PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before due due. r_——————_——__—_——_——_I DATE DUE « DATE DUE DATE DUE m 5 1’ H99; 2:6 9 5132079 Qunz r It l[——__| MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution FACULTY AND STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATOR PERCEPTION S OF DOCTORAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION By Dale Lynn Beatty A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration 1988 ABSTRACT FACULTY AND STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATOR PRECEPTION S OF DOCTORAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION By Dale Lynn Beatty The Purpose. The purposes of this study were to: (1) develop demographic and academic profiles about the selected group of student affairs administration faculty and administrators; (2) identify the knowledge, skills and competencies critical for developing guidelines and standards for doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administrators; (3) analyze the perceptions of both faculty and practitioners about the content and concentration of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration, and; (4) identify the top preparation programs as perceived by student affairs faculty and administrators. The Procedure. The population of seventy full-time student affairs administration faculty, and a sample of one-hundred student affairs administrators were mailed a questionnaire. Thirty-five (50%) of the faculty and forty-one (41%) of the student affairs administrator respondents returned usable instruments. Six Program Coordinators of "selected" quality doctoral preparation programs, who were identified in rankings of faculty and student affairs administrator respondents, were also mailed a questionnaire. Four (67%) of the Program Coordinators returned usable instruments. The data were analyzed using several statistical methods. With open- ended questions, three statistical tests were utilized -- chi-square analysis, Fisher's Exact Test, and an analysis of variance. For questions with scales or ratings, frequency distributions were calculated, and an analysis of variance was computed to measure differences between means. Findings. The major findings based on the analyses of the questionnaires included the following: There were more similarities than differences between faculty and administrator respondents and their academic and professional backgrounds; recommended knowledge, skills, and competencies for doctoral preparation program students; recommended courses and experiences; the CAS Standard effects on doctoral preparation programs; and institutional rankings of doctoral preparation programs. Administrator respondents valued the importance of Internships and Practicum Opportunities more than the faculty respondents. Administrator respondents recommended courses and experiences that were less theoretical than faculty respondents. The CAS standards for master's degree programs would not negatively affect doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. There were more similarities than differences between survey respondents and the numerical scores within the three criteria used to rank selected doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. Copyright by DALE LYNN BEATTY 1988 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people have provided a tremendous amount of support and encouragement during the writing of this dissertation. A most special thanks goes out to Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos, whose challenges, ideas, patience, and understanding made this dream possible. Working with Dr. Stamatakos was a reward in itself. In addition, I would like to thank my family, who provided constant encouragement, support, and understanding, always kept me on track, and allowed me to pursue my dreams and desires. Finally, I would like to thank Nancy Stiller-Willerton, Ph.D., who helped me through the rough spots, kept me calm and focused, and helped me realize that it was okay to be human. CHAPTER One Two Three CHAPTER Four TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Need for the Study Purpose of the Study Definition of Terms Hypotheses Limitations of the Study Methodology Instruments Organization of the Study REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Historical Development of Preparation Programs Professional Preparation at the Doctoral Level Preparation Program Assessment The Identification of Preparation Program Competencies Summary METHODOLOGY Selection of the Sample Development of the Instruments Collection of the Data Research Methods Treatment of the Data Limitations of the Methodology Summary - PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Faculty and Administrator Profiles vi Page 10 11 13 14 15 16 20 21 49 59 65 69 71 71 73 77 80 82 82 83 86 CHAPTER Four vii Gender .Age Rank/ Title Total Years in Current Position Faculty Experience in Student Affairs Highest Degree Earned Year Degree Awarded Field of Study Teaching Professional Organization Affiliation Professional Organization Involvement Attendance at Professional Meetings Professional Publications Conference Presentations Professional Consultations Summary of Faculty and Administrator Profiles Knowledge, Skills, and Competencies of Doctoral Preparation Program Graduates Knowledge, Skills and Competencies Retention of the Null Hypothesis Rejection of the Null Hypothesis Non-Comparable Items Summary of the Knowledge, Skills and Competencies of Doctoral Preparation Program Graduates Doctoral Preparation Courses and Experiences Course Selection and Rankings Retention of the Null Hypothesis Non-Comparable Items Summary of Doctoral Preparation Courses and Experiences CAS Perceptions Summary of CAS Perceptions Master's Versus Doctoral Preparation Programs Summary of Master's Versus Doctoral Preparation Programs Institutional Rankings Institutional Descriptions Summary of Institutional Rankings Characteristics of Quality Doctoral Preparation Programs Preparation Program Concentration Identification of Competencies Competency Measurement Remedial Opportunities Page 88 89 9O 90 91 93 95 96 97 101 102 104 106 1 11 113 116 117 118 119 127 127 128 129 130 132 146 147 148 156 157 160 160 163 167 168 168 169 171 171 CHAPTER Four Five APPENDIX A w WOO 310'“ I viii Doctoral Preparation Program Courses Doctoral Program Strengths and Weaknesses Preparation Program Changes Future Program Changes Summary of Characteristics of Quality Doctoral Preparation Programs FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Hypotheses, Findings and Conclusions Additional Findings Masters Versus Doctoral Programs Program Coordinator Responses Concerning Quality Doctoral Programs Conclusions Implications Preparation Program Rankings Preparation Program Concentration Comparisons Between Competencies, Coursework, and Doctoral Program Offerings Knowledge, Skills and Competencies of Doctoral Program Graduates Recommendations for Future Research Instrument Package Sent to Preparation Program Faculty Members Instrument Package Sent to Student Affairs Administrators Instrument Package Sent to Program Coordinators Colleges and Universities Used in the Survey of Student Affairs Administrators Colleges and Universities Used in the Survey of Doctoral Preparation Program Faculty Members Cover Letter for Preparation Program Faculty Members Cover Letter for Student Affairs Administrators Cover Letter for Doctoral Preparation Program Coordinators Follow-Up Reminders BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 171 172 173 173 174 177 177 182 198 199 199 203 204 204 206 208 210 212 215 222 229 232 235 236 237 238 240 241 TABLE 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 LIST OF TABLES Rate of Return of Faculty Member Respondents Rate of Return of Student Affairs Administrator Respondents Gender of the Survey Respondents Age of the Survey Respondents Rank/ Title of the Survey Respondents Total Years in Current Position of the Survey Respondents Student Affairs Employment of Faculty Respondents Highest Student Affairs Position Held by Faculty Respondents Total Years Student Affairs Employment by Faculty Respondents Highest Degree Earned of the Survey Respondents Year Degree Awarded of the Survey Respondents Field of Study of the Survey Respondents Numbers Teaching of the Survey Respondents Doctoral Level Courses Taught by the Survey Respondents Faculty Appointments of Administrator Respondents Teaching Discipline of the Administrator Respondents ix Page 78 79 88 89 9O 91 92 93 93 95 96 97 98 99 99 100 TABLE 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 . 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 Years as a Faculty Member of Administrator Respondents Professional Organization Affiliation of Survey Respondents Professional Association Involvement of Survey ‘ Respondents Type of Involvement in Professional Associations of Survey Respondents National Meetings Attended by the Survey Respondents State Meetings Attended by the Survey Respondents Regional Meetings Attended by the Survey Respondents Local Meetings Attended by the Survey Respondents Books Authored by the Survey Respondents Books Co-Authored by the Survey Respondents Books Edited by the Survey Respondents Monographs Authored by the Survey Respondents Monographs Contributed to by the Survey Respondents Monographs Edited by the Survey Respondents National Journal Articles Authored by Survey Respondents State Journal Articles Authored by the Survey Respondents National Newsletter Articles Authored by Respondents Regional Newsletter Articles Authored by Respondents State Newsletter Articles Authored by Survey Respondents Page 100 102 103 103 10-1 105 105 106 108 108 108 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 TABLE 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 4.47 4.48 4.49 4.50 xi National Conference Presentations by Survey Respondents State Conference Presentations by Survey Respondents Regional Conference Presentations by Survey Respondents Inst./ Org. Presentations by the Survey Respondents Coll./ Univ. Consultations by the Survey Respondents Foreign Consultations by the Survey Respondents Minestirial Consultations by the Survey Respondents Other Consultations by the Survey Respondents Identified Knowledge, Skills and Competencies of ‘ Student Affairs Administrator Respondents Identified Knowledge, Skills and Competencies of Faculty Member Respondents Selected Coursework and Experiences by Survey Respondents Responses to Questions About CAS Standards by Administrators Responses to Questions About CAS Standards by Faculty Members Comparative Responses to Preparation Program Question by Respondents Mean Scores for Institutional Rankings of Survey Respondents Preparation Program Concentration by Survey Respondents Preparation Program Competencies by Survey Respondents Page 112 112 113 113 114 114 115 115 121 122 131 150 151 159 162 169 170 CHAPTER ONE INTRO DUCT ION The academic preparation of student affairs practitioners has been an important component of the professionalization of student affairs administration. For example, section three of the Student Personnel Point of View, (SPPV), (ACE, 1937, 1949), which outlined recommendations for the administration of Student Personnel work, proposed that student personnel departments and staffing patterns be organized into "specialized functions performed by trained personnel staff members" (ACE, 1949:14). Since that time, student affairs faculty and practitioners have strived to develop appropriate, acceptable, consistent and comprehensive training programs that would contribute to one's effectiveness as a student affairs administrator in a field that has been unable to embody those attributes that distinguish it as a bona fide "profession" (Koile, 1966; Miller, Winston, Mendenhall, 1982; Penney, 1969; Stamatakos, 1981; Stamatakos and Rogers, 1984; Wrenn and Darley, 1949). This attempt had not been an easy one since the student affairs profession had been beset by challenges of accountability, and acceptability since its inception (Koile, 1966; Penney, 1969; Shoben, 1967; Wren, 1949). The problem of acceptability was compounded by the lack of consistency in the preparation program curricula and methods that were employed in the education of future student affairs administrators. Creating preparation programs that satisfied the divergent needs and philosophies of American colleges and universities has proven to be difficult. The first preparation program, begun in 1913 at Teachers College, Columbia University, was developed to train professionals who aspired to become Deans of Women (Candon, 1981:21). The program content concentrated 2 on history, vocational guidance, and counseling. As the student affairs profession matured and became more complex, many of the preparation programs expanded and diversified their program concentration by incorporating the behavioral sciences, business administration and/ or student development theories and concepts into their curricula. Over the past twenty-five years, several recommendations have been offered for the development of a preparation program that would satisfy the needs of colleges and universities in the United States (APGA, 1969; Cooper, 1974, 1975; COSPA, 1968; Greenleaf, Rodgers, and Anderson, in Knock, 1977; Miller, 1967; Miller and Prince, 1976; O'Banion, 1969; Rhatigan, 1965; THE, 1975; Trueblood, in Klopf, 1966). However, because of the complexities that arose from a profession whose concentration was interdisciplinary, it was difficult to agree on a set of criteria to be met by every student graduating from a preparation program. As Rhatigan (1968) noted, "one needs only to consider the areas of specialization available to personnel administrators, the levels of training offered, and the different types and styles of institutions to be served, to conclude that the question of professional preparation is extremely complex." (p. 17). The most comprehensive professional preparation guidelines to date have come from the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/ Development Programs (CAS, 1986). This publication contains recommended standards and guidelines for master's degree preparation programs in student affairs administration. These standards, included in a publication which also contains recommended staffing, performance standards and guidelines for practice in many student affairs departments, were developed to underscore the need for consistent preparation and expertise in the growing field of student affairs administration. Although 3 this examination and inquiry yielded a set of recommended criteria for master's degree programs; no reference to doctoral preparation programs was included. Despite this attempt to strengthen and standardize a body of knowledge relevant to student affairs practice, the profession has appeared to have been unable to identify such competencies or standards for doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration that were separate from those recommended for master's preparation programs. As Stamatakos (1981) stated, "Ph.D., Ed.D., and Ed.S. curricula in student affairs have, for the most part, been totally neglected in the development of core programs at the M.A. level." (p. 203). Though there have been additional calls to differentiate more clearly between master's and doctoral preparation programs, (Canon, 1982; Delworth and Hanson, 1980; Fitzgerald, 1967; McDaniel, 1972; Stamatakos, 1981), a clear and acceptable distinction has yet to occur. The question that still remained unanswered was how doctoral programs continued to prepare professionals for more advanced levels of student affairs administration, or [to prepare faculty for teaching and research in student affairs, without having mutually agreed upon guidelines and standards that related to the field's needs and expectations. In addition, there was evidence that many doctoral programs duplicated, to a great extent, coursework and internship experiences that were