is still too small to meet a major assump-
tion of F-statistics.5 However, this disproportionate
number of subjects was unavoidable given the small
faculty group in each school. ‘Had other schools been
added to the population to increase the number of
faculty, the other three sub-groups would have increased
at a proportional rate. Thus, findings must be inter-

preted with this limitation in mind.

 

5W. L. Hays, Statistics for the Social Sciences
(New York: Holt, Rinéhart and Winston, Inc., 1973),
pp. 442-43.

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Introduction

 

The data presented herein are the results of
survey research undertaken with faculty, graduate stu-
dents, assistantship supervisors, and recent graduates
of the master's degree programs in College Student Per-
sonnel at Bowling Green State University, Michigan State
University, and The University of Vermont. From a
thorough review of relevant and related research, a
questionnaire was developed and administered to the
research sample which included forty-seven competencies
or areas of knowledge which are recommended by student
personnel theorists, practitioners, and professional
associations for entry-level student personnel workers.
The purpose of the research was to determine where the
locus of preparation should be for the competencies and
areas of knowledge suggested by the literature and as
presented and measured by the questionnaire. More spe-
cifically, the questionnaire was developed to identify

those competencies which should be acquired through

70

71

in-service training programs for graduate students who
hold paid assistantships, and those competencies which
should be the responsibilities of the faculty and
acquired through the formal academic process. The sub-
jects selected for the sample were asked to respond to
the following statement:

Please indicate where you believe the locus of

preparation should be for each of the competencies

or areas of FHEWIEdgE.

The respondents were asked to circle the number which

best expressed their opinion. Their choices were:

5 = Entirely in the academic program,

4 = Mostly in the academic program,

3 = Equally in the academic program and paid
assistantship,

2 = Mostly in the paid assistantship,

l = Entirely in the paid assistantship.

A total of 308 out of a possible 378 (82 percent)
questionnaires were completed and returned to the
researcher. The responses were transposed to data pro-
cessing cards to accommodate analysis by the CDC 6500
computer. The competencies were clustered into six cate-
gories on each questionnaire, and the data were analyzed
by focusing on each of the six categories and on indi-

vidual items.

Hypotheses

 

For the purpose of this research project, the

following hypotheses were developed.

72

Hypothesis 1:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates perceive no significant differences
in expectations of the paid assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2a:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates within each institution perceive no
significant differences in expectations of the
assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2b:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates at different institutions perceive
no significant differences in expectations of the
paid assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 3:

 

There are no significant differences in expectations
of the formal academic process between students who
hold paid assistantships and students who do not
hold paid assistantships.

Hypothesis 4:

 

There are no significant differences in expectations
of the formal academic process between recent grad-
uates who held paid assistantships and those recent
graduates who did not hold paid assistantships.

Hypothesis 5:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates report no significant differences
in perceptions of the importance of a paid assis-
tantship as part of the preparation process.

73

Hypothesis 6:

 

There are no significant differences in cooperation
and collaboration between faculty and assistantship
supervisors between the program which requires a
paid assistantship, and those which do not require
a paid assistantship.

Treatment of the Data

 

Individual subject responses were transformed
from the completed questionnaires to data processing

cards. Techniques of the Statistical Package for Social

 

Sciences (SPSS) were used to test the hypotheses.

Data were treated in several ways. To ascertain
basic descriptive information, the condescriptive tech-
nique was employed. This procedure provided measures
of central tendency (mean scores, standard deviations).
Contingency tables which provided frequency and per-
centage scores were also acquired through the SPSS con-
descriptive procedures. To determine whether or not
differences between institutions and positions were
reported, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)
was applied to each of the six categories of competencies
and areas of knowledge. To test the research hypotheses,
crosstabulations yielding Chi Square scores were done
using selected variables on all of the forty-seven com-
petencies. The variables tested were: position, insti-

tution, whether or not a student was involved in a paid

74

assistantship, whether or not a recent graduate had held
a paid assistantship while working on his master's degree.
The null hypotheses were rejected if the MANOVA
or Chi Square scores were significant at the .05 level.
One of the assumptions underlying the F-test is that
samples under comparison are approximately the same size.
Since this assumption was not met by the relative sizes
of the four positions and three institutions under inves—
tigation in this study, the researcher chose a level of
significance which would prohibit rejecting a true null
hypothesis and simultaneously allow for the identification
of trends and differences. The .05 level was chosen for
these reasons. Although the decision to set a signifi—
cance level at a certain value is arbitrary, the .05 level
is small enough to keep from making a Type 1 error which
Hays defines as the error "made when the tested hypothesis
is falsely rejected,"1 yet it is flexible enough to
identify differences between pOpulations.

Summary of Responses to the
General Questions

 

 

All Respondents:

A paid assistantship is a very important component of
master's degree professional preparation for college
student personnel work.

 

1Hays, p. 367.

75

Strongly Agree 71.9%
Agree 20.0
Neither Agree nor

Disagree 5.5
Disagree 1.9
Strongly Disagree .3
No Opinion .3

Graduate students who hold paid assistantships receive
better professional preparation than those who do not.

Strongly Agree 58.7%
Agree 23.2
Neither Agree nor

Disagree 11.9
Disagree 4.2
Strongly Disagree .6
No Opinion 1.0

Students Only:
Are you currently involved in a paid assistantship?

Yes 77.1%
No 22.9

If "yes,” in what area? (If more than one, check as many
as appropriate).

Activities

Residence Halls 7
Resource Center
Teaching

Volunteer Programs
Other 1

UNNbU‘Ib

U'll-‘HNOO

If "no,” have you ever held a paid assistantship?

Yes 4.3%
No 95.7

Have you ever been a full-time staff member on a profes-
sional student personnel staff?

Yes 25.7%
No 74.3

Did you begin graduate study directly after college
graduation?

Yes 45.4%
No 54.6

76

Faculty Members Only:

Do you ever meet with professional staff members who
supervise graduate assistants to discuss your student's
academic and professional growth?

Yes 92.3%
No 7.7

If "yes,” how often do you meet with the professional
staff members to discuss your student's growth and
development?

Once a term/semester 41.7%
Twice a term/semester 41.7
Weekly 0
Less than once a term/
semester 16.7

Assistantship Supervisors Only:

In addition to supervising graduate students involved in
paid assistantships, do you also supervise practicum
students?

Yes 58.1%
No 74.6

If "yes,” how often?

Frequently, nearly

every term/semester 43.8%
From time to time 18.8
Seldom 37.5

Do you ever meet with faculty members to discuss your
graduate assistants' academic growth and professional
development?

Yes 58.1%
No 41.9

If "yes,“ how often?

Once a term/semester 44.4
Twice a term/

semester 25.0
Weekly 5.6

Less than once a
term/semester 25.0

77

Do you teach on a part-time basis?

Yes 21.3%
No 78.7

Are you currently a full or part-time student?

Yes 40.3%
No 59.7

Recent Graduates Only:

While a graduate student, did you hold a paid assistant-
ship at any time?

Yes 86.0%
No 14

If ”yes," in what area?

Activities 6.9%
Residence Halls 72.5
Resource Center 1.0
Teaching 0

Volunteer Programs 1.0
Other 18.6

If "yes,” were your assistantship responsibilities in the
same student personnel functional area as your present
responsibilities?

Yes 69.9%
No 30.1

Summary of Responses to Indi-
v1 ua Competencies

Of the forty-seven competencies, twenty-two were

 

 

found to have a mean score which was greater than 3.0,

or a score which fell into the "formal academic" response
range (see Table 4.1). Twenty-four competencies were
reported to have a mean score of less than 3.0, or a
score which fell into the ”paid assistantship" range.

Only two competencies had a mean score greater than 4.0

78

 

annmncmumnmmm once a can: ncocsnm uoc no nonuo£3 mow mmm. mum.m undue
ona>nomsm can sauna .HH
mnnmuaoumammm
one: son» no: no noauoez one ouoaoono one upoooum no» how. -e.~ manna
mumsam>o can nomaom .OH
acnusuwumcH no» oaa.a mum.m nonancn
noumncweo< .a
acnusunumcH mo» Ham. moo.m cannon
usenou vompsm .m
mnnmncmumnmmm owed m pawn ucoosnm a you no nonumgz no» New. mam.~ mcwaoucdoo
cw oucouomaoo .n
awnmucmumnmmo came a can: ucoosum 8 non no nonumnz mow New. omH.~ masonm omw>v< .o
mnemnamumnmmm once 8 came mumsomnm 6 was no nonumnz no» vac. mmn.~ cowuoaon Anaemnom
Inoucfi oomon>op
Iaaos nuowncoz .m
oz Hmm. mmo.m nonaocac ozone mum:
Iam>o can onwcmoomm .e
mnnmucmnmwmmm came a pawn oumscmnm 8 nos no noeuon3
conunmom mm» «mm. Hmv.~ muuwaucou museum: .m
sownsnnumcH mo» ~oo. mom.~ noonoo an nucopsun
omn>om can Honssou .N
oz mos. mom.m ucoeoono>oo suede
lacunom mo monnoona .H
H0>oq mo.
um venom . .
moanownm> unmoawwcmnm moamonmncon o m z mucouomEoo
onmsvm ano

 

WOQNASOZX ho m<mm¢ D24 mmHUZMBmmZOU
and mo wfiommmm mqdemd> 02¢ .mfidbom HID BZ<UHhHZUHm .mZOHB¢H>M0 QMdDZdBm

H.v mnmda

.mdeS

79

 

oz Ham. mmv.m mucosonzuooa
can annoy nonuncdau¢ .m~

conusnnumcH mm» was. wvh.m mucoaonanooa
can muuon uonmnoucH .vu

oz ems. mam.m onauunouwa
eonmomon umnmnoucn .m~

eononmoo mo» mme. mmo.v onoznoco economnu
Imam mo moamwocnnm .NN

oz how. 5mm.m nonmmmon
acoocoooozn uooozoo .nm
onzmueoomnmmp onmo one; oooooono uoc no noeoozz no» one. eoe.~ onnnxo onzonoooma .oN
mnnmucmumnmmm once pawn onwsoonm nos no nosuozz mow mmw. omm.~ mcnxofi canonomo .mH
conuounumen me» new. omm.~ ounuoono .u> snooze .mn

oz pom. mmv.~ mowunanomu can
amonsomon amount .FH

oz has. vom.m Hoou acme
Immmcmfi no nousmEoo .ma

conunmom mo» men. vmv.m mconuoonHQEH oumum
.Hmnovom .Homoq .mH

oz Nee. emo.~ zonnoo
ponmnmucn can .anom .va
mnzmucmumnmmm onmm one: mumsomnm no: no nonumzz no» vow. Hmm.m neonmonm oumaao>m .MH
oz «on. «mm.~ menaeono onuoEouozm .«n

am>oq mo.
monoonne> peoonnneonm powwowwwmmnm .o.m z zueouooeou
onmswm.n£w

 

cmzcnucoonla.v anode

80

 

oz omh. mmm.~ unonuo can:
zao>nuonomooo xnoz .mm
zuxou moo a 4>oz4= .onmv oz mme. mmn.~ mannmnounn .nm
Azuasommv cannnmom no» mam. mmo.~ mumonoucn can
momma .uucmopuu amount .mm
oz ems. one.~ onooon>nocn no oozan
nun: zeo>nuooooo xnoz .mm
zuxou mom I «>ozaz .onmv oz nee. emm.~ oucoozuo
on cnoocoo nonmnoucH .em
mnzmucoumnmmm can: mumsomnm nos no nonuons mm» vmh. oam.~ mamado on
nanoocoo unononmom .mm
02 saw. mma.m ucopaum
omoaaoo coownoad
no monumnnouomndno .mm
Azuasomuv o0nunmom no» mum. H~n.~ monunnocwa mo noooz .am
oz mmo. nom.~ nonzuouonnn one
snowman ouowoonmm< .om
conusunuman own new. sue.m manuzucnz .m~
oz one. eme.m moomooono noonunnoo .mm
oz «on. neo.e omenecno
Inoocs Hoonnmom
IoHnnm can Hmonnounn: .FN
conusunumcH mo» Non. mom.m acouuoocaOM
Hmnsuflso can Hmwoom .mw
Ho>oq mo.
no canon . .
woaoonnm> ucdonuwconm oucuowmnzmwm o m : accouomaou
onmsqm Mao

 

poacHuGOUIIH.v wands

 

 

oz amp. omv.m unowuon
Incomno dozenuuomonm .hv
oz mwh. mmn.m onsumnouna
Huconmmouonm
can; zunnmnnnsoz .ov
oz mom. nom.m xnos
Hoccounom ucoonum
mo meson» can mozan .mv
oz New. moo.m HchOmnom nampauu
mo naoom ouoanowuna .vv
Izunooono conunooo may see. vnn.m monouo one upnoo
locum accennnouonm .mv
oz moo. mmm.m xnos
11 Hoccomnom ucwpaum
no no unanuosdu noun
Iamnoomu occuwnooca .«v
oz moo. moo.~ acosoono>oo one»
unnnoou on sonoono .nv
oz moo. mmm.m mommy» Huucoa
soono>oo zonueopn .oe
mnnmncmumnmmm cam: ncoosum nos no nocuocz
acnuzunuocn no» «me. ~m~.~ «on»
|n>nuoo can neonm
Iona nonsunnnsolou .mm
Ho>oq mo.
um canon . .
mmaoowno> ucoonuncmnm monounmncmwm o m z zocouomaou
unoavm nnu

 

coscnucoolla.v mamas

82

("appreciate the historical and philosophical underpinnings
of higher education," and "understand the principles of
statistical analysis"). Moreover, only one competency

was reported with a standard deviation greater than 1.0,
indicating that the overwhelming majority of responses

were in the middle range.