found at the master's level. For example, in an analysis of all preparation levels listed in the Directory of Graduate Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel between 1973- 1984, Keim (1986) found that approximately 5.5 College Student Personnel courses were offered in a typical graduate preparation program. Of those courses, approximately 1.7 were designed exclusively for doctoral students. Yet, within that same context, an average of 24.2 courses were needed to 4 complete the doctoral degree requirements (p. 15). Taking into consideration the possible cognate and research course requirements, it was possible to conclude that a typical graduate preparation program's core curriculum might be used to satisfy the prerequisites at both the master's and doctoral levels. Even more critical to the acceptability and accountability of student affairs as a bone fide profession was the need to bring all doctoral preparation programs up to some set of minimum standards. One of the few sets of criteria developed for preparation programs came from Commission XII of the American College Personnel Association (Keim, 1985). These standards recommended: 1. at, least one full-time faculty member in the program; 2. at least one student personnel practicum opportunity for students in the program; and 3. at least two content courses which provided information about student personnel functions and the college student (p. xi). An analysis of preparation programs listed in the 1984 Directory of Graduate Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel (ACPA, 1984), revealed some interesting findings. That year, there were ninety-five graduate preparation programs listed in the Directory. Of the ninety-five preparation programs, fifty-nine (62.1%) offered doctoral programs. Only 52.1% of the fifty-nine doctoral programs listed in the Directory met the standards established by ACPA Commission X11. There have also been several inquiries into the perceived program content, emphasis, and student satisfaction of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. Rhatigan (1965) attempted to - determine how closely a group of professional preparation faculty and student affairs practitioners agreed on a series of training recommendations 5 for graduate preparation at the doctoral level. He concluded that little consensus existed between groups or within groups on most items. But, it was found that practitioners tended to rate on-the-job training higher and academic preparation lower than did faculty members. Bolton (1974), Broertjes (1965), and Marler (1977), each conducted follow- up studies of preparation program graduates at the doctoral level to determine their level of satisfaction with their training. Each found that the respondents felt the graduate training they received was satisfactory and appropriate. In her investigation of selected doctoral programs, Rockey (1972) developed a profile of program faculty and information on the type and quality of graduate preparation programs. She found that the general course requirements for students in doctoral programs consisted of: college student personnel; higher education; counseling and educational psychology; administrative theory; applied administration; historical and philosophical foundations; and research. She also found that the components of a quality preparation program, as identified by her sample, included quality faculty, quality students, sufficient elaboration of the program, strong supporting departments, institutional resources, a well-conceived curriculum, and opportunities for practical work experience (p. 171-176). . Over the past several years, there had been a few attempts to determine what should constitute a quality doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration. However, the results appeared to have either not provided enough information to make comprehensive program recommendations and changes, not used by individual institutions to make major or minor changes, or not used at all. In some of the studies on doctoral preparation programs, the specific content areas, offerings, or outcomes used 6 to make program recommendations were general in nature and originally recommended for use in master's level programs. Some of the reports offered conflicting views on faculty and staff perceptions and differences, few recommended anything new or different, and at the doctoral level, no attempt or progress had been made in reaching a consensus concerning core curriculum, emphasis, or learning outcomes. Such is the need for this study. Statement of the Problem Currently, there are no agreed upon or consistent sets of competencies, skills, or knowledge that graduates of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration are expected to acquire. Nor have any quality assurance standards or guidelines been established for these preparation programs. There has also been no agreement on the factors that constitute a quality doctoral preparation program. To address this critical component of professional preparation, a descriptive and analytical study was conducted to: (1) develop demographic and academic profiles about a selected group of student affairs administration faculty and administrators; (2) identify knowledge, skills and competencies that may be critical in developing guidelines and standards for these 1 preparation programs; (3) analyze the perceptions of both faculty and practitioners in student affairs administration about standards and guidelines for doctoral preparation programs; and (4) identify the top preparation programs as perceived by student affairs faculty and administrators. 7 Need for the Study The need for this study focused on several areas. First, developing a profile of student affairs administration faculty and administrators would contribute to the identification of characteristics and experiences common to both preparation program faculty and student affairs professionals. These profiles could provide such information as the educational backgrounds of both faculty members and student affairs administrators, their years of professional and academic affiliation with student affairs administration, their levels of involvement in professional associations, and their types of work and professional experiences. Second, it would provide an opportunity to recommend the knowledge, skills, and competencies a person completing a doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration should possess in order to function effectively as a scholar/ teacher/ administrator in some realm of student affairs administration. It would also be beneficial if a consistent set of knowledge, skills, and competencies could be identified. Each preparation program curriculum could then be evaluated to determine whether it provides both the education and experiences which contribute to the development and application of these competencies. Third, the information collected in this study would be useful in developing standards and guidelines for doctoral preparation programs. These standards could identify critical subject and/ or developmental areas that would contribute to each candidate's acquisition of knowledge and competencies needed to function as an effective student affairs administrator. Fourth, it would be useful to provide demographic, and curricular information about other doctoral preparation programs to other faculty 8 members, administrators, and institutions which have doctoral programs in student affairs administration. This information could be used to compare program content, emphasis, and trends evident in doctoral preparation programs, especially within those rated to be the best by both faculty members and student affairs administrators. Fifth, the information from this study would assist in the evaluation of current student affairs preparation programs as they were examined not only for their program effectiveness but also for those changes needed for them to remain a viable and timely educational opportunity to ' future student affairs professionals. Sixth, providing comparisons about how both faculty members, preparation program coordinators, and student affairs practitioners perceived the concentration and direction of the doctoral preparation program would help reinforce the need to reduce the gap between student affairs preparation and practice. As N yre (1979:38) noted, "as long as theory and practice are viewed as separate entities-to be balanced, not integrateduand 'scholars' and 'practitioners' are viewed as adversaries—to be separated, not reconciled-~the progress of professional education will be hindered." ‘ The investigator examined four major areas: 1. Faculty and Student Affairs Administrator Profiles. A profile of both student affairs administrators and student affairs administration program faculty was developed and analyzed. Characteristics that were examined included years of full-time professional experience in administration and teaching, educational background, age, gender, title and/ or faculty rank, participation in professional organizations, publications, numbers of courses taught, and the nature and extent of involvement in preparation programs by student affairs administrators. 9 2. Competencies and Standards for Doctoral Preparation Programs. This was separated into two elements: first, to identify perceived knowledge, skills and competencies that a graduate of a doctoral program in student affairs administration should possess. Second, to identify a set of doctoral preparation program standards and guidelines. An additional element of this investigation included reactions concerning what effect the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/ Development Programs (CAS, 1986) recommendations for master's level preparation programs had and/ or would have on doctoral preparation programs. 3. Student Affairs Faculty and Administrator Perceptions of Doctoral Programs in Student Affairs Administration. To acquire a broader understanding of what were perceived to be important elements of a doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration, an analysis of the perceptions between a sample of student affairs administrators, all faculty members in doctoral student affairs preparation programs, and selected preparation program coordinators were conducted. This comparative analysis investigated perceived preparation program characteristics, doctoral program rankings, perceived competencies of graduates, program standards, and program content. 4. Quent Doctoral Preparation Programs in Student Affairs Administration. A select number of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration was examined. Various components of each program were studied including emphases, curriculum, faculty, and changes made in the program in the past five years as well as anticipated changes in the curriculum. Also included in this section was a quality ranking of student affairs preparation programs as perceived by both faculty members and student affairs administrators. 10 Pmse of the Study The purposes of the study were to: 1. identify the professional education and relevant experience of both doctoral preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators who participated in this study. 2. identify the knowledge, skills, competencies, and experiences that both current student affairs administrators and faculty members believed a doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration should provide its graduates. 3. determine the types of courses and experiences that should be offered in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration as perceived by both faculty members and student affairs administrators. 4. determine, how, if at all, the new CAS standards for master's level student affairs preparation may affect the content and concentration of doctoral preparation programs. 5. determine the rankings of a high quality doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration as perceived by faculty members who teach in student affairs administration programs, and by student affairs professionals. 6. conduct an analysis of the information which constituted a top doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration, which included a ranking, based on the program ratings of both faculty members and administrators. 7. determine what curricular or emphasis changes took place over the past five years in those doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration identified as high quality by faculty and administrators. 11 8. identify anticipated changes in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. 9. conduct an analysis of the perceptions of doctoral preparation program content, outcomes, and emphases in student affairs administration from both the faculty and administrator perspective. Definition of Terms Doctoral-Level Student Affairs Administration Preparation Program- a graduate academic program designed to educate and prepare students for full- time administrative/ professional positions in student affairs administration at the Ph.D. or Ed.D. level. Student Affairs Administrator— for the purpose of this study, an individual who is either responsible for a student affairs division, or an individual who serves as a director of a student affairs department which provides student services and educational programs for a college or university campus. Student Affairs Administration Preparation Program Faculty Member- an individual employed full-time by a college or. university who assists directly in the professional preparation of graduate students for full-time administrative and/ or professional positions in student affairs administration at the doctoral level. Prgpgrpm Coordinm- the chair, director, or head of the student affairs administration professional preparation program at the doctoral level. Competency~ the presence of sufficient knowledge and ability which renders a person fit, or qualified to perform a specified task or to assume a defined role (McCleary, 1973z2). 12 Student Affairs Administration Preparation Program Standards— a collection of general content areas intended for a student affairs preparation program that will state the competencies, knowledge, skills, and experiences required to prepare graduate students for upper-level, full-time administrative/ professional positions in student affairs administration. Preparation Program Content- for the purpose of this study, a collection of academic subjects, seminars, and practicum / internship experiences which comprise the specific program emphases of a doctoral program in student affairs administration. §_l<_ifl- the development of a proficiency or ability in a particular area that enables one to adequately perform a task or responsibility. 1 Knowledge- for the purpose of this study, the accumulation of facts and information that one possesses and uses in carrying out responsibilities and tasks. Student Affairs Preparation Program Curriculum- for the purpose of this study, a body of courses and formally established learning experiences presenting the knowledge, principles, values, and skills that are intended consequences of the formal education offered by an institution (Levine, 1978:521-522). gzualiry Student Affairs Administration Preparation Program- for the purpose of this study, a doctoral level preparation program that due to the excellence of its faculty, students, and program of study, is deemed to be one of the best academic programs for the preparation of student affairs administration professionals and faculty members. Student Affairs Administration Program- the administration of 1 student services departments and functions that allows for both the delivery of services to students and for the "application of human development 13 concepts in postsecondary settings so that everyone involved can master increasingly complex developmental tasks, achieve self-direction, and become interdependent" (Miller and Prince, 1976:3). Hypptheses The following hypotheses, expressed in null form, were tested: 1. There is no difference between the question responses of the items that comprise the professional profiles of the preparation program faculty members and the student affairs administrators who participated in this I study. 2. There is no difference between the professional education of student affairs administration professional preparation faculty members, and those student affairs administrators, who participated in this study. 3. There is no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators and Program Coordinators concerning the ranking of recommended knowledge, skills, and competencies for doctoral preparation program students. 4. There is no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators concerning the types of courses and experiences that should be offered in doctoral preparation programs. 5. There is no difference between the responses of the student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators to the questions regarding the effect the CAS Standards may have on doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. 14 6. There is no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators concerning the ranking of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. Limitations of the Study The limitations to this study were those common to the methods of data collection. Though the open-ended questions allowed the respondent to answer questions with considerable depth, sometimes the responses were not easily quantifiable, or some answers were irrelevant to the researcher's intent (Babbie, 1973:141; Scheaffer, et. al., 1986:32). Though the open-ended nature of the questionnaire may lead to inconsistency in coding, this process was performed by one individual to help improve the accuracy and precision of the coding procedures. Another limitation of the questionnaire method of data collection was the assumption that the respondent had both the knowledge about and understanding of the questions and that they were answered honestly. In addition, though the instruments were evaluated by numerous student affairs administration educators, the validity and reliability of the instruments has not been determined. Also, there was a heavy reliance on the use of directories to identify the population and samples for the study. One hopes that the information contained in these directories was accurate and that thevposition titles, academic and administrative levels, and FTE in their particular field was truthful and accurate. In addition, the small number of both preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator responses made it difficult to use more powerful statistical tests. Therefore, many of the perceptions between 15 preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators may be offered without the ability to employ more sophisticated tests that would help determine to what degree these differences were significant. Because of the design of the sample population of student affairs administrators, and their comparisons to the population of preparation program faculty, any generalizations about doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration, preparation program faculty, and student affairs professionals should be drawn carefully. Methodology thism There were three sets of participants for this study. The first group included the entire population of full-time faculty members who currently teach in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration in United States colleges and universities. The entire population was surveyed since, according to the 1987 American College Personnel Association, Directory of Graduate Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel there were 70 full-time faculty members teaching in doctoral programs in student affairs administration. The second group of subjects included a sample of 100. student affairs administrators currently employed in United States colleges and universities. This sample included current Chief Student Affairs Officers, Deans of Students, and Directors of Housing/ Residential Life drawn from four-year institutions having enrollments of 5,000 students or more. These three administrative levels were selected because of their experiences with administering student affairs programs, and hiring student affairs administration graduates. The Higher Education Publications (HEP) 1987 16 Higher Education Directory was used to identify the population, and a random number table was used to select the sample. Four-year institutions which enrolled 5,000 or more students were chosen for the study because of their tendency to have more comprehensive student affairs programs and services, and because they were more likely to offer more employment opportunities for doctoral level professionals trained in student affairs administration. The responses of these administrative levels was intended to represent the population of major student affairs administrators in institutions with a student enrollment of at least 5,000 students. The third group of subjects included the Program Coordinators of selected doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This group of Program Coordinators was taken from the preparation program rankings provided by the faculty members and student affairs administrators participating in this study. The five highest ranked programs identified from each faculty and administrator sample generated the follow-up survey sample, with the Program Coordinator serving as the contact person. Instruments W The questionnaire was constructed to collect data using a variety of question formats. To collect academic, biographic, and professional background data, several types of questions were designed. These questions included ones which asked the respondents to provide information by checking the appropriate responses within a list of items or ranges, and from short-answer questions which asked for responses in the form of titles and/ or ' numbers. 17 To collect opinions on what knowledge, skills and competencies should be provided to and developed in doctoral preparation program students, the types of courses and experiences would best provide for appropriate preparation, and doctoral program data, open-ended questions were created. Finally, questions to collect information concerning preparation program rankings and reactions to the newly-created CAS standards were designed using both numerical scales and open-ended questions. Assistance in the design of the survey, and the construction of the survey questions was provided by three individuals: Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos, Professor of Higher Education, Michigan State University; Dr. Nancy Evans, Coordinator and Associate Professor, College Student Personnel Program, Western Illinois University; and Dr. Theodore Mitchell, Professor of Education, Dartmouth College. A pre-test of all three instruments was conducted using both faculty members and student affairs professionals from the University of Vermont. 211%;an Each selected faculty member and student affairs administrator was asked to complete a five page survey. The instrument was divided into four sections. Section one requested demographic information such as academic rank / administrative position, gender, age, degree level, number of years in current position, if a faculty member, whether s/ he ever held an administrative position in student affairs administration and if so, what was the highest level and for how many years, and if an administrator, the number of years working in student affairs administration, and if s/ he has taught in student affairs administration programs and if so, what was the range of the appointment and for how long. Section two requested data on each subject's professional affiliations and 18 activities, including association membership, offices and/ or committee assignments held, attendance at professional meetings, number of publications in refereed journals, (including books and chapters in books), consultations, and workshops or seminars presented. Section three requested information concerning doctoral preparation programs, including recommended knowledge skills, and competencies, coursework and experiences, and a ranking of doctoral preparation programs. Section four included a summary of the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/ Development Programs (CAS, 1986), "Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Level for Student Services/ Development Professionals in Postsecondary Education" developed by the investigator, along with a series of reaction statements about the possible effects these standards may have on doctoral preparation programs. W A separate instrument package was mailed to the Program Coordinators whose doctoral preparation programs were identified by student affairs administrators and faculty members in the first phase of data collection. It contained a series of questions concerning particular elements of their doctoral program, including program emphases, expected knowledge, skills, and experiences of graduates, competency measurements, required courses, program strengths and weaknesses, and previous and anticipated program changes. Procedures Data collection began during the Fall of 1987, with the distribution of the student affairs faculty and administrator surveys. After compiling the doctoral preparation program rankings from the faculty member and administrator surveys, the Program Coordinators of the t0p five preparation 19 programs were mailed a survey package that contained the questionnaire about the doctoral program they administered. For both- sets of surveys, at least one reminder card was mailed to all participants who did not return the instrument before the deadline to encourage its completion and generate a larger response and rate of return. W The design of this study was a "1 X 2" factorial. One factor, the individual responses to specific survey questions, and two variations of another factor, faculty member or student affairs administrator, were simultaneously analyzed. The effect of each variable was determined individually and in relation to the other variables. Data from both the dependent and independent variables were compared using several statistical methods. With the open-ended questions, three statistical tests were used. In some instances, a chi-square analysis was used to determine the relationship among each variable in which the goodness of fit test was met. This test stated that no expected frequency (E-value) be less than 1, and, at most, 20% of the expected frequencies be less than‘5 (Weiss and Hassett, 1982:362). Contingency tables were constructed to help investigate these relationships. In addition, if the sample group response to a particular question or item equalled less than 30, a Fisher's Exact Test, was used. This test provided the same type of measurement as the chi-square statistic, but was used for small response rates. Finally, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used with some questions to measure the differences between two means. For those questions with scales or ratings, frequency distributions were calculated, and an analysis of variance (AN OVA) was computed to measure the differences between mean scores. 20 Decisions regarding each hypothesis were based on the level of significance calculated for the main effects of the interaction between occupation and question response. Organizatipn of the Study Chapter One outlined the purpose of the study, the need for and significance of the study, and a brief outline of the methodology that was employed. Chapter Two, through the literature review, contains a description of the evolution of graduate preparation programs in student affairs administration, preparation program studies, recommendations for program curricula, reports on studies of doctoral preparation programs, and information on competency-based education and program assessment. Chapter Three contains a description of the methodology, including a description of the subjects, instrumentation, procedures, data analysis methods, and hypotheses. Chapter Four contains a presentation of the findings of the study and Chapter Five contains a summary of the purpose of the study, its methodology, its major findings, conclusions, implications for the professional field, and recommendations for future research. CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Preparation programs for student affairs administrators have undergone numerous transformations over the past several decades. During these periods, issues pertaining to the concentration, intent, content, and structure of these preparation programs have been recommended, developed, challenged, redirected, and integrated by preparation program faculty members, student affairs administrators, and professional organizations. Many of the unresolved issues pertaining to this preparation, in which no resolution or agreement has yet to be reached, included a consistent set of preparation standards, program content, program emphasis, and a general agreement on the competencies that a preparation program graduate should possess, particularly at the doctoral level. The literature pertinent to these areas is reviewed in this chapter. This review will begin with the historical develOpment of preparation programs, followed by specific information and studies that relate to the professional preparation at the doctoral level, the assessment of preparation programs, and concluding with the identification of preparation program competencies. H'I'IDI IE2 I' B Preparation programs in student affairs administration have enjoyed a long and evolving history. The first student personnel preparation program at the graduate level was established at Teachers College, Columbia University in 1913 (Candon, 1981:21). It was created to assist those women whose career aspirations included becoming a Dean of Women. The curriculum included the following courses: History of Education, History of Education of Women, Psychology and Hygiene of Adolescence, Modern 21 22 Social Problems, Problems in Vocational Education, Institutional Management, Home Nursing, Budget Making, History of Government, Problems of High School and College Life, and some advanced work in a discipline for the purpose of teaching (McGrath, in Candon, 1981:21). The program remained the only one of its kind until 1925, when Harvard and New York University instituted similar programs (Barry and Wolf, 1955:27). The development of the Student Personnel Point of View, (SPPV), (ACE, 1937, 1949), besides establishing the basis for student affairs administration in higher education, also served as a guide for professional preparation. As these preparation programs were created, the assumptions set forth in the SPPV greatly influenced the content to be learned and the skills to be acquired by students seeking careers in student affairs work (Knock, 1977:3). Since the creation of the first preparation program in student affairs administration at Columbia, and with the advent of the Student Personnel Point of View, numerous calls for strengthening graduate preparation programs have emerged. This need for improvement was particularly critical as the student affairs profession expanded and established itself as a tenable component of higher education. The kind and adequacy of training available to personnel workers was an important factor in the professionalization of student personnel work (LaBarre, 1948:15). This notion of the professionalization of student personnel work not only contributed to the development of the profession's identity, but established ideas and philosophies for preparation programs that were particular to student affairs work. As Blaesser and Froehlich (1950) noted, "if we did not have something unique, then we could leave our training problems up to other disciplines." (p. 590). 