Analysis of Individual Categories

 

ggunseling, Human Relations, and
Interpersonal Skills

 

 

A multivariate analysis of variance on all of the
competencies in this category (items 1-7) revealed little
significance between variables. There was found to be no
interaction effect between position and institution; nor
was there a main effect of institution. There was, how-
ever, one competency which was effected by position

("mediate conflicts between individuals and groups").

TABLE 4.2

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 1-7

 

 

MANOVA Significance . .
Effect F of F Implications
Interaction 1.16788 .26665 No sig. diff.

Position 2.13757 .00220 Significant

Institution 1.60777 .08927 No 319. diff.

 

83

TABLE 4.3

MAIN EFFECT OF POSITION BY ITEMS 1-7

 

Significance

 

 

Main Effect-Position F of F Implications
Cite theories of per-

sonality dev. 1.24863 .29242 No 519. diff.
Counsel and advise I

. . . career choice 1.28325 .28029 No sig. diff.
Mediate conflicts 4.66848 .00334 Significant
Recognize and evalu-

ate group dynamics 1.18621 .31521 No sig. diff.
Manifest well-

develOped inter-

personal relation .74248 .52748 No sig. diff.
Advise groups 1.52236 .20880 No 519. diff.
Competence in

counseling 1.08888 .35409 No sig. diff.

TABLE 4.4

GROUP MEANS--POSITION BY "MEDIATE CONFLICTS"

 

Assistantship Recent

Supervisors Graduates Students Faculty

 

-2.2769 2.5164 2.5185 2.8462

 

84

The Scheffé post-hoc comparison procedure
revealed that faculty and assistantship supervisor
responses were significantly different. Faculty were
more likely to suggest that students should learn how
to mediate conflicts between individuals and groups in
the classroom, whereas assistantship supervisors were
more likely to suggest a paid assistantship as the locus
of preparation for this competency.

Table 4.5 presents the results of the crosstabu-
lations which were completed on the first category of
competencies and areas of knowledge. Each competency
was analyzed in relationship with the following inde-
pendent variables: position (faculty, student, assis-
tantship supervisor, and recent graduate), institution,
student involvement in a paid assistantship (whether or
not he held one), and recent graduate involvement in a
paid assistantship (whether or not he held one during
his graduate study).

Within this first category of competencies, the
null hypotheses were not rejected except for the follow-
ing cases where significant differences were found:

(2) Michigan State University respondents were
more likely to indicate that the academic process should
prepare graduates to counsel and advise students involved
in career choice and career development than the respon-

dents from Bowling Green and Vermont.

85

 

 

TABLE 4.5
CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 1-7
Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance
Item 1

Cite and Interpret Theories of

Personality Development

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Stu.
Stu.

Grad.

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Ass't.

96.2
95.7

100

97.7
95.7
97.5
87.8

94.4

100

97.3

Grad. No Ass't. 100

3.8
4.3
0 .87922
2.3
4.3
2.5 .64760
2.2
5.6
0 .06812
2.7
0 .16292
Item 2

.8304

.7234

.7941

.6865

Counsel and Advise Students Involved in Career Choice

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Stu.
Stu.

Grad.
Grad. No Ass't.

Ass't.
No Ass't.-

Ass't.

and Career DevelOpment

 

29.6
46.8
60
32

22.9
58.5
37.0

38.9
72.7

26.7
57.1

70.4
53.2
40

87.6

77.1
41.5
63.0

61.1
27.3

73.3
42.9

3.8040

11.861

2.634

1.216

.2834

.0027

.1045

.2702

.T Tlll t1 IHT.

TABLE 4.5--Continued

86

 

Variable

%ACAD

%ASS'T

Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't
Grad. No Ass't.

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.
Grad. No Ass't

Item 3

Mediate Conflicts Between Individuals and Groups

 

No Ass't.

O
11.7
25

9

Hum
o 00

I...‘

h)
dam
O 0

new own Ia~lq

LOU!

100

88.3
75
91

93.3
92.3
88.9

93.5
71.4

94.8
66.7

Item 4

6.2116

.76296

3.1501

4.5176

3

2

1

1

.1018

.6829

.0759

.0335

Recognize and Evaluate Group Dynamics

 

No Ass't.

35.7

56.0
0

37.1

54.5
65.2
47.4

44.4
14.3

55.2

100

64.3
44.0

100

62.9

45.5
34.8
52.6

55.6
85.7

44.8
0

3.7917

1.3958

2.01022

2.57433

3

2

1

l

.2848

.4976

.1562

.1986

TABLE 4.5--Continued

87

 

Variable

%ACAD

%ASS'T

Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Item 5

Manifest Well-Developed Interpersonal Relations

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.
Grad. No Ass't.

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.
Grad. No Ass't.

and7Communications Skills

 

13.3
11.1
25

17.4

11.9
21.2
11.5

3.8
30

10.5
50

U'IOQH

mono
I O 0
00000 H

86.7
88.9
75

82.6

88.1
78.8
88.5

96.2
70

89.5
50

.98604

1.56983

2.70433

4.68332

Item 6

Advise Groups

 

98.1
93

100

94.9

97.2
93.2
94

98.2
75

96.5
83.3

2.20380

1.68333

6.94163

1.51128

.8046

.4562

.1001

.0305

.5312

.4310

.0084

.2189

TABLE 4.5--Continued

88

 

Variable

%ACAD

%ASS'T

Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Displanyompetence

Item 7

in Individual and Group Counseling

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.

Grad. No Ass't.

46.4
20.5
20

32.7

22.2
41.7
27.3

11.4
55.6

26.3
50

53.6
79.5
80

67.3

77.8
58.3
72.7

88.6
44.4

73.7
50

5.7537

4.3920

6.0702

1.1115

.1242

.1112

.0138

.2917

 

89

(3) Bowling Green respondents were more likely
to indicate that the paid assistantship should prepare
graduates to mediate conflicts between individuals and
groups than the respondents at the other two institutions.
Recent graduates who held paid assistantships indicated
more often that those who did not that this competency is
best prepared for in the paid assistantship.

(5) Graduates who were not involved in paid
assistantships were more likely to suggest that well-
developed interpersonal relations and communications
skills are best learned in the formal academic process
than those graduates who did hold a paid assistantship.

(6 and 7) Students who did not hold a paid
assistantship were more likely to perceive that advising
groups and counseling is best prepared for in the formal
academic process than those students who held a paid
assistantship. The latter group chose a "paid assistant-
ship" response more frequently than the former.

Theory and Practice of Adminis-
tration and Management

 

 

A multivariate analysis of variance on all of the
competencies in this category (8-20) revealed an inter-
action effect between institution and position. This
interaction resulted in significant differences in the
main effects of position and institution. However, as

shown by Table 4.5 (p. 85), the position causing the

 

 

90

TABLE 4.6

CELL MEANS BY INSTITUTION AND POSITION

FOR COMPETENCY l4

 

 

 

 

 

Institution Supervisor Students Faculty Graduates
Bowling Green 2.6667 2.63158 3.00000 2.77586
Michigan State 2.3600 2.7857 2.22500 2.61765
Vermont 1.8333 2.36000 3.40000 2.65385

TABLE 4.7
MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 8-20

MANOVA Significance . .

Effect F of F Implicatlons
Interaction 1.30448 .04394 Sig. diff.
Position 1.51983 .02316 .819. diff.
Institution 2.35751 .00021 Sig. diff.

 

91

 

 

TABLE 4.8
INTERACTION EFFECT OF INSTITUTION BY POSITION FOR
ITEMS 8-20
Interaction
Effect of Significance . .
Institution F of F Implicatlons
by Position
8 Formulate and
monitor a
budget .71439 .63828 No sig. diff.
9 Administer
salaries 1.29813 .25795 No sig. diff.
10 Select and
evaluate
staff (1.79408 .10018 No sig. diff.
11 Train and
supervise
staff 1.99359 .06662 No sig. diff.
12 Systematic
planning .65324 .68751 No sig. diff.
l3 Evaluate
programs .99437 .46354 No sig. diff.
l4 Formulate and
interpret
policies 2.51592 .02178 Significant
15 Legal impli-
cation 1.35064 .23472 No sig. diff.
16 Computer as
mgt. tool 1.41626 .20816 No sig. diff.
17 Manage
resources .32192 .92527 No sig. diff.
18 Theory and
practice .61342 .71955 No sig. diff.
19 Decision
making 1.39759 .21544 No sig. diff.
20 Leadership
skills 1.81652 .09575 No sig. diff.

 

92

interaction is the faculty position on item 14, "Formu-
late and Interpret Policy.”

Thus, the University of Vermont reports the
greatest difference in perceptions between faculty and
assistantship supervisors. Also, the faculty report the
highest mean scores of all four groups. Again, it is
important to remind the reader that these results are
open to question since the number of faculty in the sample
is much smaller than the numbers of subjects in the three

other subgroups.

54~

3 4L ..' ".

 

’ \ ‘.
II ' ' -~,‘~_~~ ux- Vermont

2‘? x’ "x. -X- Michigan State

.X~ ' -._i- Bowling Green

X

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

 

 

Fig. 4.1. Graph of cell means by institution
and position for Competency l4.

93

Table 4.9 presents the results of the crosstabu-
lations which were completed on the second category of
competencies and areas of knowledge. Each competency
was analyzed in relationship with the same variables as
the preceding competencies.

As a result of the individual Chi Square tests
for independence applied to each competency, the null
hypotheses were not rejected except for the following
cases where significant differences were found:

(8) Michigan State University respondents were
more likely to suggest that graduate students should
learn how to formulate and monitor a budget in the paid
assistantship experience, whereas the subjects from
Bowling Green and Vermont were more likely to choose a
”formal academic process” response.

(9) Bowling Green and Vermont subjects indicated
that salary administration is a preparation responsi-
bility of the academic process. On the other hand,
Michigan State respondents chose "paid assistantship"

62 percent of the time.

(10) Both students who currently hold, and
recent graduates who held paid assistantships, indicated
that staff selection and evaluation were learned in paid
assistantships (93 percent and 91 percent respectively).
Those students not holding paid assistantships, and

graduates who did not hold an assistantship, disagreed

94

 

 

 

 

TABLE 4.9
CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 8-20
Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance
Item 8
Formulate and Monitor a Budget
Supervisor 59.0 41.0
Student 57.8 42.2
Faculty 33.3 66.7 1.4498 3 .6939
Graduate 56.5 43.5
BGSU 41.9 58.1
MSU 77.6 22.4 19.524 2 .0001
UVT 48.6 51.4
Stu. Ass't. 52.9 47.1
Stu. No Ass't. 76.9 23.1 1.5585 1 .2119
Grad. Ass't. 54.8 45.2
Grad. No Ass't. 66.7 33.3 .01603 1 .8992
Item 9
Administer Salaries
Supervisor 51.0 49.0
Student 51.3 48.7
Faculty 22.2 77.8 3.0975 3 .3768
Graduate 52.9 47.1
BGSU 48.5 51.2
MSU 62.0 38:0
UVT 34.7 65.1 8.5501 2 .0139
Stu. Ass't. 51.6 48.4
Stu. No Ass't. 50 50 .03495 1 .8517
Grad. Ass't. 53.3 46.7
Grad. No Ass't. 54.5 45.5 .02735 1 .8687

TABLE 4.9-~Continued

95

 

 

 

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance
Item 10
Select and Evaluate Staff

Supervisor 9.5 90.5

Student 11.6 88.4

Faculty 14.3 85.7 .59422 3 .8978
Graduate 14.1 85.9

BGSU 14.3 85.7

MSU 12.7 87.3 1.2644 2 .5314
UVT 7.3 92.7

Stu. Ass't. 7 93

Stu. No Ass't. 66.6 33.3 4.37622 1 .0364
Grad. Ass't. 9.0 91-0

Grad. No Ass't. 45.5 54.5 7.59633 1 .0059

Item 11
Train and Supervise Staff

Supervisor 11.4 88.6

Student 11.3 88.7

Faculty 0 100 1.37931 3 .7104
Graduate 13.2 86.8

BGSU 12 88

MSU 11.8 88.2 .15576 2 .9251
UVT 9.8 90.2

Stu. Ass't. 5.2 94.8

Stu. No Ass't. 38.5 61.5 8.67663 1 .0032
Grad. Ass't. 10.4 89.6

Grad. No Ass't. 33.3 66.6 1.90964 1 .1670

96

TABLE 4.9--Continued

 

 

 

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance
Item 12
Engage in Systematic Planning
Supervisor 31.6 68.4
Student 40.7 59.3
Faculty 0 100 2.59954 3 .4576
Graduate 47.1 52.9
BGSU 33.3 66.6
MSU 43.3 56.7
UVT 47.4 52.6 1.17543 2 .5556
Stu. Ass't. 42.9 51.1
Stu. No Ass't. 33.3 66.7 .00274 1 .9583
Grad. Ass't. 42.9 57.1
Grad. No Ass't. 66.6 33.3 .37173 1 .5421
Item 13
Evaluate Programs
Supervisor 36.8 63.2
Student 16.1 83.9 ‘
Faculty 25 75 4.19970 3 .2407
Graduate 37.1 62.9
BGSU 23.3 76.7
MSU 37.9 62.1
UVT 29.4 70.6 1.80412 2 .4057
Stu. Ass't. 12 88
Stu. No Ass't. 33.3 66.7 .43281 1 .5106
Grad. Ass't. 24.1 75.9
Grad. No Ass't. 100 0 9.22070 1 .0024

97

TABLE 4.9--Continued

 

 

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance
W
Formulate and Interpret Policy
Supervisor 8.8 91.2
Student 16.7 83.3
Faculty 40 60 3.9312 3 .2690
Graduate 20.3 79.7
BGSU 18.0 82.0
MSU 17.5 82.5 .11726 2 .9431
UVT 15.4 84.6
Stu. Ass't. 5.4 94.6
Stu. No Ass't. 54.5 45.5 11.416 1 .0007
Grad. Ass't. 14.9 85.1
Grad. No Ass't. 41.7 58.3 2.738 1 .0980
Item 15
Legal . . . Implications
Supervisor 88.9 11.1
Student 83.6 16.4
Faculty 100 0 4.4676 3 .2152
Graduate 93.6 6.4
BGSU 91 9.0
MSU 91.2 8.8 1.1450 2 .5641
UVT 84.8 15.2
Stu. Ass't. 87.2 12.8
Stu. No Ass't. 75 25 .50080 1 .4792
Grad. Ass't. 94.1 5.9
Grad. No Ass't. 88.9 11.1 .01477 1 .9033

 

98

TABLE 4.9--Continued

 

Variable

%ACAD

%ASS'T

Chi2 d.f.