23 As more graduate level preparation programs evolved, such as those at Michigan State University, the University of Minnesota, Syracuse and Indiana Universities, questions emerged about the lack of research in the training approaches for student personnel workers (Blaesser and Froehlich, 1950; Stoughton, 1957; Wrenn, 1948). Burnett (1954), described it best by stating, "there is very little basic research to indicate which are the best experiences and how they can best be presented to enable the graduate student to develop the competencies which he needs later on the job. Each institution has developed its own particular training program, largely on the basis of a common-sense approach to the course requirements and other experiences considered necessary." (p. 124). In an attempt to stimulate inquiry into the preparation of student affairs professionals, Jones (1945) outlined three approaches: 1. Attempt to find what personnel workers do; what their duties and responsibilities are. 2. Discover the patterns of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and characteristics necessary for the successful performance of the duties and responsibilities. 3. Determine the types of courses, training, and experiences that are most effective in developing the patterns of abilities necessary for success on the job. (p. 185) In a presidential address by Wrenn (1948), he noted that "one of the minor tragedies in the present day student personnel field was the lack of commonly accepted standards of performance and of professional preparation." (p. 414). He too was calling for more systematic approaches to educating student affairs professionals. As LaBarre (1948:16) stated, an increased need for personnel workers will not in itself insure that the work will be done by competently trained persons, unless some measure of their 24 proficiency is designed to meet minimum qualifications. This idea is still prevalent today (Garland, 1985; Sandeen, 1983; Stamatakos, 1981). Like the preparation program at Columbia, the early concepts of educational personnel work were limited to vocational guidance (LaBarre, 19485). The concentration of coursework and training that reflected professional preparation in counseling, psychology, and guidance was evident in the suggested composition of courses and requirements. In one of the first efforts by a professional organization to establish training guidelines, the American College Personnel Association, (ACPA), Anderson (1948), recommended a core curriculum critical for all student affairs professionals which included: Psychology of Personality Social Psychology Principles of Learning Mental Tests and Their Interpretation Interviewing and Counseling Procedures Higher Education (p. 455-456). P‘Q‘PPN!‘ Of the recommended areas, five had a guidance/ counseling, or psychology concentration. For many decades, the concentration of professional preparation programs continued to be counseling and psychology. However, as the profession matured, it realized the role of the student affairs administrator involved more than the traditional counseling role (Burnett, 1954; Woolf and Woolf, 1953; Williamson, 1958; Cottingham, 1955). This realization was further crystalized as student affairs trainers and practitioners recognized that they did possess a body of specialized knowledge and skills (Wrenn, 1948). However, questions still remained as to whether this body of knowledge was being used to train professionals in an appropriate and effective manner. Blaesser and Froehlich, (1950), suggested some future trends that would, if 25 adopted, facilitate greater depth in graduate training. These recommendations included: 1. Increasing the emphasis upon practical supervised experiences. Analyzing training content in terms of actual job functions, thus lessening the disparity between one's training and what one actually does on the job. Providing opportunities for individuals to evaluate and improve their own human relations skills while in training. Coordinating in-service training programs with the graduate training program. Increasing the emphasis on the philosophy of personnel work. (p. 593-595) For many years, it appeared that the creators of many preparation programs integrated the early preparation program recommendations, and structured programs according to function and role. One of the first professionals to propose general areas of study, in contrast to the study of specific roles and functions of student affairs administrators, was E.G. Williamson (1950). He recommended that administrators possess technical competencies in the following areas: 1. a specialized interest, whether it be maintenance of dormitories, supervision of student activities, or counseling misbehaving students. an articulate understanding of the various philosophies of education current in the educational scene in America. some penetrating understanding of liberalizing subjects of Western education beyond the traditional subjects of psychology and professional education. 26 4. working-team relations and a formalized orientation in administrative processes, and interpersonal relationships. 5. the role of research as a means of maintaining a technical service and of constantly upgrading technical understanding of its processes. (p. 3, 5). Williamson's proposals, in contrast to earlier recommendations, prescribed competencies that would enable student affairs professionals to meet the changes and challenges of student personnel work in higher education. As colleges and universities expanded during the late 1950's and 1960's, so did the number of professional preparation programs. For example, seventy-four institutions with graduate level preparation programs were listed in The Directory of Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel, 1968-1969: In 1970, ninety-one programs were listed in the Directory; in 1973, one-hundred and six programs were listed (Greenleaf, in Knock, 1977:151- 152). This period of growth in the number of graduate preparation programs was replaced by a short period of retrenchment. In the 1984 Directory, ninety- five graduate preparation programs were listed. However, the number of programs is again on the increase. In the 1987 Directory, 116 preparation programs were listed. The number of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration have also decreased. Seventy-one doctoral preparation programs were listed in the Preparation in School and College Personnel Work, 1963-1964. The 1984 Directory listed fifty-nine; and the 1987 Directory listed fifty-eight doctoral preparation programs. During this period, as in others, professional preparation programs were still without a recognized and standardized body of knowledge basic to all preparation programs (Miller, 1967; Fitzgerald, 1967; Penney, 1969). 27 However, many student affairs professionals and professional organizations recognized this need and offered comprehensive preparation program recommendations that included student development theories and concepts. For example, in 1964, the Council of Student Personnel Association in Higher Education's (COSPA) Commission on Professional Development presented "A Proposal for Professional Preparation in College Student Personnel Work." This commission recommended six topics which should be covered in preparation programs: 1. The study of the college student: (a) nature, characteristics, and needs, (b) differing life patterns. 2. History, setting, and objectives of colleges and universities as social institutions. 3. Counseling principles and techniques. 4. Principles of administration and decision making, including theory and practice of organization and fiscal management, selection and in-service training of staff, and communication and relationships with other college departments and constituencies. 5. Group dynamics and human relations. 6. Student personnel work, including an overview of student personnel services, administration, issues, ethics, standards and basic principles. (p. 4-5). These recommendations were similar to Emmett's (in Candon, 1981), which he developed from numerous training program studies conducted during the late fifties and early sixties. Though he found less than full agreement on program design, he did find support for six basic components for any professional preparation program. These six areas included: 1. A study of the nature and characteristics of college students. 28 2. The place of student personnel within the field of higher education. 3. Administrative skills. 4. Foundations in the behavioral sciences. 5. Research. 6. Practicum experience. (p. 71). Another examination of preparation program statements, conducted by Robinson (1966), analyzed the three preparation program recommendations issued by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), American Personnel and Guidance Associations (APGA), and the Council of Student Personnel Associations (COSPA). The three documents were extremely similar in their recommendations concerning the curriculum and preparation. For example, all three associations agreed that, (1) the student personnel worker must have a grounding in the behavioral sciences with an emphasis on psychology and sociology; (2) an understanding of higher education principles; (3) a basic understanding of the college student and college culture; (4) an understanding of college student personnel through formal coursework, practica, and internships; and (5) preparation in subjects such as counseling, testing, and research methodology (p. 254-255). Despite the similarities, their program emphases were different. The COSPA statement stressed administration; the APGA statement stressed counseling, while the ACPA statement somewhere between these two points of view. However, noted Robinson (1966), one could support any of the three statements with or without the unique contributions peculiar to each (p. 256). As institutions and preparation programs changed, so too did the role of the student affairs practitioner, This changing role of the student affairs 29 administrator was affected by the concept of student development. "The evolvement of the student personnel function has been one in which there has been an on-going conflict between those who perceive themselves as a procedural technician, and those who perceive the student personnel leader as an educator whose special interest is the college student and the environment which affects him both as a whole person and as a scholar- student." (Trueblood, 1966:79). As with many preparation programs during this period, the emphasis was shifting away from a heavy counseling concentration to a more interdisciplinary approach that included the integration of behavioral science and administration theory and practice (Mueller, 1968; A.P.G.A., 1969; Miller, 1967). This trend was evident in the recommendations for future preparation programs. Greenleaf (1968), in her evaluation on the changing role of the student affairs professional, noted that a broad, multi-disciplinary preparation program should include such courses as psychology, sociology, business, political science, communication, counseling techniques, organization financing, administration of higher education, and an overview of student personnel functions. Having this breadth of skills and knowledge, continued Greenleaf, would enable a student affairs administrator to provide the depth needed to work with students as a manager, communicator, intellectual catalyst, skilled administrator, and a group and individual facilitator (p. 31- 32). In a 1966 American College Personnel Association monograph edited by Gordon Klopf, Dennis Trueblood suggested that future trends in preparation programs recognize the following: 1. The college student personnel worker of the future is an educator. 10. 30 The neophyte student personnel leader must be identified early and begin to commit himself to a career decision at the initiation of and during master's degree study. The educational preparation of the college student personnel worker must be premised on the assumption that he will be engaged in the profession. The educational preparation of the college student personnel leader must recognize the potential for modifications in the nature of the professional position and the fact that specific positions vary in the needs for primary skills. The educational preparation of the college student personnel leader assumes the selection of qualified individuals for professional training. The educational preparation of the college student personnel leader assumes the development of learning goals that reflect the demands of the professional position. The educational preparation of the college student personnel leader must necessarily draw from a number of related disciplines. The educational preparation of the college student personnel leader must recognize the necessity for training in research as a basic technique. The educational preparation of the college student personnel leader at the master's level must recognize the need to define the professional similarities of college student personnel work in other levels of education, while at the same time recognizing that there are important differences in role and role perception. Graduate study at the post master's level must be designed to produce a scholar-educator- administrator able to meet the difficult role expectations of the college student personnel leader (p. 83). 31 Besides the transition from a heavy counseling emphasis to a more interdisciplinary concentration in professional preparation programs, there was also the need to provide a more realistic relationship between theory and practice. Miller (1967) suggested ten fundamental areas which would "emphasize both the abstract theoretical academic concepts which underly personnel work and the practical application of such knowledge in the field." These included: 1. A meaningful orientation to, and overview of, student personnel work. 2. A clear understanding of the context and foundations of higher education in America and elsewhere. 3. A link between the academic disciplines, especially the behavioral sciences, and practical application to work with students. 4. Knowledge of the psychological and sociological bases of behavior and general characteristics of the college age student. 5. Deve10ping the human helping relationship concepts and attitudes essential to individuals in a "helping" profession. 6. A comprehensive grasp of research and evaluation. 7. An understanding of the basic principles and practices necessary to implement and coordinate student personnel programs. 8. Developing skills in methods and approaches used by counselors and educators in working with students in formal and informal, group and individual, situations. 9. Assimilating and integrating the theoretical with the practical by way of supervised practicum field work experiences. 32 10. A grasp of the specialized substantive areas of student personnel work (p. 174-175). During this transition period, several updated core preparation program curricula were also recommended (Cosby, 1965; Hardee, 1964; Kelley, 1962; Miller, 1967; O'Banion, 1966; Stripling, 1965; Trueblood, 1962). One such model was developed by Fitzgerald (1967). She stated that an institution should not profess to offer a program of preparation unless it can provide graduate courses in each of the eight areas described below: 1. Professional orientation to the field. 2. Multi-disciplinary foundations for the practice of student personnel work. 3. Human development and the nature and needs of the college student. 4. Context and setting - the american university, college, and junior college. 5. Methods and techniques used by counselors and other student personnel workers. 6. Substantive areas of student personnel work. 7. Integration of knowledge and skills. 8. Research and evaluation (p. 64). In addition to these areas, Fitzgerald stated that the institution must also have the professional resources available to provide the necessary practical and internship experiences. In an attempt to propose a standardized approach to the preparation of student affairs professionals, the American Personnel and Guidance Association and the Commission on Professional Development of the Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education approved, "Guidelines for Graduate Programs in the Preparation of Student Personnel v 33 Workers in Higher Education" (1969). The program, designed to lead to a master's degree or higher, required understanding and competencies in the following areas: 1. Student personnel work in higher education. 2. Higher education as a social institution. 3. Human growth and development. 4. Social and cultural foundations. 5. Methods, techniques, and concepts used by student personnel workers. 6. Research and evaluation. 7. Preparation in specialized fields (p. 495). Another attempt to identify recommendations for the preparation of student affairs administrators was offered by Rhatigan (1968). His study sought to discover what both preparation program faculty and practicing student affairs administrators felt were most important in preparing student affairs professionals. The research indicated that while there were no significant differences between the perceptions of preparation program faculty and administrators, there were differences in curricular emphasis. - There have been similar attempts to determine general competencies and training for student affairs professionals (Domeier, 1977; Hoyt and Rhatigan, 1968; Hyman, 1977; Minetti, 1977; Ostroth, 1975; Rhatigan, 1965; Rhatigan and Hoyt, 1970). During the early 1970's, student development theories and concepts began to appear in the discussions about and as a part of the curricula of the preparation of student affairs administrators. "The new role of the student personnel administrator is characterized by a movement away from the 34 'control functions'; a continuation of the 'caring functions' and 'co-curricular functions'; and an increased emphasis on the educational and developmental functions." (Jones, 1972:6). In his analysis of the differences between student personnel and student development practices, Crookston (1972), described them in this manner: Student Personnel Student Development Authoritarian Egalitarian Reactive Proactive Passive Encountering Remedial Developmental Corrective Preventive Controlling Confrontive C00perative Collaborative . Status Oriented . Competency Oriented (p .4) His description depicted how the evolution of student affairs administration was placing professionals in a more productive, yet comprehensive role as major contributors to the total education of students. In his monograph, Student Development in Tomorrow ’5 Higher Education - A Return to the Academy, Brown (1972), identified alternative roles which student affairs professionals must consider as the emphasis of student personnel administration was shifting from the performance of primarily maintenance tasks to the performance of more comprehensive developmental functions. These roles included diagnostician, consultant, programmer, behavioral scientist, and researcher (p. 38-41). The possession of these competencies and skills, noted Brown, was critical if the roles and importance of student development educators were to be accepted by the academic community. The goal of the preparation program was best stated by C00per (1974), who noted that this goal "should be the preparation of persons who, in addition to having attained a high level of self-development, have skills to collaborate with others in their self-development." (p. 78). This idea 35 was reflected by many professionals in their recommendations for preparation programs (Amer, et. al., 1976; Miller and Prince, 1976; Rentz, 1976; Riker, in Knock, 1977; Rodgers, in Knock, 1977; T.H.E., 1975). The Commission on Professional Development of the Council of Student Personnel Association in Higher Education (COSPA), (Cooper, 1975), in its work to revise a "A Proposal for Professional Preparation in College Student Personnel Work," identified three competencies paramount for the student development educator. These three competencies included: (1) goal setting; (2) assessing status, abilities, and progress; and (3) using principles and techniques for change to facilitate human development. (p. 77). One of the most comprehensive models developed to restructure student affairs organizations and the training of student affairs professionals was the Tomorrow's Higher Education (T.H.E.) model (ACPA, 1975). The success of the T.H.E. model, which was designed to incorporate human development into the context of optimal student and institutional growth, depended on the extent to which student affairs administrators systematically possessed knowledge and expertise in the functions of the model. The development of a competency-based preparation program was seen as a critical step towards professionalizing and standardizing program content. Penn (1979), noted that, "it must be demonstrated that professional competence in the field of student personnel work is related to knowledge and skills learned in preparation programs." (p. 259). T.H.E. was an eclectic model that defined student development, in the higher education context, as the application of human development concepts in the post-secondary setting. It too called for student affairs organizations to shift from a status- based staffing approach to a competency-based approach. The six competencies included: 36 1. Goal Setting 2. Assessment 3. Instruction 4. Consultation 5. Environmental Management 6. Evaluation (p. 337-340) The challenge for student affairs organizations to alter their traditional student services approach, coupled with the call for competency-based preparation reinforced the charge to bridge the gap between preparation and practice. Schein (1972) commented that: "In order to make a smooth transition into practice and to avoid obsolescence, professional education must emphasize 'learning how to learn.‘ The emphasis in most curricula is on currently available knowledge; consequently, most graduates suffer from arrested development. They base their professional careers on a knowledge base that may be 10 to 20 yearsbehind the times." (p.55). In discussing the challenges of professional education in the next decade, N yre (1979), stated that, "as long as theory and practice are viewed as separate entities--to be balanced, not integrateduand 'scholars' and 'practitioners' are viewed as adversaries-to be separated, not reconciled--the progress of professional education will be hindered." (p. 38). This same concern about the content of curricula was expressed by Cooper (1974); Dressel and Mayhew (1974); and Oetting and Hawkes (1974). The inception of both student development theory and competency- based preparation programs spawned the creation of many preparation program models. For example, Rentz (1976), recommended a triadic model for the preparation of master's students in student development based on roles. In 1977, Knock edited a publication titled, Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals, which incorporated many program models for the preparation of student affairs professionals, 37 including Peterson's process-outcome (SPEdPOM) approach to student personnel education, Riker's recommendations on program content, Matson's model for preparing professionals to work in junior colleges, and Rodger's social intervention model. Greenleaf, in Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals, edited by Knock (1977), noted that, "regardless of the academic emphasis it is important that certain basic elements exist in the curriculum to prepare student personnel staff: 1. Sufficient flexibility to meet varying needs of students admitted to the program and to prepare persons to work in a variety of positions in a variety of settings of higher education. If this is not so, there must be a clearly stated program of special emphasis and an admissions policy and curriculum related to that emphasis. Provisions for basic core courses as well as an opportunity to develop skills in special functional areas. Core courses should provide knowledge and competencies necessary to: a. understand varying objectives of different types of institutions - junior-community colleges, urban universities, liberal arts colleges, multipurpose universities, open universities, etc. (higher education, philosophy, history). b. understand policy formulation and governance of institutions (higher education, administration in education, public administration, business organizations and business management). c. assess environmental factors and means of influencing changes (psychology, statistics, research design, sociology, behavioral sciences). d. Identify characteristics and needs of the young adult as well as various sub-groups in institutions of higher education (psychology, Afro-American studies, women's studies, 38 anthropology). This tenet was supported by Pruitt (1979) in her call to include changes in the design of curricula that reflected the change in the student bodies that included these and other clientele. e. carry out management responsibilities such as budgeting, managerial control, and information systems (accounting, business management, business organization, data processing). f. develop individual and group counseling skills (counseling and clinical psychology). g. practice skills - an opportunity to carry out student personnel responsibilities based on theory and philosophy (practicum, field experience, internship). 3. Extended core courses (p. 159-160). During recent years, preparation programs in student affairs administration concentrated on improving the curriculum, strengthening the relationship between theory and practice, and improving educational quality. Reinforcing these ideas were Delworth and Hanson (1980), who noted that preparation programs had several purposes, including helping the profession define itself: 1. 2. 3. 4. to set professional standards. to assess current status and facilitate intentional change in the profession. to select and manage staff. to establish our academic legitimacy. (p. 479-480) Most importantly, however, was the need to graduate competent professionals who could work effectively in what had evolved into the complex arena of student affairs administration. The first obligation of a professional school or department, noted Bowen (in Pelczar, 1984), was to graduate technically competent practitioners who were, "well-trained, have the capacity for growth, are thorough and self-disciplined, are aware of their 39 limitations, and feel an obligation to go on learning." (p. 114). This concept of quality graduate preparation was echoed by chief student personnel officers in a recent study by Sandeen (1982). In his study to evaluate graduate preparation programs in student affairs administration, he asked the respondents to list the major problems with current programs in student affairs preparation. The most frequent comments about preparation programs included: (1) programs were too oriented to counseling, whereas most student affairs professionals spend little time doing actual counseling; (2) they should include more internships for students, giving them practical experience to complement their academic work; (3) graduate students need to learn more about management, legal issues, and budgeting; (4) the quality of students is too uneven and efforts should be made to recruit more outstanding students to the programs; (5) some weak training programs probably should not be continued; (6) the lack of "academic rigor" in some programs generates a lack of respect among other graduate programs; and (7) too many of the programs orient their training to the needs of large universities and ignore the needs of small colleges (p. 56-57). In an extensive examination of professional preparation included as part of a review of student affairs progress towards professionalism, Stamatakos, (1981) identified five critical issues about professional preparation programs: 1. The quality of students admitted to professional preparation programs is inconceivably broad, loose, inconsistent, and lacking in reasonable standards. 2. A review of preparation program literature reveals a glaring lack of specificity regarding the knowledge to be learned and the skills students are expected to develop during the duration of their graduate program of studies. 40 3. Within and between actual and proposed professional preparation programs there is little or no consistency in nature, content emphasis, or duration. 4. In general, after students have successfully completed a program of study in a typical program, the profession cannot be assured that they will be adequately or reasonably well-prepared to carry out the variety of responsibilities particular to job-entry positions or that they have the leadership potential and depth of understandings necessary for upward mobility. ' 5. If it is determined that some preparation programs are not, in any real sense, truly preparing student affairs professionals but are bootlegging them through counselor, pupil personnel, or educational psychology programs, should such institutions be listed in association-sponsored directories of professional preparation programs? Such listings do provide programs with a sense of undeserved legitimacy (p. 201-203). This critique underscored the need for the preparation program coordinators and faculty members to critically examine their preparation programs and make changes that ensure adequate and significant training of students at all levels. It also evidenced the need for consistent and sanctioned preparation programs designed to provide the knowledge and skills necessary for their graduates to adecjuately and successfully face and overcome the challenges of working in the dynamic arena of student affairs administration. The idea of professional development was also characterized by Miller and Carpenter (in Creamer, 1980), who equated human development with professional development. Two of the propositions for this developmental scheme included: 1. Optimal professional preparation combines mastery of a body of knowledge and a cluster of skills and 41 competencies within the context of personal development. 2. Professional credibility and excellence of practice are directly dependent upon the quality of professional preparation (p. 201). As the content emphasis of graduate preparation programs shifted in the direction of a more comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach, there was still no agreement on a core curriculum, or whether counseling, administration, or student development should serve as the dominant concentration of these programs. Nor was their consensus that these programs were providing graduates with the skills needed to serve as effective administrators.- Moreover, if professional preparation was viewed as the keystone to professional development, then the body of knowledge which underlies the field of student affairs is of the essence (Miller and Carpenter, 1980:202). Before this development can be accomplished, there needs to be closer agreement on the emphasis of these preparation programs. As Stamatakos (1981) noted: "it is reasonable to conclude that given the schism that continues to exist between those who favor administration, or counseling, or developmentalism as the basis of student affairs practice, existing literature as well as current knowledge and skills will continue to remain relatively superficial, eclectic, inconsistent, and lacking in professional distinction." (p. 110) There have been numerous program recommendations designed to address the need for a more comprehensive preparation. Delworth and Hanson (1980), provided a typical model that concentrated on preparing entry-level professionals. The components of this program included: 1. History and philosophy of higher education and student affairs administration. 42 2. Theory—both human development and person/ environment interaction. 3. Models of practice and role orientation. 