Significance

 

Appreciate the

Item 16

Computer as a Management Tool

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Stu.
Stu.

Grad.
Grad. No Ass't.

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Ass't.

97.7
92.2

100

91.2

94.4
97.1
82.9

92.7
88.9

92.9
77.8

2.3
7.8
0 2.5583 3
8.8
5.6
2.9 7.9846 2
17.1
7.3
11.1 .07407 1
7.1
22.2 .76638 1
Item 1?

Manage Physical Resources and Facilities

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Stu.
Stu.

Grad.
Grad.

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Ass't.

No Ass't.

9.1
16.9

0
12.3

9.3
20.6
8.5

14.3
28.6

9.7
27.3

90.9
83.1

100

87.7

90.7
79.4
91.5

71.4

90.3
72.7

2.70684 3
5.36117 2

.80337 1
1.29565 1

.4648

.0185

.7588

.3813

.4391

.0685

.3701

.2550

99

TABLE 4.9--Continued

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance

 

Item 18

Distinguish Between Theory and Practice

 

Supervisor 13.3 86.7
Student 34.8 65.2
Faculty 100 0 7.0081 3
Graduate 37.8 62.2
BGSU 36.6 63.4
MSU 17.4 82.6 5.24697 2
UVT 53.8 46.2
Stu. Ass't. 29.4 70.6
Stu. No Ass't. 50 50 .11695 1‘
Grad. Ass't. 33.3 66.7
Grad. No Ass't. 57.1 42.9 .54293 1
Item 19

Engage in Effective Decision-Making

 

Supervisor 6.3 93.8
Student 10.3 89.7
Faculty 33.3 66.7 3.85226 3
Graduate 11.9 88.1
BGSU 7.3 92.7
MSU 13 87 1.35935 2
UVT 14.3 85.7
Stu. Ass't. 6.7 93.3
Stu. No Ass't. 22.2 77.8 .52232 1
Grad. Ass't. 7.7 92.3

Grad. No Ass't. 50 50 5.52433 1

.0716

.0725

.6805

.4612

.2779

.5068

.4699

.0188

100

TABLE 4.9--Continued

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance

 

Item-20

Display Leadership Skills

 

Supervisor 0 100

Student 4.3 95.7

Faculty 4.3 85.7 4.8765 3
Graduate 9.5 90.5

BGSU 2.6 97.4

MSU 6.7 93.3 4.0319 2
UVT 12.5 87.5

Stu. Ass't. 0 100

Stu. No Ass't. 14 3 85.7 2.0417 1
Grad. Ass't. ‘5 5 94.5

Grad. No Ass't. 42 9 47.1 6.1199 1

 

101

with those who held assistantships and responded that
this competency is learned in the academic process.

(11) Regarding staff training, students involved
in paid assistantships indicated that this competency
should be learned through the paid assistantship. The
students who do not hold assistantships disagreed by
choosing an "academic process" response. Parallel find-
ings exist between graduates who held assistantships
and those who did not.

(13) Graduates who held an assistantship per-
ceived the assistantship as the locus of preparation for
learning how to evaluate programs (75 percent). The
graduates who did not hold assistantships emphatically
disagreed and said that program evaluation was a learn-
ing objective of the formal academic process (100 per-
cent).

(14) Students who hold and graduates who held
paid assistantships responded to the competency regard-
ing policy interpretation and formulation by indicating
a "paid assistantship” response 94.6 percent of the time.
On the other hand, students who do not hold and graduates
who did not hold an assistantship were evenly divided
between the ”paid assistantship” and ”academic process"

response.

102

(16) Vermont subjects were more likely to sug-
gest that the assistantship should prepare the student
to understand the computer as a management tool.

(19) Graduates who held assistantships were far
more likely to suggest that effective decision-making
should be learned in the assistantship (92.3 percent)
than those graduates who did not hold paid assistantships.

(20) Graduates who held assistantships were more
likely to say that leadership skills should be learned
in the assistantship (94.5 percent) than those graduates
who did not hold paid assistantships.

Thus, while all major positions and institutions
held relatively similar expectations for the preparation
of the competencies in this category, significant dif-
ferences were found between students who hold and recent
graduates who held paid assistantships, and those stu-
dents and graduates who did not hold assistantships. The
former were more likely to suggest that the competencies
were learned as part of the formal academic process.

Research, Testing, and
Measurement

 

 

A multivariate analysis of variance completed
on all of the competencies in this category (21-25) dis-
closed no interaction effects between position and
institution. The main effects, position and institution,

revealed no significant differences.

103

TABLE 4.10

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 21-25

 

 

MANOVA Significance . .

Effect F of F Implications
Interaction .92598 .58198 No sig. diff.
Position 1.57545 .07451 No sig. diff.
Institution 1.64830 .08967 No sig. diff.

 

Table 4.11 presents the results of the crosstabu-
1ations which were completed on the competencies in this
category. Each competency was analyzed in relationship
with the same variables as the preceding competencies.

As a result of individual chi square tests for
independence on each of the competencies relating to
Research, Testing, and Measurement, none of the null
hypotheses were rejected. Clearly none of the groups
at each of the institutions differed significantly in
their perceptions of the locus of preparation for these
competencies.
gistorigal, Philosophical, and
Social Foundations

A multivariate analysis completed on the compe-
tencies in this major category disclosed no significant
differences when the mean scores of each of the four
groups at each of the three institutions were analyzed

in relation to each other.

TABLE 4.11

CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 21-25

 

 

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance
Item 21
Conduct Independent Research

Supervisor 100 0

Student 94.5 5.5

Faculty 100 0 2.9067 3 .4062

Graduate 95 5

BGSU 94.2 5.8

MSU 100 0 4.7062 2 .0951

UVT 93.5 6.5

Stu. Ass't. 96.7 3.3

Stu. No Ass't. 83.3 6.7 1.3666 1 .2424

Grad. Ass't. 95.6 4.4

Grad. No Ass't. 91.7 8.3 .02064 1 .8858
Item 22

Understand

the Principles of Statistical Analysis

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Stu. Ass't.
Stu. No Ass't.

Grad. Ass't.
Grad. No Ass't.

100
94.2

100
99

98.2
97.9
96.2

97.0
85

98.9
100

6.98096

.65975

2.12748

1.0029

3 .0725
2 .7190
1 .1447
1 .3166

TABLE 4.11--Continued

105

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Item 23

Interpret Research as Reported in the Literature

Supervisor 100
Student 98.6
Faculty 100
Graduate 96.5
BGSU 98.8
MSU 98.5
UVT 95.9
Stu. Ass't. 100

Stu. No Ass't. 93.3

Grad. Ass't. 95.8
Grad. No Ass't. 100

0

1.4

0

3.5 2.0564
1.2

1.5

4.1 1.50903
0

6.7 .52305
4.2

0 .00452
Item 24

.5608

.4702

.4695

.9464

Interpret Personality Tests and Measurements

Supervisor 95.9
Student 95.2
Faculty 90

Graduate 94.4
BGSU 91.1
MSU 95.7
UVT 100

Stu. Ass't. 94.2

Stu. No Ass't. 100

Grad. Ass't. 93.5
Grad. No Ass't. 100

4.1

4.8
10 .63916
5.6

8.9

4.3

0 4.77324
5.8

0 .00138
6.5

0 ' .00012

.8874

.0919

.9704

.9913

TABLE 4.1l--Continued

106

 

Variable

%ACAD

%ASS'T

Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Item 25

Administer Personality Tests and Measurements

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.
Grad. No Ass't.

81.4
83.1
57.1
70

73.7
77.9
80.5

86.8
66.6

70.0
63.6

18.6
16.9
42.9
30

26.3
22.1
19.5

13.2
33.3

29.3
36.4

5.27461

.77554

1.56919

.01183

.1528

.6786

.2103

.9134

 

107

TABLE 4.12

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 26-29

 

 

MANOVA Significance . .

Effect F of F Implications
Interaction .62580 .91866 No sig. diff.
Position 1.28250 .22352 No sig. diff.
Institution 1.75998 .08218 No sig. diff.

 

Table 4.13 presents the results of the crosstabu-
lations done on each of the competencies in this category
(items 26-29). Each competency was analyzed in relation-
ship with the same variables as the preceding competencies.

As a result of the chi square tests for indepen-
dence, none of the null hypotheses were rejected for the
competencies relating to the category of ”Historical,
Philosophical, and Social Foundations" except for the
following:

(29) Significantly more Bowling Green and Vermont
respondents indicated that the financing of higher edu-
cation should be learned in the paid assistantship than
did respondents from Michigan State. However, the vast
majority (79 percent and 87.5 percent respectively) of
the Michigan subjects chose ”formal academic process"

response.

108

TABLE 4.13

CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 26-29

 

Variable ~

%ACAD %ASS'T

Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Item 26

Articulate the Social and Cultural Foundations

 

Supervisor 100
Student 96.
Faculty 100
Graduate 96.
BGSU 97.
MSU 97.
UVT 96.
Stu. Ass't. 96.
Stu. No Ass't. 95.
Grad. Ass't. 96.

Grad. No Ass't. 100

of‘Higher‘Education

 

0
2 3.7

0 1.82149
8 3.1
8 2.2
6 2.4 .47515
0 4.0
6 3.4
2 4.8 .14786
4 3.6

0 .00442

Item 27

.6122

.7885

.7006

.9470

Appreciate the Historical and Philosophical

 

Underpinnings of Higher Education

 

Supervisor 100
Student 96.
Faculty 100
Graduate 99.
BGSU 99.
MSU 97.
UVT 98.
Stu. Ass't. 97.
Stu. No Ass't. 95.
Grad. Ass't. 98.
Grad. No Ass't. 100

o
7 3.3

0 2.99029
1 .9
l .9
8 2.2 .65396
1 1.9
1 2.9
7 4.3 .11486
9 1.1 ’

0 1.02058

.3931

.7211

.7347

.3124

TABLE 4.13--Continued

109

 

Variable

%ACAD

%ASS'T

Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Item 28

Recognize and Analyze Political Process in

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Stu.
Stu.

Grad.

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Ass't.

84.0
91.2

100

85.1
88.1
88.7
85.7

90.2
93.8

82.5

Grad. No Ass't. 100

Higher Education

 

16
8.8
0

14.9

11.9
11.6
14.3

9.8
6.3

17.5
0

2.25096

.18337

.01011

.91194

Item 29

.5220

.9124

.9199

.3396

Understanding the Financing of Higher Education

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Stu.
Stu.

Grad.
Grad. No Ass't.

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Ass't.

92.3
90.7

100

81.7

79.0
98
87.5

93
81.8

81.6
81.8

3.50606

9.10452

.31500

.17369

.3200

.0105

.5746

.6769

 

110

Thus, regarding the Historical, Philosophical,
and Social Foundations, the respondents did not sig-

nificantly disagree on where training should be received.

Meeting Student Needs

A multivariate analysis of variance completed on
the competencies relating to this category disclosed no
interaction effect (institution by position) but did
reveal significant differences between the main effects

(position and institution) for several competencies.

TABLE 4.14

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 30-41

 

MANOVA Significance

 

Effect F of F Implications
Interaction 1.5582 .18249 No sig. diff.
Position 1.64228 .01083 Significant
Institution 1.53477 .05053 Significant

 

One-way analyses of variance were done on each
of the competencies which suggested difference through
the overall multivariate analysis. The Scheffé post-hoc
technique was used to attempt to identify significant
pair-wise comparisons.

Position by "Needs of Minorities": Faculty and

 

assistantship supervisors responded with significant dif-

ference at the .05 level to the competency regarding

111

TABLE 4

.15

EFFECT BY ”POSITION,” ITEMS 30-41

 

Significance

 

Effect by ”Position" F of F Implications
30. Differing life

style 1.68875 .16952 No sig. diff.
31. Needs of

minorities 2.88547 .03600 Significant
32. Characteristics

of American

college student 2.27864 .07966 No sig. diff.
33. Represent stu.

concerns 2.06775 .10460 No sig. diff.
34. Interpret to

students 3.04959 .02898 Significant
35. Work effec-

tively with

range .98102 .40194 No sig. diff.
36. Assess needs

and interests 3.70031 .01220 Significant
37. Discipline 1.91055 .12795 No sig. diff.
38. Work coopera-

tively .49550 .68568 No sig. diff.
39. Co-curricular

programs and

. . . .64517 .58656 No sig. diff.
40. Identify

developmental

stages 3.72642 .01179 Significant
41. Programs to

facilitate

development 1.59398 .19095 No sig. diff.

 

EFFECT BY "INSTITUTION,” ITEMS 30-41

112

TABLE 4.16

 

 

Signif-
Effect by "Institution" F icance Implications
of F

30. Differing life

styles .64406 .52590 No sig. diff.
31. Needs of

minorities .63467 .53084 No sig. diff.
32. Characteristics

of American

college student 1.95491 .14343 No sig. diff.
33. Represent stu.

concerns 2.38173 .09419 No sig. diff.
34. Interpret concerns

to students .63177 .53264 No sig. diff.
35. Work effectively

with wide range

of individuals .31155 .73255 No sig. diff.
36. Assess student

needs and

interests 1.09023 .33751 No sig. diff.
37. Discipline 5.97661 .00286 Significant
38. Work coopera-

tively 2.25202 .10702 No sig. diff.
39. Co—curricular

programs 2.81421 .06158 No sig. diff.
40. Identify

developmental

stages 2.32664 .09944 No sig. diff.
41. Program to

facilitate

student

development 3.67675 .02649 Significant

 

113

meeting needs of minority groups. Faculty were more
likely to suggest an academic locus of preparation,
whereas assistantship supervisors were more likely to
choose a ”paid assistantship” response.

Group Means:

Assistantship Recent
Supervisor Student Graduate Faculty
2.6154 2.7222 2.7295 3.1538

Position by "Interpret Concerns to Students":
Assistantship supervisors and students responded with
significant difference at the .05 level to the competency
regarding interpreting concerns of other university popu-
1ations to students. The former chose a paid assistant-
ship response more often than the student respondents.

Group Means:

Assistantship
Supervisor

Recent

Graduate Student

Faculty

2.3381‘ 2.3846 2.6066 2.6481

Position by "Assess Student Needs and Interests"
and Position by ”Identify Developmental Stages": While
a one-way analysis of variance disclosed significant dif-
ferences between respondents, post-hoe comparison pro-
cedures failed to identify which positions responded
differently to both of these competencies. And although
the Scheffé technique is a widely used statistical pro-

cedure for testing post-hoe comparisons, it does not

114

guarantee that the significant comparison will be found.2
With this in mind, the group means are presented. How-
ever, the reader is cautioned against making judgments
about the differences between the means.

"Assess Student Needs and Interests"

Supervisor Student Graduate Faculty

2.4308 2.6389 2.6967 3.000

”Identify Developmental Stages"
Student Supervisor Graduate Faculty

3.2150 3.3846 3.4508 3.5385

Institution by "Discipline”

 

While all three means fall into the paid assis-
tantship arena, significant differences exist at the .05
level between Michigan State University and The University
of Vermont.

Michigan State Bowling Green U. of Vermont

2.2963 2.1397 1.9365

Institution b "Program to Facili-
tate Student Developmentr

While the overall F-test suggests differences

 

 

between institutions, the post-hoc procedures failed to

reveal which pair-wise comparisons were different.

 

U. of Vermont Michigan State Bowling Green
2.5161 2.7103 2.7372
2

Hays

115

Table 4.17 presents the results of the crosstabu-
lations done on the competencies in this category (items
30-41). Each competency was analyzed in relationship
with the same variables as the preceding competencies.

As a result of the Chi Square tests for indepen-
dence completed on the competencies under the heading
"Meeting Student Needs," the null hypotheses were not
rejected except for the following cases where significant
differences were found:

(30) It was found that the faculty were more
likely to indicate that the academic process should pre-
pare students to tolerate and appreciate differing life
styles (40 percent).

(31) Of the faculty who did not choose an "equal"
response to "Recognize and interpret the special needs
of ethnic and racial minorities,” 100 percent chose a
"formal academic process" response. This response was
significantly different from the students, graduates,
and assistantship supervisors.

(33) Recent graduates who held paid assistant-
ships were more likely to indicate that the assistantship
experience should prepare the entry-level student per-
sonnel worker to "represent students' concerns to other
campus populations," than those recent graduates who did

not hold paid assistantships.

116

 

 

TABLE 4.17
CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 30-41
Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance
Item 30

Tolerate and Appreciate Differing Life Styles

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.
Grad. No Ass't.

97.1
95.7
60

93.2

93.9
93.6
93.5

97.6
80

96.1
71.4

10.6676

.00761

.43093

2.61824

Item 31

.0137

.9962

.5115

.1056

Recognize and Interpret the Special Needs of

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.
Grad. No Ass't.

(Ethnic and Racial Minorities

 

4
14.7

100

14.9

11.5
14.3
19

13.3
25

10.3
42.9

96

85.3
0

85.1

88.5
85.7
81

86.7
75

89.7
57.1

14.5027

.71209

.01759

2.68856

.0023

.7004

.8945

.1011

TABLE 4.17--Continued

117

 

Variable

%ACAD

%ASS'T

Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Item 32

Articulate the Characteristics of the

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.

Grad. No Ass't.

Representjstudent Concerns to Other

American College Student

 

61.1
75.6

100

71.7

74.1
78.0
61.5

68.8
92.3

68.2
88.9

38.9

24.4
0

28.3

25.9
22.0
38.5

31.3
7.7

31.8
11.1

3.30932

2.27577

1.64870

.72326

Item 33

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.

Grad. No Ass't.

CampusPopuIations

 

0
14.3
10
10.9

5.7
16.7
5.9

11.9
28.6

7.1
42.9

100

85.7
90
89.1

94.3
83.3
94.1

88.1
71.4

93.9
57.1

5.13914

4.91329

.34028

4.82645

.3463

.3205

.1991

.3951

.1619

.0857

.5597

.0280

118

TABLE 4.17--Continued

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance

 

Item 34

Interpret the Concerns, Goals, Problems of the
other Campus Populations to Students

 

 

Supervisor 5 95

Student 21.4 78.6

Faculty 0 100 6.71189 3 .0817
Graduate 12.7 87.3

BGSU 10.7 89.3

MSU 15.1 84.9 .80534 2 .6685
UVT 15.8 84.2

Stu. Ass't. 18.8 81.3

Stu. No Ass't. 37.5 62.5 .53472 1 .4646
Grad. Ass't. 9.1 90.9

Grad. No Ass't. 37.5 62.5 2.84484 1 .0917

Item 35
Work Effectively with a Wide Range of
Individuals

Supervisor 0 100

Student 2 98

Faculty 0 100 6.18637 3 .1029
Graduate 9.1 90.9

BGSU 1.4 98.6

MSU 6 94 2.83497 2 .2423
UVT 7.7 92.3

Stu. Ass't. 0 100

Stu. No Ass't. 10 90 .59770 1 .4395
Grad. Ass't. 7 93

Grad. No Ass't. 25 75 .98663 1 .3206

TABLE 4.17--Continued

119

 

 

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance
Item 36
Assess Student Needs and Interests

Supervisor 7.9 92.1

Student 5.4 94.6

Faculty 50 50

Graduate 16 84 10.9191 3 .0122

BGSU 9.7 90.3

MSU 15.4 84.6 .77278 2 .6795

UVT 13.3 86.7

Stu. Ass't. 2.9 97.1

Stu. No Ass't. 33.3 66.7 .80970 1 .3682

Grad. Ass't. 11.9 88.1

Grad. No Ass't. 37.5 62.5 1.64798 1 .1992
Item 37

Perform

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.

Grad. No Ass't.

Fair and Effective Discipline to

iStudent Misconduct

 

H
mu hi—i Who) WOnbO

Nd um (”05H ah ah

g...

100

95.6

100

94.6

96.0
95.6
96.2

98.1
85.7

96.3
81.8

3.02243

.18869

1.66056

1.63522

.3882

.9111

.1975

.2010

120

TABLE 4.17--Continued

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance

 

Item 38

Work Cooperatively with Others

 

SuperviSor 0 100

Student 2.3 97.7

Faculty 0 100

Graduate 7.5 92.5 3.11201 3 .3747
BGSU 1.9 98.1

MSU 5.3 94.7

UVT 6.1 93.9 1.08862 2 -.5802
Stu. Ass't. 0 100

Stu. No Ass't. 9.1 90.9 .34109 1 .5592
Grad. Ass't. 4.8 95.2

Grad. No Ass't. 20 80 .93115 1 .3346

Item 39

Meet Student Needs through Co—Curricular
Programs and’Activities

 

Supervisor 0 100

Student 4.6 95.4

Faculty 0 100

Graduate 6.2 93.8 3.02213 3 .3882
BGSU 1.1 98.9

MSU 3.3 96.7

UVT 11.1 88.9 7.75568 2 .0207
Stu. Ass't. 3.7 96.3

Stu. No Ass't. 9.1 90.9 .00015 1 .9903
Grad. Ass't. 1.4 98.6

Grad. No Ass't. 36.4 63.6 14.45384 1 .0001

TABLE 4.17-~Continued

121

 

Variable

%ACAD

%ASS'T

Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Identify the Developmental Stages of

Item 40

 

College Students

 

 

 

 

Supervisor 93.1 6.9

Student 82.9 17.1

Faculty 85.7 14.3

Graduate 90.2 9.8 1.93578 3 .5858
BGSU 89.4 10.6

MSU 94.3 5.7

UVT 78.1 21.9 5.24637 2 .0726
Stu. Ass't. 80.8 19.2

Stu. No Ass't. 88.9 11.1 .00193 1 .9649
Grad. Ass't. 89.6 10.4

Grad. No Ass't. 91.7 8.3 .10417 1 .7469

Item 41
Use Strategies and Pur oseful Programs
to Fadilitate Student Development

Supervisor 4 96

Student 14.9 85.1

Faculty 33.3 66.7

Graduate 21.3 78.7 5.03613 3 .1692
BGSU 15.2 84.8

MSU 17.8 82.2

UVT 14.7 85.3 .16915 2 .9189
Stu. Ass't. 13.9 86.1

Stu. No Ass't. 18.2 81.8 .01791 1 .8935
Grad. Ass't. 15.8 84.2

Grad. No Ass't. 44.4 55.6 2.06150 1 .1511

 

122

(36) It was found that faculty were more likely
to indicate that the academic process should prepare
students to ”assess student needs and interests" than
were the other three positions.

(39) To "meet student needs through co-curricular
program and activities," Vermont respondents and recent
graduates who did not hold paid assistantships were more
likely to choose an "academic process" response than
Bowling Green and Michigan State subjects, and recent
graduates who held a paid assistantship.

Professional Purpose and
Role Identi ty

 

 

A multivariate analysis of variance completed
on the competencies relating to this category heading
(42-47) disclosed no interaction effects (institution
by position) or significant differences between the main

effects of position and institution.

TABLE 4.18

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS, ITEMS 42-47

 

 

MANOVA Significance . .
Effect F of F Implications
Interaction 1.08939 .33159 No sig. diff.
Position .95631 ' .50933 No sig. diff.

Institution 1.70253 .06248 No sig. diff.

 

123

Table 4.19 presents the results of the crosstabu-
lations done on the competencies in this category (42-47).
Each competency was analyzed with the same variables as
the preceding competencies.

When the null hypotheses were applied to the
competencies in this category ("Professional Purpose
and Role Identity"), the decision was made to not reject
them because only one item was found to be significantly
different at the .05 level.

(43) Faculty, students, and recent graduates
who did not choose an "equal" response were more likely
to conclude that professional ethics and standards were
learned as part of the academic process; whereas, assis-
tantship supervisors regarded this competency as being

learned through a paid assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 5

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and

recent graduates report no significant differences

in perceptions of the importance of a paid assis-

tantship as part of the preparation process.

Based on a crosstabulation of the four position

variables and six possible responses to the question
"a paid assistantship is a very important component of
master's degree professional preparation for college stu-

dent personnel work," the null hypothesis was not

rejected.