4. Core competencies in areas such as assessment, evaluation, consultation, instruction and counseling. 5. Specialized competency courses. 6. Administration and management. 7. Practicum or field work. 8. Additional theory and tool courses. (p. 481-482) Another type of core curriculum developed to help meet the need for a more comprehensive practitioner was offered by Canon (1982), who recommended the following areas as a common base for preparation, (1) knowledge of the environment of institutions of higher education; (2) knowledge of student characteristics and their behavioral correlations, and (3) mastery of the developmental literature (p. 470-472). In 1982, the American College Personnel Association developed "Standards For The Professional. Preparation of Student Affairs Specialists at the Master's Degree Level" (Miller, Winston, and Mendenhall, 1983). These guidelines recommended that at least one program be selected from one of the three emphases -- developmental, administrative, and counseling. Their recommendations also called for appropriate supervised experiences that would help integrate the application of knowledge and skills obtained from study (p. 546-555). , Brown (1984) recommended an extensive three-dimensional framework for preparing student development educators. His model described three areas of education - self, students, and systems, which were accomplished at three learning levels - (1) basic knowledge, (2) knowledge of 43 intervention/ change strategies, and (3) experiential learning (p. 41). Brown's model was based on several guiding principles: 1. The goal of higher education is to foster total student development, including such dimensions as: intellectual, aesthetic, physical, spiritual, interpersonal relations, and cultural awareness. N on-intellectual dimensions of develbpment need to be integrated with traditional academic intellectual dimensions. The scientist-practitioner role provides a useful goal for program development for graduate program content and process. The following areas of knowledge form core cognates for the student development educator: learning theory, ethics, human development theory, . research design, theories of organizational behavior, and management theory. The program should prepare generalists through course work. Training related to specific student affairs agencies and functions can be provided through practicum and internship experiences. The program‘should emulate the ideals for higher education in general through its (a) focus on total development of student with emphasis on professional development, and (b) inclusion of a process that involves students in planning their personal and professional growth that moves them toward becoming autonomous professionals (p. 40- 41). What made Brown's model so different from those thus far suggested was that it provided a paradigm for graduate education that recognized and was compatible with the changing role of student affairs (Garland, 198594). The ability for graduates of professional preparation programs to frmction effectively in a complex student affairs organization was critical, which underscored the need to educate students in a broader and more 44 comprehensive manner. As Garland (1985) noted: The lack of attention to management and organizational skills is most surprising when one realizes that a guiding student development model for the field (Miller and Prince, 1976) is predicated on the fact that student development professionals will be able to modify goals and practices to conform with the goals of student development, yet little effort is made to address the development of skills necessary for the accomplishment of that goal (p. 92). Despite the commitment to incorporate human and organizational development into preparation programs, uncertainty still existed whether the knowledge base that reaffirmed this commitment had actually been incorporated. In a study conducted by Strange and Contomanolis (1983) on a sample of master's level students, they concluded that exposure to human development theory was fairly limited in both depth and breadth. There was still hope that this integration of human development theory would soon occur. As Strange (1983) noted: "it is only through close interaction between the theorist and practitioner, grounded in the formal theoretical knowledge of human development, that we can progress as a profession in understanding these transformations in students' lives and the role education can serve in mediating them." (p. 8). One of the most ambitious and comprehensive attempts to offer consensus on the preparation of student affairs professionals was published by the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/ Development Programs (CAS, 1986). This publication, which also recommended standards for many student affairs programs and services, took six years to complete. "Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Degree Level for Student Services / Development Professionals in 45 Postsecondary Education" recognized three basic dimensions of professional practice which, in turn, emphasized the development of these preparation program standards. It was acknowledged that not all preparation programs would be able to offer a program as comprehensive as the standards suggested, but that each program should attempt to tailor its program content based on the talent and resources available. These three areas of emphasis, with recommended coursework, included: 1. Student Develepmenr Human Development Theory and Practice Organization Behavior and Development American College Student and College Environment The Helping Relationship and Career Development Higher Education and Student Affairs Functions Research and Evaluation Specialized Coursework 2. Administration Administration Performance Appraisal and Supervision Administrative Uses of Computers Organizational Behavior and Development Human Development Theory and Practice Higher Education and Student Affairs Functions Research and Evaluation Specialized Coursework 3. Counseling The Helping Relationship Group Counseling Life Style and Career Development Appraisal of the Individual Human Development Theory and Practice Higher Education and Student Affairs Functions Research and Evaluation Specialized Coursework A section that outlined the types of supervised experiences was also included in the recommendations (p. 104-106). However, despite numerous attempts to offer recommendations for core curricula, competencies, and preparation program development, there 46 continues to be growing concern about the preparation of student affairs program graduates. There is no published research to support notions that: (1) those hired for student affairs positions possess the general skills and competencies that characterize positions sought or filled, or .(2) professional preparation educate adequately for the development of agreed upon skills and competencies (Stamatakos, 1981:106). This last notion has been a consistent criticism of the student affairs profession (Brown, 1972; Dewey, 1972; Penn, 1974; Penney, 1969; Peterson, in Knock, 1977; Rentz, 1976; Silverman, 1974; Upcraft, 1971 ; Wrenn, 1948; Wrenn and Darley, 1949). The question of preparation program inadequacy was further supported by Keim (1985). In her compilation of data for the 1984 Directory of Graduate Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel, she found that less than half of the preparation programs met minimum standards. The criteria for minimum standards, which were developed by Commission XII of the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) and included in the 1984 Directory, were: 1. at least one full-time faculty member in the program; 2. at least one student personnel practicum opportunity for students in the program; 3. at least two content courses which provided information about student personnel functions and the college student. Of the ninety-five preparation programs in student affairs administration, only forty-seven, or 49.5% met the three minimum standards. Of the forty-seven preparation programs that met the standards, thirty-one institutions (66.1%) offered both a master's and a doctoral program; sixteen institutions (33.9%) offered either master's programs or master's and 47 specialist programs. For those programs that did not meet the minimum standards, the most common reason for such inability was determined to be insufficient faculty and/ or inadequate coursework deficiencies (p. xi). Of the one-hundred and sixteen preparation programs listed in the 1987 Directory, only fifty-two, or 45% met the three minimum standards, which indicates that although there was an increase in the number of preparation programs, the number that met the standards established by Commission XII did not increase proportionately. Of the fifty-two preparation programs that met the standards, thirty-six institutions (69%) offered both a master's and doctoral program; sixteen institutions (30%) offered either master's programs or master's and specialist programs. The reasons that programs did not meet the minimum standards remains unchanged from that noted in the 1984 Directory (1987:viii). Despite the number of studies and recommendations concerning program content for graduate preparation programs in student affairs administration, an agreement has yet to be reached concerning what constitutes a solid educational experience. As Miller and Carpenter (in Creamer, 1980:196) noted: "there is no orthodoxy clearly evident in the content of programs of professional preparation as they appear today. And there is no evidence to conclude that this confusion regarding preparation programs will ever be solved." It appeared that the problem was not with what should be taught in these programs, but amongst the areas of counseling, student, human, and / or organizational development, and administrative skills, what program emphasis, or combination thereof, was most important. Garland (1985) recommended restructuring preparation programs in such a way that they would: 48 1. Attend more to management skills, research and evaluation skills, and a better understanding of organizational behavior and development. 2. Address the needs of diverse student populations. 3. Create a greater awareness among professionals of societal trends, higher education issues, and institutional responses that demand enlightened responses from student affairs. 4. Develop those skills - research, teaching, and scholarship - through which the profession will be able to increase its credibility within the institution (p. 98). This is the challenge that still faces the profession today. From their inception, preparation programs in student affairs administration have undergone considerable changes. The emphasis of the first preparation programs concentrated primarily on counseling and vocational guidance, which is still an important component of the programs today. However, many faculty members and student affairs administrators recognized that these programs had to change if the student affairs profession was to continue to contribute to a student's education and development. During the growth of student affairs preparation programs, many issues and recommendations were addressed, including the lack of research in training programs, the call for identifying proficiencies that would establish minimum qualifications for preparation programs and its graduates, whether it was better to train professionals for specific roles in student affairs administration, or whether general areas of study best prepared students for their roles as student affairs administrators. Over the last two decades, there has been a call to shift the emphasis of the preparation programs from strictly counseling to ones that were more interdisciplinary. This shift included recommendations that incorporated theory and practice and student 49 development theory into the preparation programs of student affairs professionals. In response to the need for preparation program alterations were the recommendations from professional associations such as ACPA, APGA, and COSPA concerning program content and emphases, and from faculty members and professionals who offered preparation program models like SPEdPOM, process-outcome, social intervention, program content, and the T.H.E. model. Despite the recommendations and criticisms of professional preparation, an agreement has yet to be reached that best identifies the content and emphasis of graduate preparation programs. The most recent attempt to establish standards and competencies was the CAS "Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Degree Level for Student Services/ Development Professionals in Postsecondary Education." However, the inability to agree upon measurable standards and competencies at all levels of preparation is the challenge that the student affairs profession continues to face. EE'IE I'lllDllIl Though there have been numerous curriculum and competency recommendations for student affairs preparation programs, few have identified specific core programs and competencies for doctoral preparation programs. As Stamatakos (1981) noted, "Ph.D., Ed.D., and Ed.S. curricula in student affairs have, for the most part, been totally neglected in the development of core programs at the M.A. level." He continued to note that it was quite apparent that core curricula and accrediting standards needed to be developed for this level of preparation as well (p. 203). There have been several proposals presented that offered suggestions for preparing students at the doctoral level. Trueblood (1966) recommended 50 that: "at the doctoral level the emphasis should be on deepening the understanding of the behavioral sciences, the context of higher education, and on the philosophy and skill of counseling, research skills, and philosophy of inquiry." (p. 83). Other recommendations have been offered on the general concentration of doctoral programs. Miller (1967) noted that, "we must, in the immediate future, concern ourselves with the degree structure of preparation programs." He went on to outline the role and design of the program: Doctoral programs require special consideration and work. The preparation needs to be designed to prepare a scholar-educator-administrator able to meet all the different and difficult roles of the college student personnel leader. The primary goal is to produce individuals prepared to function as educators and researchers in graduate programs of student personnel preparation and/ or to take up leadership roles in programs around the country (p. 175). This same notion was supported by Candon (1981); Cooper (1974,1975); Fitzgerald (1967); and McDaniel (1972). Greenleaf, (in Knock, 1977), also articulated that: "while a master's degree student should be exposed to all areas of the curriculum, in-depth study and extended experiences are essential for the positions to be taken by student completing a doctorate." (p. 162). Until the late 1960's, little research had been conducted to specifically identify the level and degree of competence and training expected of graduates at the doctoral level. In the program model recommended by Fitzgerald (1967), the only area where the program made a specific reference to doctoral studies is Research and Evaluation, where it was stated that 51 besides general courses, doctoral students should also take courses in several of these areas: Introduction to Educational Research Bibliographic Documentation and Methods Social Research Methods Statistical Research Methods Modern Methods of Data Analysis Design of Studies (p. 65). In Knock's (1977) Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs sweep? Professionals, several models addressed the preparation of student affairs professionals. However, noted Stamatakos (1981), none provided for differentiation between M.A. and Ph.D. level preparation (p. 202). Using their preparation program model as a foundation, Delworth and Hanson (1980), noted that the core of doctoral training in student affairs administration should include: 1. Demonstrated competence in both understanding and production of relevant research. 