124

TABLE 4.19

CROSSTABULATIONS, ITEMS 42-47

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance

 

vi

Item 42

Appreciate and Understand the Specialized
Functions of Student Personnel Work

 

 

Supervisor 81.8 18.2

Student 91.1 ‘8.9

Faculty 100 0

Graduate 88.3 11.7 2.2169 3 .5286
BGSU 89.6 10.4

MSU 90 10

UVT 84.6 15.4 .57453 2 .7503
Stu. Ass't. 90.6 9.4

Stu. No Ass't. 92.3 7.7 .15847 1 .6906
Grad. Ass't. 85.7 14.3

Grad. No Ass't. 100 0 .66280 1 .4156

12959.33

Appreciate_and Internalige Professional
Standards and Ethics

 

 

Supervisor 31.6 68.4

Student 67.6 32.4

Faculty 100 0

Graduate 71.2 28.8 12.918 3 .0048
BGSU 54.9 45.1

MSU 73 27

UVT 72 28 3.8305 2 .1473
Stu. Ass't. 57.7 42.3

Stu. No Ass't. 90.9 9.1 2.5237 1 .1121
Grad. Ass't. 65.9 34.1

Grad No Ass't. 90.9 9.1 1.5724 1 .2099

TABLE 4.19--Continued

125

 

Variable

%ACAD

%ASS'T

Chi2

d.f.

Significance

 

Item 44

Articulate and Interpret the Goals of Student

 

Personnel Work to the Wider Population

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.
Grad. No Ass't.

(on and Off CampuS)

48
59
71.4
57.4

51
61.2
59.3

55.6
66.7

53.2
85.7

 

52
41
28.6
42.6

49
38.8
40.7

44.4
33.3

46.8
14.3

1.4827

1.1245

.08905

1.4732

Item 45

.6863

.5699
.7654

.2248

Cite and Describe Issues and Trends in

 

Supervisor
Student
Faculty
Graduate

BGSU
MSU
UVT

Ass't.
No Ass't.

Stu.
Stu.

Grad. Ass't.

Student Personnel Work

 

93.9
96.6

100

95.9
98.7
93.4
94.7

97.4
95

95.1

Grad. No Ass't. 100

1
4

.a-owm
O
H

mm.“
o o o
0‘ 000300

U1N

.79477

2.57132

3

2

.8507

.2765

TABLE 4.19--Continued

126

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable %ACAD %ASS'T Chi2 d.f. Significance
Item 46
Display Familiarity with the Professional
Literature

Supervisor 100 0

Student 94.6 5.4

Faculty 100 0

Graduate 96.2 3.8 2.47238 3 .4803
BGSU 98.7 1.3

MSU 95.9 4.1

UVT 93.9 6.1 2.17202 2 .3376
Stu. Ass't. 94.9 5.1

Stu. No Ass't. 93.3 6.7 .15797 1 .6910
Grad. Ass't. 95.3 4.7

Grad. No Ass't. 100 0 .00348 1 .9529

Item 47
Distinguish_Between and Use the Resources
Of'the Professional Organizations

Supervisor 83.3 16.7

Student 90 10

Faculty 100 0

Graduate 85.7 14.3 1.76376 3 .6229
BGSU 90 10

MSU 88 12

UVT 82.1 17.9 1.38052 2 .5014
Stu. Ass't. 92.3 7.7

Stu. No Ass't. 81.8 18.2 .20720 1 .6490
Grad. Ass't. 84.3 15.7

Grad. No Ass't. 90.9 9.1 .00834 1 .9272

 

127

TABLE 4.20

POSITION RESPONSES TO "A PAID ASSISTANTSHIP IS A VERY
IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF MASTER'S DEGREE PROFESSION
PREPARATION FOR COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL WORK”

 

 

Neither No
Strongly Agree Dis- Strongly . _
Agree Agree Nor agree Disagree 02::
Disagree
Super-
visors 70.8 23.1 6.2 O 0 0
Students 70.6 20.2 6.4 2.8 0 0
Faculty 69.2 30.8 0 0 0 0
Graduates 74.6 17.2 4.9 2.5 0 .8

 

Note. Chi Square = 6.29214 with 12 d.f., sig-
nificance = .9006

Hypothesis 6

 

There are no significant differences in collaboration
of the paid assistantship and the formal academic
process between the program which requires a paid
assistantship and those which do not require a paid
assistantship.

To analyze this hypothesis, two crosstabulations
were done using ”institution" as the independent variable
and the responses to questions 11 and 15 from the ques-
tionnaire as the dependent variables. (Questions 11 and
15 asked faculty and assistantship supervisors to indicate
how often they met with each other to discuss their stu-

dent's and graduate assistant's academic and professional

growth and development.)

128

TABLE 4.21

FACULTY RESPONSES TO "HOW OFTEN DO YOU MEET WITH THE
PROFESSIONAL STAFF MEMBERS TO DISCUSS YOUR
STUDENT'S GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT?"

m

Less Than

 

Once a Twice a Weekly Once a
Term/Semester Term/Semester Term/Semester
BGSU 50 25 0 25
MSU 33.3 33.3 0 33.3
UVT 40 60 o 0

 

Note. Chi Square = 2.3400 with 4 d.f., sig-
nificance = .6735

TABLE 4.22

ASSISTANTSHIP SUPERVISOR RESPONSES TO "HOW OFTEN DO YOU
MEET WITH FACULTY MEMBERS TO DISCUSS YOUR GRADUATE
ASSISTANT'S ACADEMIC GROWTH AND PROFESSIONAL

 

 

DEVELOPMENT?"
Once a Twice a Weekly ngzeTgan
Term/Semester Term/Semester Term/Semester
BGSU 48.1 18.5 7.4 25.9
MSU 0 80 0 20
UVT 75 0 0 25

 

Note. Chi Square = 11.37546 with 6 d.f., sig-
nificance = .0774

129

Holding to a .05 level of significance, null
Hypothesis 6 was not rejected. However, differences
among assistantship supervisors were found to be sig-
nificant at the .08 level. It was revealed that Michigan
State University reported the lowest percentage of its
assistantship supervisors who meet with faculty. More-
over, those assistantship supervisors who do meet with
faculty seem to do so with less frequency than their
counterparts at Bowling Green and Vermont. However,
given the unequal cell sizes, especially at Michigan
State and Vermont, these findings cannot be considered

statistically significant.

Summary

The importance of a paid assistantship was deter-
mined by this study. Of the forty-seven competencies,
all but two ("appreciate the historical and philosophical
underpinnings of higher education” and "understand the
principles of statistical analysis") were seen as having
a locus of preparation in both the formal academic pro-
cess and the paid assistantship. Moreover, with only
six exceptions, no significant differences were reported
between each of the four positions at each of the three
institutions under investigation as to the relative
importance of the academic process and paid assistantship

vis-a-vis each of the competencies or areas of knowledge.

130

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors,
and recent graduates tend to view the paid assistantship
as an important component of professional preparation.
Furthermore, they report that graduates who held paid
assistantships receive better professional preparation
than those who do not (82 percent). These findings imply
a partnership between faculty members and assistantship
supervisors; a partnership which may not be as cohesive
and collaborative as it should be since 42 percent of
the assistantship supervisors surveyed reported that
they do not meet with faculty to discuss their graduate
assistant's professional growth and development. Of
those that report that they meet with faculty, 69 percent
do so only once or less than once a term/semester.

Other significant differences exist between stu-
dents who hold and graduates who held paid assistantships,
and students who do not hold and graduates who did not
hold paid assistantships. When compared, the former
are much more likely to suggest that specific competen~
cies are learned through involvement in paid assistant-
ship; whereas the latter subjects are more likely to
suggest that specific competencies are learned through
the formal academic process.

Differences in perceptions and expectations were
not found between institutions or positions. Thus, even

though each of three programs is somewhat different in

131

structure, organization, and requirements, the importance
of both paid assistantships and formal academic prepar-
ation was supported by all schools under study. Given
the high incidence of "equal” responses, the subjects

in this study seem to be suggesting that to be effective,
training for each of the competencies Should include both

academic and paid assistantship experiences.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction

 

Many graduate students in master's degree pro-
grams in college student personnel are involved in paid
assistantships from which the student can gain practical
exposure to the realities of student personnel adminis-
tration. While it has been assumed by academicians and
practitioners that these experiences are important to
the overall professional preparation of entry-level edu-
cators, no studies are currently reported in the litera-
ture which support this assumption. In fact, Cosby's
speculations as well as McGovern and Tinsley's empirical
findings, however, question how well paid assistantships
integrate theory and practice.

Theorists and professional organizations conclude
that practical experiences should be offered to students
in combination with formal academic preparation in psy-
chology, educational foundations, administrative skills,
research and evaluation skills, group dynamics, and stu-

dent personnel work. The findings of Wallenfeldt and

132

133

Bigelow, Ostroth, Rhatigan, Upcraft, and others presented
in Chapter II suggest that practical experiences are as
important as, if not more important than, formal aca-
demic experiences. Caple's molar model demonstrates
the need for on-going practical experiences where the
student has both the time and Opportunity to blend his
own personality with both theory and acquired profes-
sional skills into effective practice. While many aca-
demic programs claim to prepare students to assume
leadership positions in student personnel and offer paid
assistantships to their graduate students, little is
known as to how, if at all, these assistantships relate
to the formal academic process.

Chapter V presents a summary of the development
of the study, its conclusions, inferences, and recommen-
dations for further research.

Summary of theiDevelopment of
the Study

 

 

Chapter I

 

The purpose of this study was an in-depth inves-
tigation of three selected master's degree programs
which propose to prepare professionals to assume leader-
ship positions within student personnel work in higher
education. It was not the intention of the researcher
to validate existing studies which assess the importance

of specific outcome competencies. Rather, the focus of

134

the research project was to determine the relationship
between the formal academic training process and the paid
assistantship experiences of master's degree candidates
in college student personnel at Bowling Green State Uni-
versity, Michigan State University, and The University

of Vermont.

In Chapter I the problem was defined, and the
rationale and need for the study were supported by a
brief summary of the related literature. Further, the
first chapter provided an overview of the study. The

hypotheses were presented in the first chapter.

Hypothesis 1:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates perceive no significant differences
in expectations of the assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2a:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates within each institution perceive no
significant differences in expectations of the
assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2b:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates at different institutions perceive
no significant differences in expectations of the
assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 3:

There are no significant differences in expectations
of the formal academic process between students who
hold paid assistantships and students who do not hold
paid assistantships.

135

Hypothesis 4:

 

There are no significant differences in expectations

of the formal academic process between recent graduates
who held paid assistantships and those graduates who
did not hold paid assistantships.

Hypothesis 5:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates report no significant differences

in perceptions of the importance of a paid assistant-
ship as part of the preparation process.

Hypothesis 6:

 

There are no significant differences in collaboration
of the paid assistantship and the formal academic
process between the program which requires a paid
assistantship and those which do not require a paid
assistantship.

Chapter II

 

Related and relevant literature was reviewed and
reported in the second chapter. It included material
relating to the objectives of professional preparation,
objectives of professional student personnel preparation
programs, suggested areas of study for student personnel
preparation, academic requirements, propositions suggest-
ing the need for practical experience as part of the
training, and literature supporting the interaction of
the academic and practical components. The review
demonstrated a lack of supporting research to answer

the questions identified by the researcher.

136

Chapter III

 

The research methodology and design of the study
were presented in the third chapter. A list of competen—
cies for entry-level student personnel work as suggested
by the literature was deductively clustered in six major
categories and was presented in this chapter. The compe-
tencies are:

COMPETENCIES AND AREAS OF KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY FOR
ENTRY LEVEL POSITIONS:

Counseling, Human Relations, and Interpersonal Skills

cite and interpret theories of personality develop-
ment

counsel and advise students involved in career

choice and career development

mediate conflicts between individuals and groups
recognize and evaluate group dynamics

manifest well-developed interpersonal relations and
communications skills

advise groups

display competence in individual and group counseling

\10\ when N |-'

Theory and Practice of Administration and Management

8 formulate and monitor a budget
9 administer salaries
10 select and evaluate staff
11 train and supervise staff
12 engage in systematic planning
13 evaluate programs
14 formulate and interpret policy
15 recognize legal implications, understand state and
federal legislation affecting the administration of
student personnel and education programs
16 appreciate the computer as a management tool
17 manage physical resources and facilities
18 distinguish between theory and practice
19 engage in effective decision-making
20 display leadership skills

137

Research, Testing,.and Measurement

 

21
22
23

24
25

conduct independent research

understand the principles of statistical analysis
interpret research as reported in professional
literature

interpret personality tests and measurements
administer personality tests and measurements

Historical, Philosophical, and Social Foundations

 

26
27
28
29

articulate the social and cultural foundations of
higher education

appreciate the historical and philosophical under-
pinnings of higher education

recognize and analyze political processes in higher
educational organizations

understand the financing of higher education

Meeting Student Needs

 

30
31

32
33
34
35
36
37

38
39

40
41

tolerate and appreciate differing life styles
recognize and interpret the special needs of ethnic
and racial minorities

articulate the characteristics of the American
college student

represent student concerns to other campus popu-
lations

interpret the concerns, goals, problems of the

other campus populations to students

work effectively with a wide range of individuals
assess student needs and interests

perform fair and effective discipline of student
misconduct

work cooperatively with others

meet student needs through co-curricular programs
and activities

identify the developmental stages of college students
use strategies and purposeful programs to facilitate
student development

Professional Purpose and Role Identity

 

42
43
44

appreciate and understand the specialized functions
of student personnel work

appreciate and internalize professional standards
and ethics .

articulate and interpret the goals of student per-
sonnel work to the wider population (on and off
campus)

138

45 cite and describe issues and trends in student
personnel work
46 display familiarity with the professional literature
47 distinguish between and use the resources of the
professional organizations
For the purposes of this investigation, the
sample was defined as all students, faculty, assistant-
ship supervisors, and recent graduates (M.A. degree
recipients from June 1975 to December 1977) at Bowling
Green State University, Michigan State University, and
The University of Vermont. A questionnaire was developed,
pilot tested, and administered to the sample population
at Michigan State University. Of the 377 questionnaires
sent to the subjects, 308 were returned resulting in an
82 percent rate of response. All of the completed

questionnaires were suitable for inclusion in the sub-

sequent analysis of data.

Chapter IV
Material presented in Chapter IV resulted from

multivariate analyses of variance completed on each of
the six major categories of competencies as well as Chi
Square tests of independence applied to each of the
competencies against the following variables: position,
institution, whether or not student respondents were
involved in a paid assistantship, whether or not the
recent graduates had held a paid assistantship in con-

junction with their graduate degree program.

139

Chapter V

This chapter presents the conclusions of the
study, a discussion of the findings, inferences, and

recommendations for further research.

Conclusions

 

Multivariate analyses of variance applied to each
category of items (competencies or areas of knowledge)
disclosed no significant differences in perceptions and
expectations held by either position or institution.
Thus, it was concluded that the following hypotheses

should not be rejected.

Hypothesis 1:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates perceive no significant differences
in expectations of the paid assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2a:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates within each institution perceive
no significant differences in expectations of the
assistantship experience.

Hypothesis 2b:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates at different institutions perceive
no significant differences in expectations of the
paid assistantship experience.

Further, the means and standard deviations for all six

categories of items indicate the most competencies were

judged to have a locus of preparation which includes both

 

. .. III-Ill. I'lllll
lllll“|

140

the paid assistantship experiences and the formal aca-
demic processes. This does not mean that some competen-
cies are best learned in the classroom while others are
learned in practical work settings, rather, the results
imply that all_competencies should be developed in both
settings. It was concluded from the analysis of data
that both faculty and assistantship supervisors have an
obligation to integrate the academic and the practical
experiences of a training program.

And, while the mean scores tended to cluster
about an "equal" response, not all respondents believed
that preparation should be balanced equally between the
academic process and paid assistantships. To determine
how the subjects who did not choose "equal" responded,
Chi Square tests for independence were applied to each
item and selected variables (position, institution,
whether or not students held paid assistantships, whether
or not recent graduates held paid assistantships during
their master's degree programs). The findings are gen-
eralized and presented by categories.

Items 1-7: Counseling, Human Relations,
and Interpersonal Skills

 

 

There was major agreement that theories of per-
sonality development were learned in the academic process.
A mean score of 3.8 lies within the "academic" range.

Chi Square tests for independence revealed that all

141

positions and institutions reported similar perceptions.
Michigan State respondents were more likely to suggest
that students should learn to counsel and advise students
involved in career decisions (item 2) through the paid
assistantship, and Bowling Green subjects and graduates
who had held a paid assistantship were more likely to
report that the paid assistantship should prepare indi-
viduals to mediate conflicts (item 3).

Agreement between position and institution was
found for item 4 (recognize and evaluate group dynamics).
Although graduates who did not hold a paid assistantship
were more likely to suggest academic preparation for
interpersonal skills (item 5). Students who did not hold
paid assistantships were more likely to indicate academic
preparation for group advisement (item 6) and counseling
(item 7).

Items 8-20: Theory and Practice of
Administration and Management

 

 

Chi Square tests for independence revealed that
Michigan State respondents were more likely to suggest
that graduate students should learn how to formulate
and monitor a budget (item 8) and administer salaries
(item 9) in the paid assistantship. Bowling Green and
Vermont respondents were more likely to disagree and
define the locus of preparation for these competencies

in the academic process.

142

Whereas students and graduates who experienced
a paid assistantship indicate that the ability to select
and evaluate staff (item 10) is acquired in the paid
assistantship, students and graduates who were not
involved in a paid assistantship said that this compe-
tency was acquired in the academic process. The same
distinction held true between the two student subgroups
with item 11 and graduates with item 13. All positions
and institutions saw "systematic planning" (item 12) as
a competency learned equally in the academic and assistant-
ship experiences.

Policy interpretation was seen as a skill
developed in the paid assistantship more often by stu-
dents and graduates who held an assistantship. Agreement
existed between all groups regarding where to learn about
implications of legal, federal, and state legislation.
With a mean score of 3.5, the respondents saw this area
of knowledge as acquired as part of the academic process.

Vermont respondents were more likely to see the
assistantship as preparing students to use the computer
as a management tool (item 16). Competencies in manage-
ment of physical facilities (item 17) and distinguishing
between theory and practice (item 18) were seen by all
positions and institutions as being developed in both
the paid assistantship and the academic process. However,

graduates who did not hold a paid assistantship were more

143

likely to suggest that decision-making skills (item 19)
and leadership skills (item 20) were developed in the
academic process than any of the other groups.

In general, competencies in this category were
seen as being acquired in both paid assistantships and
academic processes. While differences seldom occurred
between position and institution, there were differences
between the student and graduate sub-groups. Clearly,
those individuals who had not experienced a paid assis-
tantship were more likely to perceive that competencies
should be acquired in the academic arena.

Items 21-25: Research, Testing,
and Measurement

 

 

All of the competencies relating to research,
testing, and measurement were perceived as being learned
in the academic process. Chi Square tests for indepen-
dence disclosed no differences between variables tested.
These variables were: position, institution, whether or
not students were involved in a paid assistantship,
whether or not a graduate had held a paid assistantship
in conjunction with his master's degree program.

Items 26’2919 Historical, Philosophical,
and Social Foundations

 

 

Multivariate analysis of variance disclosed no
significant differences between positions and institu-

tions. However, follow-up Chi Square tests suggested

144

differences in the item on finance where Bowling Green
and Vermont subjects were more likely to suggest that
an understanding of the financing of higher education
was acquired in the paid assistantship. Those who did
not choose this response were in the minority (21 and
12.5 percent respectively).

Clearly, understanding the historical, philosoph-
ical, and social foundations were seen as competencies
acquired through the academic process. Social and cul-
tural foundations (item 26), and historical and philosoph-
ical underpinnings (item 27) received mean scores which
lie further in the "academic” range than the "political
process" (item 28) and ”financing higher education"

(item 29). However, the differences are not statisti-
cally significant.

Items 30-41: Meeting
Student Needs

 

 

Several significant differences between positions
and institutions were suggested by a multivariate analy-
sis of variance on the competencies in this major cate-
gory. Follow-up Chi Square tests disclosed additional
differences.

All groups perceived the paid assistantship to
prepare students to appreciate different life-styles;
whereas, faculty were more likely to say that the aca-

demic process prepares professionals to meet the needs

145

of racial and ethnic minorities (item 31). All respon-
dents concurred that an understanding of the American
college student (item 32) should be acquired in both

the classroom and in the paid assistantship experience.
Although most respondents said that students were pre-
pared to represent student concerns to the campus through
the paid assistantship (item 33), graduates who did not
hold an assistantship were more likely to suggest that
this competency should be learned through the academic
process. However, assistantship supervisors and stu-
dents responded with significant difference when asked
about interpreting campus concerns to students (item 34).
While both groups suggested that this competency should
be acquired through the paid assistantship, students
were more likely to choose an "equal” response. Agree-
ment was found among all groups with regard to "working
effectively with a wide range of individuals (item 35).
With a mean score of 2.4, this competency was seen as
being developed in the paid assistantship.

Faculty were more likely to suggest that needs
assessment techniques (item 36) were acquired in the
academic arena: though the overall mean fell within the
paid assistantship range (2.6). While all three insti-
tutions perceived the discipline function (item 37) to

be a competency developed in the paid assistantship,

146

differences exist between Michigan State and Vermont
with mean scores of 2.3 and 1.9 respectively.

All groups agreed that program development
(item 41) and the ability to work cooperatively with
others (item 38) were skills incurred in the paid assis-
tantship. So, too, was the ability to meet student needs
through co-curricular programs and activities (item 39).
However, Vermont respondents and graduates who had not
held a paid assistantship were more likely to choose an
"academic" response to item 39.

Finally, all subjects agreed that learning how
to identify the developmental stages of college students
(item 40) was a competency which should be learned in
the academic process (mean = 3.4).

Itemg 42-47: Professional Purpose
and Role Identity

 

 

The competencies or areas of knowledge in this
category were all seen as having a locus of preparation
in the academic process since all received mean scores
greater than 3.0. A multivariate analysis of variance
applied to the items in this category disclosed no dif-
ferences between institution or position. Chi Square
tests revealed no differences between the items in this
category and the variables of student and graduate

involvement in paid assistantships.

147

Hypothesis 3:

 

There exists no significant differences in perceptions
of the formal academic process between students who
hold a paid assistantship and students who do not
hold a paid assistantship.

Hypothesis 4:

 

There exists no significant differences in perceptions
of the formal academic process between recent graduates
who had held a paid assistantship and recent graduates
who did not hold a paid assistantship.

Given the difference in sample sizes between stu-
dents who were involved in assistantships, and students
who were not involved in a paid assistantship; and
graduates who had held an assistantship, and those who
had not, significant F-tests must be regarded cautiously.
However, enough Chi Square tests disclosed significant
differences among these groups that this researcher has
chosen to reject null Hypotheses 3 and 4. The results
of this study support the contention that persons who
participate in the experience of a paid assistantship
are more likely to identify it as a primary locus of
preparation for professional competencies than those
persons who do not hold a paid assistantship. Similarly,
those subjects who did not participate in the experience
of a paid assistantship are more likely to suggest an

academic locus of preparation for specific competencies.

148

Hypothesis 5:

 

Faculty, students, assistantship supervisors, and
recent graduates report no significant differences

in perceptions of the importance of a paid assistant-
ship as part of the preparation process.

This hypothesis was not rejected as the result of
multivariate analyses of variance and Chi Square tests
for independence. Furthermore, since 82 percent of the
respondents either agreed or agreed strongly to the
statement ”a paid assistantship is a very important com-
ponent of master's degree professional preparation for
college student personnel," it was concluded that (1) all
groups involved in the preparation process consider the
paid assistantship to be a very important component of

the process, and (2) all groups see the importance of the

paid assistantship similarly.

Hypothesis 6:

 

There are no significant differences in collaboration
and cooperation of the paid assistantship and the
formal academic process between the program which
requires a paid assistantship and those which do
not require a paid assistantship.
This hypothesis was not rejected, however, dif-
ferences among assistantship supervisors were found to
be significant at the .08 level. It was revealed that
Michigan State University reported the lowest percentage

of assistantship supervisors who meet with faculty.

Moreover, those supervisors who do meet with faculty

149

at Michigan State seem to do so with less frequency than

their counterparts at Bowling Green and The University

of Vermont.

In summary, as a result of this study, the follow-

ing conclusions were drawn:

1.

Faculty are more likely, but not significantly
so, to see the academic process as more influ-
ential than students, assistantship supervisors,

and recent graduates.

Involvement in a paid assistantship effects how

one perceives professional preparation.

Academic content areas of knowledge such as edu-
cational foundations, statistics, and develop-
mental theory are generally seen as being

acquired through the academic process.

"Skill" areas of competency such as leadership,
staff selection, staff supervision, and decision-
making are seen as being acquired in the paid

assistantship.

Only two of the forty-seven competencies are
clearly seen as having a locus of preparation

in either the academic process (”appreciate the
historical and philOSOphical underpinnings of
higher education" and ”understand the principles

of statistical analysis").

150

In and of themselves, these findings present a
number of implications for the preparation of student
personnel workers. For example, it appears that the
most significant finding of this study which should not
be ignored or overlodked by theorists and practitioners

is that competencies are seen as being acquired in both

 

the formal academic process, which by definition includes
practicum experiences, and the paid assistantship. More-
over, when regarding all of the competencies, there are
no major differences in expectations between faculty,
students, graduates of the programs, and assistantship
supervisors. With few exceptions, the subjects under
investigation suggest that a competency is not truly

acquired until theory and practice have been integrated.

Discussion

 

These findings contradict the presumptions of
theorists who question the need for academic preparation
for student personnel workers. In fact, the results
of this study strongly support the value of academic
training programs, and, the findings also provide
empirical support for those writers who have underscored
the importance of practical, on-the-job experience for
professional preparation.

Cosby theorized that paid assistantships do not

really serve as training laboratories where the theory

151

being discussed in the classroom can be put into prac-
tice.1 McGovern and Tinsley lend empirical evidence to
Cosby's claim when as a result of their research they
conclude that paid assistantships are too concerned with
local issues.2 This study contradicts those findings
and reveals the need for paid assistantships which do
in fact transcend local concerns and examine theory in
practice and further suggests that assistantship super-
‘visors must begin to see themselves as integral parts
of the preparation process. Assistantship supervisors
must see their jobs as having two major goals: managing
their administrative or program areas of responsibility
effectively and efficiently, and facilitating the pro-
fessional preparation of their graduate assistants.
Faculty and assistantship supervisors cannot
exist in separate worlds and still be effective in pre-
paring graduate students to assume professional positions
which presume acceptable levels of competence and pro-
ficiency. Rather, they must see their responsibilities
as collaborative vis-a-vis their students and graduate
assistants. The importance of integrating the practical
and the theoretical has been affirmed by this study.