2. Demonstrated mastery of core and specialized competencies that are essential for leadership in at least one of the role orientations or models of practice (p. 483). In addition to advanced coursework, Delworth and Hanson recommended the competencies be developed through apprenticeships with faculty members, investigators in student services, and other appropriate persons and groups. Though there was a need to clearly differentiate between training students at the master's and doctoral levels, this distinction has never occurred. As McDaniel (1972), stated: "the cognitive and affective skill requirements of available positions for master's and doctoral graduates differ in ways which indicate that the 52 nature of the (preparation) programs should be fundamentally different." (p. 105). It is this lack of consistency and differentiation that threatened the claim that student affairs administration did possess a relevant and unique body of knowledge. This notion has lead many to question the value of the educational opportunities found in present preparation programs. Canon (1982), in his discussion concerning the preparation of doctoral level candidates, surmised that: Graduate students in traditional academic disciplines (i.e., other than student affairs administration) represent what could be the strongest potential candidate pool for staff positions in student affairs. It is my own bias that such would be particularly true of graduates of programs in the behavioral sciences. With formal ‘ preparation in the described cognate areas (of student affairs preparation) undertaken as a continuing minor throughout the course of the doctoral program, graduates would bring a rather powerful combination of rigor and skill in the basic discipline and sophistication in the cognate areas of student affairs to our professional practice (p. 472). Yates (1977), emphasized this same opinion earlier, noting that many institutions, including some of the most prestigious universities, have in very recent years chosen to ignore professionals who have been trained in student affairs administration for widely divergent backgrounds in other professions and occupations (p.5). During the past two decades, there have been endeavors to identify competencies essential for doctoral preparation program graduates. Rhatigan (1965), attempted to determine how closely a group of preparation program faculty and student personnel practitioners agreed on a series of training recommendations for graduate preparation at the doctoral level. , 53 To determine the differences, levels of training, and role perceptions of four year and junior college administrators, a questionnaire was sent to random samples in each group. In addition, the questionnaire was administered to preparation program faculty from twenty-seven institutions which had a doctoral program in student affairs administration. This comparison was included to see if there were any levels of agreement on function and training between the preparation program faculty and the two groups of administrators. Rhatigan also attempted to identify which on-the-job experiences were considered more important and those for which academic preparation was more important. little consensus existed between groups or within groups on most items. But, it was found that practitioners tended to rate on-the-job training higher and academic preparation lower than did faculty members. It was recommended that increased emphasis be placed on practicum experiences in preparation programs. Broertjes (1965) concluded a follow-up study of doctoral program graduates in higher education at Indiana University to discern both the effectiveness and the quality of the preparation program. From the data collected, he concluded that preparation program graduates were generally satisfied with the educational experience, including its curriculum, the interdisciplinary nature of the program, and the faculty. Major recommendations for the program included making required research, measurement, and statistics courses more suitable to the needs of the students in the program, and more deliberate program planning for each student to reinforce the interdisciplinary nature of the program. In a study based on Rhatigan's original work, Hoyt and Rhatigan (1968), sampled forty-eight junior college and forty-five chief student 54 personnel administrators about how they spent their work time, the importance they attributed to fifteen job functions, and the relative importance they attached to academic and on-the-job training in preparing for these fifteen functions. In addition, the investigators wanted to ascertain whether preparation programs met the needs of administrators at both the junior and senior college levels. Both types of administrators rated preparation programs as being helpful in performing most administrative functions. They agreed that on-the-job training was essential for the successful performance of many administrative functions, including, supervision, program development, budget preparation, administrative detail, interpreting policies, and discipline. Academic preparation was thought to be critical for teaching, research and counseling. Though on-the- job training was generally viewed as more helpful than academic preparation, the latter was perceived as at least relevant to most administrative functions. When asked what substantive emphases should characterize graduate preparation programs, the majority of both groups recommended that ten percent or more of the program be devoted to each of the following: psychological principles, group dynamics, the college student, student personnel work, and counseling. Similarly, the majority of both groups recommended that ten percent or less of the program be devoted to: principles of education, higher education, management and finance, research methods, and research practice (p. 266). Hoyt and Rhatigan suggested three implications from their study. First, that the doctoral degree will not produce the "compleat" administrator. Secondly, increased attention to practica and internship opportunities that closely paralleled the eventual work setting was important. Thirdly, some 55 chief administrators will continue to be employed on the basis of their experience and personal characteristics even though they have had little or no relevant academic background. They also concluded that there was no need for separate doctoral training programs for preparing junior and senior college student personnel administrators as long as there were flexible degree requirements to permit different emphases and practica experiences (p. 269). Rockey (1972), investigated twenty doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration and developed a profile of program faculty. She found that: 1. Many of the preparation programs had been in existence for less than ten years. 2. Program emphases had shifted over the years. 3. Most programs required an average of twenty courses past the master's degree, including courses in: College Student~ Personnel Higher Education Counseling and Educational Psychology Administrative Theory Applied Administration Historical and Philosophical Foundations Research She also found that the components of a high quality college student personnel program, as identified by her sample, included quality faculty, quality students, sufficient elaboration of the program, strong supporting departments, institutional resources, a well-conceived curriculum, and opportunities for practical work experience (p. 171-176). Barnard (1974), in his study on the preparation of student affairs administrators at the junior college level, recommended a doctoral level ' preparation program in junior college student personnel which was characterized by the following: 1. Internship and practicum experiences in junior college student personnel work, student personnel administration, and advanced counseling. 2. The organization and administration of higher education, which includes courses in advanced management, organizational theory, and finance. 3. Courses in higher education, including the organization and administration of higher education, the junior college student, and the philosophy and history of higher education. 4. An understanding of the behavioral sciences, with courses in group dynamics, economics, and anthropology. 5. Research in a subject-area related to the junior college, culminating in a doctoral dissertation. 6. Coursework in test appraisal and interpretation (p. 90-91, 102). Bolton (1974) investigated the opinions of 1970, 1971, and 1972 doctorate recipients from forty-three universities about their doctoral training programs in college student personnel, and their level of satisfaction with their preparation programs and its relation to employment. He concluded that these graduates viewed their training as appropriate and effective. Recommendations indicated a need for additional training in fiscal management, coursework in office management, computer science, human relations, and increased and improved opportunities in the quality of supervised experiences. An appraisal of the doctoral preparation program at Michigan State University between 1965-1977 by doctoral graduates was conducted by Marler (1977). He assessed the six program goals and thirty-four related learning objectives according to the relevance of each learning objective to their 57 current professional responsibility, and rated the contribution of the doctoral program to the achievement of each learning objective. The six goals were: 1. To provide a professional orientation to the field of college student personnel including the history, philosophy, purposes, problems, issues, and professional ethics and standards. 2. To understand the psychology of human development and the nature and needs of the college student. 3. To develop knowledge and understanding of the history, setting, and objectives of post-secondary education. 4. To develop knowledge and understanding of the principles and theories of learning, counseling, and education. 5. To understand administrative theories, principles, concepts, and methods, and to develop skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, interpreting, constructing, reviewing, delegating, training, staff selection, budgeting, promoting, and referring. 6. To understand research applicable to the field of college student personnel administration and be able to conduct basic research projects (p 80-83). Those learning objectives that received the highest ratings were goals one and five. The most frequently mentioned weakness was inadequate course content in the area of fiscal management - budgeting, accounting and finance. The study concluded the doctoral preparation program was generally successful in preparing college student personnel administrators between the fall of 1965 and the fall of 1977. Yates (1977), attempted to determine to what level of agreement doctoral program coordinators, senior college administrators, and junior college administrators reached when asked to identify the importance of forty 58 intended learning outcomes for the preparation of doctoral students. These outcomes were identified through literature reviews and were placed in the eight dimensions discussed in the ACPA recommendations for professional preparation: 1. Professional Orientation to the Field 2. Multi-Disciplinary Foundations for the Practice of Student Personnel Work. 3. Human Nature and the Nature and Needs of College Students. 4. The Study of Higher Education. 5 Methods and Techniques of Counseling and Personnel Work. 6. Substantive Areas of Student Personnel Work. 7. Integration of Knowledge and Skills. 8. Research and Evaluation. His study showed that, although there was more agreement than disagreement between administrators and program coordinators concerning these learning outcomes, the differences focused on areas such as administrative management, personnel management, and planning physical facilities. Several studies were conducted which examined many different aspects of doctoral preparation, as well as faculty and administrator perceptions of the educational experience at the doctoral level. These studies addressed such areas as the level of satisfaction felt by doctoral program graduates who continued to work in student affairs, how closely a group of preparation program faculty and student affairs practitioners agreed on a series of training recommendations, the relevance of doctoral preparation to the performance of job functions, what constituted a quality doctoral preparation program, the effectiveness of doctoral preparation for junior college administrators, and the relevance of doctoral program training to the achievement of specific learning objectives. Although a great deal of information was discovered 59 about doctoral preparation programs, few studies identified specific core programs and competencies which could be included in a preparation program at the doctoral level. W One area still lacking in the preparation programs of student affairs administrators is a mechanism by which to judge their quality. In recent years, many studies have attempted to rate preparation programs based on pre-defined criteria.- For example, Rockey (1972), in her dissertation on doctoral programs, asked program coordinators to identify leading doctoral programs based on their perceptions of the program's quality of the faculty, quality of the graduates, and the visible leadership in the field by the faculty and graduates. Sandeen (1982), generated a ranking of preparation programs at both the master's and doctoral level through a questionnaire sent to a sample of chief student affairs officers. The respondents were asked to list in rank order the top institutions which, in. their opinion, currently offered the best graduate degree programs in student personnel services in higher education. Though there are no agreed upon methods to objectively measure excellence among graduate programs in general, (Morgan, et. al., 1976), many processes have been developed. Four different perspectives were identified by Conrad and Wilson (1985), on how quality could be defined: 1. The reputational view, which assumes that quality cannot be measured directly and is best inferred through the judgement of experts in the field. 2. The resources view, which emphasizes the human, financial, and physical assets available to a program. 3. The outcomes view, which draws attention from resources to the quality of the product. h r. 502‘.“ 60 4. The value-added view, which directs attention to what the institution has contributed to a student's education (p. v). What was being measured and to what degree it was being measured sometimes dictated which view was utilized. Albrecht (in Pelczar, 1984) identified that program quality was a function of students, faculty, program concept, and effectiveness in application (p. 13- 14). The assessment of these qualities in graduate programs, noted Millard (in Pelczar, 1984), like the assessment of the quality of educational programs in general, was a function of determining the extent to which resources were utilized effectively to achieve educationally appropriate objectives (p. 46). In determining which evaluation model was the most appropriate one to use in a program review, Conrad and Wilson (1985), identified four of the most common ones used in higher education. These included: 1. The goal-based model, which defines evaluation as the process of identifying program goals, objectives, and standards of performance, using various tools to measure performance, and comparing data collected against the identified objectives and standards to determine the degree of congruence or discrepancy (p. 20). 