However, the researcher suggests that successful program

 

1Cosby

2McGovern and Tinsley

152

integration cannot be left to the student to do it for
himself. Both faculty members and assistantship super-
visors must assume the shared responsibility for inte-
grating the graduate students' academic and paid assis—
tantship experiences. Practica experiences are moderated
by faculty members who, in conjunction with collaborating
professional staff members, present students with on-
going eValuation. However, as Caple suggests, many, if
not most practica experiences do not go beyond the
observation phase of learning.3 On the other hand,

most students who are involved in paid assistantships,
in the three programs under study, spend two academic
years on the job; meeting job demands, making decisions,
taking real responsibility, and dealing with the every-
day pressures and ambiguities of professional student
personnel work. This experience, however, does not
receive official recognition from the academic arena.
When the student successfully completes his degree
requirements, he is awarded the master's degree and
given the official seal of approval by the institution--
without regard to how the student functions in an actual
work setting. If the student has done a reasonably
respectable job in his assistantship, the supervisor
will submit a positive recommendation to his placement

file. However, if the student did not perform at an

 

3Caple

153

acceptable level, the supervisor will not often be asked
to submit a letter of recommendation and the student will
descend upon future employers armed with the certification
of his university.

Data from this study would support the argument
that such logistics are unacceptable. If the preparation
process is to be an integration of both practical (paid
assistantship) and academic experiences as the findings
of this investigation imply, criteria for successful
performance in both arenas should be examined before the
student is considered to be "prepared." Further, the
findings of this study strongly suggest that a paid
assistantship should be a requirement of master's degree
training programs, not just an encouraged optional in-
volvement. Since all four groups of respondents indi-
cate that the locus of preparation should be a combination
of academic and paid assistantship experience, it is
logical to conclude that a paid assistantship should be
a requirement for graduation.

Student affairs divisions which have depended
upon competent graduate students to serve in responsible
assistantship positions have long appreciated the sym-
biotic relationship they share with the academic depart-
ments. Likewise, the academic programs have recognized
their dependence upon the assistantship sponsoring

departments for providing training and financial

154

enticements for attracting qualified graduate students.
This interdependence has tremendous potential for pre-
paring new professionals and should be more systemati-
cally coordinated. Cooperation between academic depart-
ments and assistantship sponsors can no longer be the
guidepost. Rather, genuine collaboration in the pro-
fessional preparation process must become the rule if
training programs are to successfully prepare individuals
to assume responsible leadership positions in student

personnel administration in higher education.

Inferences

 

As a result of this study, the following infer-

ences are drawn by the researcher.

1. Training programs should begin to integrate the
assistantship supervisor into the relationship

already enjoyed by faculty and students.

2. Assistantship supervisors should begin to
incorporate faculty input into the normal
operations of their divisions--be it for evalu-

ation, staff training, or in-service development.

3. Faculty and assistantship supervisors should
begin to examine their shared responsibilities
to the overall training process. Individual
relationships will vary from campus to campus,

so, it is the responsibility of the individual

155

faculty members and assistantship supervisors to
determine what should be done at each institution

to facilitate a collaborative preparation process.

Students should be expected to display a desirable
level of competence in both the academic process
229 the paid assistantship before a degree is
conferred. This suggests periodic evaluation of
performance skills made collaboratively by

faculty members and assistantship supervisors.

Training models need to be developed whereby
faculty and assistantship supervisors will be
able to recognize and determine their responsi-
bility towards deve10ping proficiency in each
of the forty-seven competencies and areas of

knowledge.

Faculty and assistantship supervisors must begin
to identify sponsors for a wider variety of paid
assistantships than currently exist at most
institutions. This is especially critical if
paid assistantships are to become a degree
requirement. To be beneficial, the paid assis-
tantship must accommodate the personal and
emotional as well as professional preparation

needs of the graduate student.

156

Recommendations for Further Research

The questions for investigation suggested in
Chapter I of this study were answered. However,
researchers often discover more questions than they
could answer. The following are suggestions for further
research and investigation to allow for the development
of better preparation programs for professional student
personnel workers. These recommendations are made as a
result of the review of the literature presented in
Chapter II and the data received by the study and

reported in Chapter IV.

1. This study addressed the ”should be” or ideal
for professional preparation. Investigation of
and comparison with what is in reality occurring

in training programs is recommended.

2. Competencies need to be reduced to specific
learning objectives, and activities necessary

for meeting these objectives should be identified.

3. Once specific competency activities have been
identified, specific responsibilities of both
the academic components and the assistantship
component should be identified, as well as
activities which require input from and col-

laboration by both training components.

157

Suggested ways to coordinate training between the
academic and assistantship experiences should be

developed.

The relationship between paid assistantships

and practica should be investigated and under-
stood. Further, the impact of practicum exper-
iences on professional preparation needs to be

understood.

Competency-based evaluation systems need to be
developed so that both knowledge of theory and
skills in practice can be assessed by faculty

and assistantship supervisors.

Competency-based job descriptions for paid assis—
tantships and competency-based formal instruction
should be developed to insure for accountability
on the part of both the assistantship supervisor
and faculty to allow the student to know what
competencies should result from involvement in

the paid assistantship.

Students begin their formal training with varying
levels of proficiency. Techniques should be
developed which assess the entering student's
abilities so that suitable paid assistantship

and academic experiences can be made available.

 

158

9. Measures to evaluate the experiences of the paid

assistantships should be developed and examined.

Concluding Statement
The questions for investigation were answered by
this study. The major finding of the investigation was
an affirmation of the importance of formal academic train-
ing in conjunction and collaboration with on-going, paid
assistantship experiences for the preparation of entry-

level student personnel professionals.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Institution:

Bowling Green State University
Michigan State University
The University of Vermont

2. Position: (your current, primary responsibility as
defined by your institution) Check only
one.

Assistantship Supervisor
Student

Faculty Member

Recent Graduate

 

 

 

 

The following_guestions should be answered by all
respondents:

 

3. A paid assistantship is a very important component of
master's degree professional preparation for college

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Graduate Students who hold paid assistantships receive
better professional preparation than those who do not.

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree

Strongly Disagree

No Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

160

The following questions should be answered by STUDENTS
only: .

5.

The

10.

Are you currently involved in a paid graduate assis-
tantship?

Yes
No

If "yes," in what area? (If more than one, check as
many as appropriate)

Activities

Residence Halls
Resource Center
Teaching

Volunteer Programs
Other (please specify)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If "no,“ have you ever held a paid graduate assis-
tantship?

Yes (please specify)

 

NO

Have you ever been a full-time staff member on a pro—
fessional student personnel staff?

Yes (please specify)

 

NO

Did you begin graduate study directly after college
graduation?

Yes
No (please specify work engaged in)

 

following should be answered by FACULTY MEMBERS only:

Do you ever meet with professional staff members who
supervise graduate assistants to discuss your stu-
dents' academic and professional growth and develop-
ment?

Yes
No

 

‘II'I! I'll-Ill} 0|]! 1| .1"

11.

161

If you answered "yes" to question 10, how often do
you meet with the professional staff members to
discuss your students' growth and development?

Once a term/semester

Twice a term/semester

Weekly

Less than once a term/semester

 

 

 

 

The following guestions should be answered by ASSISTANTSHIP
SUPERVISORS only:

 

 

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

In addition to supervising graduate student involved
in paid assistantships, do you also supervise prac-
ticum students?

Yes
No

If "yes,” how often?
Frequently (nearly every term/semester)

From time to time
Seldom

 

If ”yes," how often?

Once a term/semester

Twice a term/semester

Weekly

Less than once a term/semester

 

 

 

 

Do you teach on a part-time basis?

Yes
NO

Are you currently a full- or part-time student?

Yes (specify level and major)
NO

 

162

THe follpwing questions should be answered by RECENT
GRADUATES only:

 

 

18. While a graduate student, did you hold a paid assis-

19. If "yes," in what area?

Activities

Residence Halls
Resource Center
Teaching

Volunteer Programs
Other (please specify)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20. If "yes,” were your assistantship responsibilities
in the same student personnel functional area as
your present responsibilities?

Yes
No

(ALL RESPONDENTS:

 

The research and theory found in student personnel litera-
ture demonstrates the importance of the following compe-
tencies and areas of knowledge for entry level student
personnel workers. These areas of preparation have been
clustered in six categories for the purpose of this study.
Please indicate where you believe the locus of prepar—
ation SHOULD BE for each of the competencies or areas of
knowledge. CIEcle appropriate response.

5 Entirely in the Academic Program
Mostly in the Academic Program
Equally in the Academic Program and Paid

Assistantship

Mostly in the Paid Assistantship
Entirely in the Paid Assistantship

4
3
2
1

Counseling, Human Relations, and Interpersonal Skills:

 

The entry level student personnel worker should have the
ability to:

 

21. Cite and interpret theories of person-
ality develoPment 5 4 3 2

 

 

III" I'll"! III I..- z."

163
22. Counsel and advise students involved in
career choice and career development 5 4 3 2

23. Mediate conflicts between individuals
and groups 5 4 3 2

24. Recognize and evaluate group dynamics 5 4 3 2

25. Manifest well-developed interpersonal
relations and communications skills 5 4 3 2

26. Advise groups 5 4 3 2

27. Display competence in individual and
group counseling 5 4 3 2

Theory and Practice of Administration and Management:

The entry level student personnel worker should have the
ability to:

 

28. Formulate and monitor a budget 5 4 3 2
29. Administer salaries 5 4 3 2
30. Select and evaluate staff 5 4 3 2
31. Train and supervise staff 5 4 3 2
32. Engage in systematic planning 5 4 3 2
33. Evaluate programs 5 4 3 2
34. Formulate and interpret policy 5 4 3 2
35. Recognize legal implications, under-

stand state and federal legislation

affecting the administration of

student personnel and education

programs 5 4 3 2
36. Appreciate the computer as a man-

agement tool 5 4 3 2
37. Manage physical resources and

facilities 5 4 3 2

38. Distinguish between theory and
practice 5 4 3 2

H #4 rd H P4 be H

164

39. Engage in effective decision-making 5 4 3 2
40. Display leadership skills 5 4 3 2

Research, Testing, and Measurement:

 

The entry level student personnel worker should have
the ability to:

 

41. Conduct independent research 5 4 3 2

42. Understand the principles of sta-
tistical analysis 5 4 3 2

43. Interpret research as reported in
professional literature 5 4 3 2

44. Interpret personality tests and
measurements 5 4 3 2

45. Administer personality tests and
measurements 5 4 3 2

Historical, Philosophical and Social Foundations:

 

The entry level student personnel worker should have
the aBility to:

 

46. Articulate the social and cultural foun-
dations of higher education 5 4 3 2

47. Appreciate the historical and philo-
sophical underpinnings of higher
education 5 4 3 2

48. Recognize and analyze political pro-
cesses in higher educational
organizations 5 4 3 2

49. Understand the financing of higher
education 5 4 3 2

Meeting Student Needs:

 

The entry level student personnel worker should have the
ability to:

 

50. Tolerate and appreciate differing
life styles 5 4 3 2

51. Recognize and interpret the special
needs of ethnic and racial minorities 5 4 3 2

165
52. Articulate the characteristics of the
American college student 5 4 3 2 l

53. Represent student concerns to other
campus populations 5 4 3 2 1

54. Interpret the concerns, goals,
problems of the other campus

populations to students 5 4 3 2 l
55. Work effectively with a wide range

of individuals 5 4 3 2 l
56. Assess student needs and interests 5 4 3 2 l

57. Perform fair and effective discipline
of student misconduct 5 4 3 2 1

58. Work cooperatively with others 5 4 3 2 1

59. Meet student needs through co-
curricular programs and activities 5 4 3 2 1

60. Identify the developmental stages of
college students 5 4 3 2 l

61. Use strategies and purposeful pro-
grams to facilitate student
development 5 4 3 2 1

Professional Purpose and Role Identity:

 

The entry level student personnel worker should be able to:

 

62. Appreciate and understand the
specialized functions of stu-
dent personnel work 5 4 3 2 l

63. Appreciate and internalize pro-
fessional standards and
ethics 5 4 3 2 l

64. Articulate and internalize pro-
fessional standards and ethics 5 4 3 2 l

65. Cite and describe issues and
trends in student personnel work 5 4 3 2 1

66.

67.

166

Display familiarity with the pro-
fessional literature

Distinguish between and use the
resources of the professional
organizations

APPENDIX B

COVER LETTER

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

omcs or me pm or moms EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN - 48824
mam seawcvs BUILDING

IAPPTWHXEK B
February 16 , 1977 COVER LETTER

Dear Colleague,

has suggested that I write to request your assistance
in a research project which I an undertaking. The project is a study of the
relationship between the formal academic programs in college student personnel
and the paid assistantships undertaken by the masters candidates in these pro-
grams. For the purpose of gathering data, the attached questionnaire is being
administered to faculty, masters candidates, recent graduates, and assistantship
supervisors in three training programs: Bowling Green State University, Michigan
State university, and The University of Vermont.

For the purposes of the study, the following definitions are provided:

Student: those individuals currently enrolled in a masters degree
program in student personnel.

Recent Graduate: those individuals employed as full-time student
personnel workers who received a masters degree in student personnel
from June 1975 to the present.

Faculty: professional educators who are engaged in teaching courses

in student personnel programs or who coordinate the practicum experiences
of masters degree candidates.

Assistantship Supervisor: professional student personnel worker who
directs and coordinates the activities of graduate assistants.

Academic Progr : degree requirements (formal class, seminars, or
practica) of a masters level preparation program in college student
personnel. Students receive academic credit as a result of their
participation in these activities.

Paid Assistantships: on-going work experiences of a professional or
para-professional nature which are undertaken by graduate students on a
long—term, usually but not always part-time basis. These experiences
are supervised by professional student personnel workers. They are not
a degree requirement, and students receive financial remuneration rather
than academic credit for services performed.

 

 

 

Thank you for participating in this study. Please return the completed question-
naire to me at your earliest convenience. I have enclosed a self-addressed,
stamped envelope for that purpose.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Minetti
Area Director

B d C 1
roy omp ex 167

APPENDIX C

FOLLOW-UP MEMO

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY usnmsmcqucmcm .382;

 

omcs or THE DEAN or SWDEN’I'S - STUDENT SERVICES BUILDING
APPENDIX C
FOLLOW-UP MEMO

March 11, 1977

Dear Colleague,

Several weeks ago I sent you a questionnaire requesting
that you complete it and return it to me at your earliest
convenience. The questionnaire was part of an effort to
study the relationship between the academic program and
paid assistantship experiences made available to master's
degree candidates in student personnel programs.

If you have already returned the questionnaire, I thank
you. If not, I would like to take this opportunity to urge
you to do so before March let.

If you have never received the questionnaire, or if it
has been misplaced, please let me know. I will be happy
to send you another copy.

Sincerely,

     

Robert H. inetti
339 Student Services Building
East Lansing, Michigan 48824

168

 

Ili'l If I'IIII III' lily:

 

.II II. .I

APPENDIX D

INSTITUTIONAL CONTACTS

APPENDIX D
INSTITUTIONAL CONTACTS

Bowling Green State University

Ms. Fay Paulsen, Assistant Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs

Dr. Gerald Saddlemire, Professor and Chairman,
College Student Personnel

Michigan State University

Dr. Beverly Belson, Assistant Professor and Assistant
to the Vice President for Student Affairs and
Services

Dr. Louis Stamatakos, Professor

The University of Vermont

Ms. Barbara Baker, Area Coordinator, Office of
Residence Life

Ms. Jackie M. Gribbons, Assistant to the Executive
Vice President and Assistant Professor

Dr. Kenneth Saurman, Associate Professor

169

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Ill." ['1 Illi III III (III

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

American College Personnel Association. ”The Role and
Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in
Institutions of Higher Learning." Journal of
College Student Personnel 8 (January I967): 62-65.

 

American Personnel and Guidance Association. "Guidelines
for Graduate Programs in the Preparation of Stu-
dent Personnel Workers in Higher Education."
Personnel and Guidance Journal 47 (1969): 493-98.

 

Ayers, A. R.; Tripp, P.; and Russell, J. Student Ser-
vices Administration inHigher Education.
Wa§hihgton, D.C.: U.S. Department 6? Health,
Education and Welfare, 1966.

 

 

 

Backstrom, C. H., and Hursh, G. Survey Research. Chi-
cago: Northwestern University Press, 1963.

 

 

Brubacher, J. S., and Rudy, W. Hi her Education in Tran-
sition. New York: Harper and Row Publishers,

Caple, R. B. ”Molar Model for the Training of Student
Personnel Workers." Counselor Education and
Sppervision 12 (September 1972): 31-41.

 

 

Cosby, B. "Professional Preparation for Student Personnel
Work in Higher Education." Journal of the
National Asspciation of Women Deans, Adminis-
trators and Counselors 29 (FaII I965): I4-I8.-

 

 

 

Cottingham, J. F. "Roles, Functions and Training for
College Personnel Workers." Personnel and
Guidance Journal 33 (1955): 534-38.

 

 

Council of Student Personnel Associations. 1967 and 1973
Statements. (Mimeographed.)

Crookston, B. B. "Student Personnel--All Hail and Fare-
well!" Personnel and Guidance Journal 55 (Sep-
tember 1976Y: 26-29.

 

170

171

Dressel, P. L. "Measuring the Benefits of Student Per-
sonnel Work.” Journal of Higher Education 43
(February 1972): 133-41.

 

Emmet, T. A. ”A Guide to Programs of Training for College
and University Student Personnel Workers." No. 6,
University of Detroit Studigs in Higher Education
fdr COllege and University Student Personnel
Workers. Detroit: January 1965.

 

Ferrari, M. R. "National Study of Student Personnel Man-
power Planning--l972." Journal of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators
I0 (OctOber 1972): 91-100.

 

 

Fitzgerald, L. E.: Johnson, W.; and Norris, W., eds.
College Student Personnel: Readings and Bib-

liographies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
9 .

 

Goldstein, M. B. "Academic Internships: Can Cash and
Credit Coexist?" Synergist 5 (Spring 1976):
27-29.

 

Gordon, G. G. "FLAGS: Field Based Learning Activities
for Graduate Students.” Phi Kappa Phi Journal
56 (Summer 1976): 25-26.

 

Grant, W. H., and James, E. "Career Patterns of Student
Personnel Administrators." Journal of the
National Association of Student Personnel’
Administrators 10 (OctOber 1972):4106-132

 

 

Greenleaf, E. ”Who Should Educate the College Student
Personnel Worker and to What End?" gournal of
the National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators 6 (July 1968): 29-32.

 

 

 

, and Shaffer, R. H. ”Evaluating the Intern and
Practicum Experiences.” UCEA Review 18 (Sep-
tember 1976): 24-25.

 

Hays, William L. Statistics for the Social Sciences.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,
1973.

 

Hedlund, D. "Preparation for Student Personnel: Impli-
cations of Humanistic Education." Journal of
College Student Personnel 12 (September 1971):

 

 

 

172

Hill, G. E., and Green, D. A. ”The Selection, Preparation
and Professionalization of Guidance and Personnel
Workers.” Review of Educational Research 30
(April 1960): 115-30.

 

Houtz, P. ”Internships in Student Personnel Programs." In
College Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliog-
ra hies, pp. 42- 48. Edited by L. E. Fitzgerald,

W. Jofinson, and W. Norris. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Company, 1970.

 

 

Hoyt, D. P., and Rhatigan, J. J. ”Professional Prepar-
ation of Junior and Senior College Student Per-
sonnel Administrators.” In College Student Per-
sonnel: Readings and Bibliographies, pp. 35- 38.
Edited’by L. E. Fitzgerald: W. Johnson, and
W. Norris. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company,
1970.

 

 

Johnson, W. F. 'Student Personnel Work in Higher Edu-
cation: Philosophy and Framework. " In Colle e
Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies,
pp. 6-11. Edited by L. E. Fitzgerald, W. JOhn-
son, and W. Norris. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Company, 1970.

 

 

Keller, L. 1. ”Evaluation of a Student Personnel Training
Program Through the Opinions of Its Trainees."
Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1962.

Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Ho lt,T Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964.

 

Kirkbride, V. "Practicum Experience in the Master's
Degree Program for Personnel Work." Journal of
the National Asaociation of Women Deans, Admin-
i§trators, and Counselors 34 (Winter l972):’80-84.

 

 

 

Levine, S., and Elzey, F. F. A Programmed Introduction
EgyResearch. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing
Co., 1968.

 

 

Lloyd-Jones, E. ”How To Prepare for the Unknown.”
igurnal of the National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators 6 (July 1968): 24-28.

 

McDaniel, R. R. ”Organization Theory and the Preparation
of Student Personnel Workers." gournal of the
National Association of Student Personnel Admin-
iStrators 10 (October 1972): 101-05.

 

 

 

173

McGovern, T. V., and Tinsley, H. ”A Longitudinal Investi-
gation of the Graduate Assistant Work-Training
Experience." Journal of College Student Personnel
17 (March 1976)?’I30-33.

Meabon, D. L.: Bailey, W. R.: and Witten, C. H. ”The
Competent Student Activities Administrator.”
Journal of College Student Personnel 16 (March
1975): 100506.

 

Miller, T. K. "College Student Personnel Preparation:
Present Perspective and Future Directions.”
Heurnal of the National Association of Student
PersonneIlAdministrators 4 (April 1967): I71-76.

 

 

 

Mueller, K. H. Student Personnel Work in Hi her Edu-
cation. Boston: Houghton MiffIin Company, 1961.

. ”Educational.Issues and the Training of Student
Personnel Workers.” Journal of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators

4 (ApriI I967): I67-7l.

 

Newton, F. B. ”Notes to New Professionals." ACPA
Develo ments. The Newsletter of the American
CoIIege Personnel Association. Washington, D.C.:
October 1976.

, and Hellenga, G. "Assessment of Learning and
Process Objectives in Student Personnel Training
Programs." Journal of College Student Personnel
15 (November'l974): 492-97.

 

, and Richardson, R. L. "Expected Entry-Level
Competencies of Student Personnel Workers."
Journal of College Student Personnel 17 (Sep-
tember 1976): 42 -31.

 

Nie, N. H.; Bent, D. H., and Hull, C. H. Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences. New York:

 

 

 

Nygreen, G. T. "Professional Status for Student Personnel
Administrators?” Journal of the National Associ-
ation of Student Personnel Administrators 5E
Tfianuary I968):*28§-91.

 

O'Banion, T. ”Program Proposal for Preparing College
Student Personnel Workers." Journal of Colle e
Student Personnel 10 (January I973): 249-53.

 

 

174

Ostroth, D. D. ”Master's Level Preparation for Student
Personnel Work." Journal of College Student Per-
sonnel 16 (July 1974): 319-22.

Parker, C. A. "The Place of Counseling in the Preparation
of Student Personnel Work." Personnel and
Guidance Journal 45 (November 1966): 254-61.

Penn, J. R. ”Professional Accreditation: A Key To Excel-
lence.” Journal of College Student Personnel 15
(July 1973): 257-64.

Penney, J. F. "Student Personnel Work: A Profession
Stillborn." Personnel and Guidance Journal 47
(June 1969): 958-62.

. Pergpective apd Challen e in College Studegp
Personnel Work. SpringfieId, I11.: Charles C.
Thomas, 1972.

 

Rhatigan, J. J. "The Professional Preparation of Student
Personnel Administrators as Perceived by Practi-
tioners and Faculty-Trainers.” Doctoral disser-
tation, The University of Iowa, 1965.

. "Professional Preparation of Student Personnel
Administrators as Perceived by Practitioners and
Faculty.” Journal of College Student Personnel

9 (January 1968): 17423.

Robinson, D. W. ”Analysis of Three Statements Relative
to the Preparation of College Student Personnel
Workers.” Journal of College Student Personnel
7 (July 19667: 254-56.

Rockey, M. C. ”Doctoral Preparation Programs in College
Student Personnel in Selected Universities in the
United States." Doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1972.

Rudolph, F. R. The American Collegeand University: A
History. New York: Vintage Books, 1962.

Schreck, T. C., and Shaffer, R. H. "Implications of the
Campus Organization Power Structure for Student
Personnel Administrators." Journal of the
National Association of Student Personnel Admin-
iStrators’S (April 1968): 331-35.

 

Shaffer, R. H., and Martinson, W. D. Student Personnel
Services in Higheerucation. New York: The
Center for Applied'Research in Education, Inc.,
1969.

)9!!! ll

1(4):): 7. 1'1

175

Tracy, J. L. ”The Current Status of Master's Programs in
College Student Personnel.” Journal of the
National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators 9 (October I971): 106-10.

 

Trueblood, D. L. "The Educational Preparation of the
College Student Personnel Leader of the Future.”
In Colle e Student Personnel Work inthe Years
Ahead. Edited by G. A. Klopf. ACPA Student
Personnel Series No. 7. Washington, D.C.:
American Personnel and Guidance Association, 1966.

Upcraft, M. L. ”Does Training Make a Difference?"
Journal of the National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators 97(Oct0ber 1971),*131137,

 

Wallenfeldt, E. C., and Bigelow, G. S. ”Status of the
Internship in Student Personnel Studies."
ngrnal of the National Asggciation of Women
Deans, AdminiStrators, and Counselors 34 TSummer
1TH) :180-84.

Williamson, E. G. Student Personnel Services in Colleges
and Universities. New York: *MCGraw-Hill, 1961.

 

. ”Professional Preparation of Student Personnel
Workers." School and Society 86 (1958): 3-5.

Wrenn, C. Gilbert. Student Personnel Work in College.

New York: RonaId Press Co., 1951.

Yates, J. M. Questionnaire currently being used for a
doctoral dissertation, Memphis State University.
(Mimeographed.)

 

 

(I'll!)

"11111111111111s