2. The responsive model, which focuses more on program activities than on the program's stated goals and objectives (p. 23). - 3. The decision-making model, which is conducted for purposes of decision making and accountability. Evaluation is viewed as a cyclical, continuing process in which a formal feedback mechanism provides for continuing assessment of decision information needs and the obtaining and providing of information to meet those needs (p. 26). 4. The connoisseurship model, which uses the human being (connoisseur) as the primary instrument of measurement. Data collection, analysis, and interpretation are guided primarily by the 61 connoisseur rather than the evaluation design (p. 28). Though many methods and models for assessing the quality and contributions of student affairs preparation programs are available, very few studies or reports of such have been published. Dressel and Mayhew (1974) published a comprehensive study and analysis of higher education programs, though, according to Keim (1983), it did not specifically identify the characteristics of exemplary programs (p. 5). Presently, there are two evaluation methods offered specifically for student affairs preparation programs. One is offered by Commission XII of ACPA, which has identified minimum standards for graduate programs (Keim, 1985). These standards included: 1. at least one full-time faculty member in the program. 2. at least one student personnel practicum opportunity for students in the program. 3. at least two content courses which provided information about student personnel functions and the college student (p. xi). As noted earlier, only 49.5% of the preparation programs in student affairs administration met the standards (p. xi). Another assessment method is offered by CAS (1986), in the preparation standards for master's level preparation programs. These recommendations stated: 1. The program should be evaluated in terms of the knowledge and competencies learned by graduates, their contributions to the field, and the quality of the faculty's teaching, advising, and research. 2. Evaluation of the effectiveness of preparation should reflect evidence obtained from (a) former students; (b) supervisors from institutions and 62 agencies employing graduates of the program; (c) personnel in state, regional and national accrediting agencies during formal reviews; and (d) clientele served by graduates. 3. Policies and procedures relating to recruitment, selection, retention, and placement should be continually studied. 4. The timing and regularity of evaluations should be determined in accordance with institutional policy. Generally, the length of time between evaluations by the program faculty should not exceed five years (p. 109). Curricula and emphases recommendations for existing programs have been offered (Armstrong, 1974; Broertjes, 1965; Marler, 1977), but'few intemally-generated reports have been published. One such report was generated by Amer, et. al., (1976), which described the development and implementation of the Student Personnel Education Process-Outcome Model (SPEdPOM). This model, designed for master's level students, was one of the initial programs redesigned for student personnel education that was firmly grounded in the philosophy and principles of student development. It involved eight basic steps or stages: 1. A general philosophy of education is articulated to serve as a guideline for designing the model. 2. The target population is identified. 3. The objectives or desired outcomes of the program are identified. 4. Appropriate teaching-learning processes are selected on the basis of their potential for producing the desired outcomes. 5. The processes and outcomes are examined for consistency with the selected philosophy of education, and revisions are made to eliminate any inconsistencies. 63 6. The model is applied in a test field. 7. The model and its application are evaluated by experts and by field-test participants. If the evaluations suggest that change is needed, the model is redesigned accordingly. 8. The model is fully implemented as an educational program, with evaluation and revision built in as constant features (p. 355). In Spooner's (1979) assessment of SPEdPOM's progress as a professional preparation model, she discovered that although some students missed the traditional approach to classroom learning, students enjoyed the challenges of contractual, or self-directed learning (p. 52). In addition, she found that the model helped individual students prepare for a specific setting in terms of institutional type, service function, and major role interest, the model capitalized on an individual's strengths, and it could be applied to a variety of courses and learning experiences (p. 52-53). A summary of the state level reviews of doctoral programs in Educational Psychology, Counseling and Guidance, and Student Personnel Services at public institutions of higher education in the state of Texas, was reported by Whittington (1983). The purpose of the reviews was to, "encourage the institutions to conduct periodic, systematic self-assessments to insure that a high level of quality in academic programs is maintained, that efficiency and cost effectiveness are secured in program delivery, and that program offerings are responsive to state needs and resources." (p. 3). After reviewing nineteen programs at eight institutions, the review team did find some weaknesses in the Texas program. They included: (1) the large number of required courses, which in some instances prevented students from taking elective courses or pursuing independent study; (2) the limited amount of research and publication in a number of programs that 64 resulted from course overload on instructors, and the limited number of students working with faculty members on research projeCts; (3) the unreasonably high number of tenured faculty members, which prevented young, fresh, eager new faculty with new ideas from participating; (4) low faculty salaries; (5) narrow faculty specialization; (6) lack of faculty interaction with other scholars in the discipline; (7) a student-faculty ratio too large to permit adequate internship supervision; and (8) lack of APA and CACREP accreditation in a number of programs. (p. 8). The requisites for a good doctoral program, as concluded by the reviewers, included: Strong research orientation Adequate financial support for students Inter-disciplinary coursework opportunities Flexible course requirements A diverse student population Strong administrative support Internship and/ or practicum experiences (p. 9-11) NP‘S’IPP’N!‘ It is these types of analyses that can provide recommendations to help strengthen and improve the delivery of student affairs preparation programs. A wide array of assessment models and standards have been developed to rate the quality and effectiveness of educational programs, including models designed to assess preparation programs in student affairs administration. Though many studies have attempted to rate preparation programs based on pre-determined criteria, no consistent methods have been developed to assess the quality of these preparation programs. In addition, few intemally-generated reports on the quality of graduate preparation programs have been published. More analyses need to be conducted to help strengthen and improve doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. I] 11 IT I' [E I' R C I . Determining which competencies are critical for student affairs preparation program graduates remains unresolved. Numerous reports and studies have identified program competencies for various programs types and levels. In his discourse on training personnel workers, Burnett (1954), outlined areas of research in professional preparation that warranted investigation. These included: 1. Clarification of the roles and functions of different student personnel workers. 2. Determination of the competencies which are required of these people in order that they be able to do effective work. 3. Determination of how these competencies can be "translated into selection criteria. 4. Determination of how these competencies can be translated into an effective training program (p. 131). Davis (in Rhatigan, 1965) identified competencies from a survey of current policies and practices and systematic judgements of a panel of experts. In this analysis, he first described the competency needed to perform an assigned task and used the panel to prescribe coursework which would contribute to the development of these competencies. This analysis identified: Competency: An administrator is competent as a coordinator of student personnel functions. Suggested Coursework: Required: philosophy of student personnel work; administration of higher education; development and organization of college student personnel work; practicum experience provided in a campus setting in a division responsible for the coordination of over-all student personnel functions. Recommended: principles of services in student personnel work. 66 Competeney: An administrator of a college personnel program is a competent counselor of individual students. Suggested Coursework: Required: basic principles and techniques of counseling; individual differences; psychology of learning; psychology of adolescence; psychology of personality. Recommended: vocational and occupational information. Cempereney: An administrator of a college student personnel program is competent in understanding the roles of the instructional, business, and public relations phases of the university's program and their roles to the overall objectives of the university. - W: Required: history and objectives of higher education; comparative philosophies of higher education. Recommended: effective college teaching. Competeney: An administrator of a college student personnel program is competent in working with groups of adolescents in a campus setting. Suggested Coursework: Required: principles of group work; practicum. Recommended: group procedures in student personnel work; therapeutic group work. gram: An administrator of a college student personnel program is competent in directing research which is designed to provide a better understanding of the individuals comprising the campus population and which is concerned with the evaluation of student personnel services and practices. Suggested Coursework: Recommended: test construction; individual and group personality and interest inventories; statistical methods; evaluation techniques and procedures in higher education (p. 26-27). Identifying and defining competencies that were acceptable to the majority of faculty members, program coordinators, and professional associations had proven to be a difficult task. This difficulty was compounded by the inability to reach consensus on the foundation and / or ' concentration of graduate preparation programs. Should the emphasis be 67 counseling, administration, or student development? Can all three emphases equally co-exist? If not, can there still be a consistent set of competencies for all graduate preparation programs regardless of program emphasis? Pottinger (1979), identified three techniques commonly used in defining competencies. These are (1) expert consensus; (2) job analysis; and (3) behavioral event analysis (p. 26-27). Over the past several years there have been many studies that have identified competencies for many types and levels of student affairs preparation programs. For example, Marler (1977), Rhatigan (1968), and Yates (1977), conducted studies which attempted to identify competencies and learning outcomes of preparation programs at the doctoral level. Arner, et. al., (1976), CAS (1986), Hyman (1977), Ostroth (1975), and Rentz (1976), recommended competencies deemed essential for entry- level program graduates. ACPA (1975), Brown (1972), and Cooper (1974, 1975), identified general competencies that student development administrators needed in order to perform more comprehensive developmental functions. Barnard (1977), and Hoyt and Rhatigan (1970), identified competencies necessary for those professionals working in' junior college settings. In a recent study by Stark, et. al., (1986), a conceptual framework was presented that identified competencies for preservice professional programs. The conceptual nature of these competencies made them very attractive as competencies for actual professional preparation. Stark separated these concepts into professional competencies and professional attitudes. They included: Ceneeptual Cempetence - which involves having acquired the theoretical foundations or generally accepted knowledge upon which professional practice is based. 68 Tm' cal Competenge - which refers to the ability of the graduate to perform fundamental skills required of the professional. Integrative Commtenee - which is the ability to meld conceptual and technical competencies in order to practice effectively and efficiently. x a1 om n - which signifies an understanding of the broad social, economic, and cultural setting in which the profession is practiced. Adaptive Competence - which describes the graduate's ability to adjust to new conditions. Interpersonal Competence - which implies possessing the ability to communicate one's ideas effectively to others through a variety of symbolic means (p. 244-247). The second category of outcomes provided a framework for addressing professional attitudes. They included: Profgsional Identity - which involves the degree to which graduates identify themselves as members of the profession, integrating the profession's norms, competencies, and values into a status role. Professional Ethics - which involves the degree to which the graduate has internalized the code of ethics agreed upon by the profession and applies moral judgement to significant problems of professional life. Cargr Markerapiliry - which suggests that graduates not only meet professional entry standards but have an education that makes them competitive candidates for professional practice. Scholarly Concern for Improvement - which emphasizes support for research necessary to adapt practice to new conditions, and the ability to interpret results and implications of such research for practice. Motivation for Continued Learning - which concentrates on the professionals' commitments to their own development. for ; lhESt rd mm Thor 191118 11101: prep trace Strict mfg doq era} 69 Several sets of competencies have been developed and recommended for preparation programs at both the master's and doctoral levels. Some of these recommendations involved the specific identification of a competency and suggested coursework necessary to develop this competency. Others involved the identification of professional competencies and attitudes. Though many of the recommendations were similar in scope, there still remains no set of agreed upon competencies for graduates of professional preparation programs in student affairs administration at the doctoral level. Summary The literature that has been reviewed and discussed in this chapter included, first, a description of the development and evolution of graduate preparation programs in student affairs administration. This summary traced how the concentration of graduate preparation has shifted from being strictly guidance and counseling, to more interdisciplinary. The review also revealed that an agreement has yet to be reached that best identifies the content and emphasis of graduate preparation programs. Second, descriptions of studies conducted on the preparation of student affairs professionals at the doctoral level, information on program assessments, and the identification of program competencies were addressed. Like the information about program content, few studies identified core programs and competencies which could be included in a preparation program at the doctoral level. In addition, several models and standards that could be used to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of preparation programs were described. Though many of the studies about doctoral preparation programs have provided important information on program content, emphasis, and 70 assessment, no agreement exists on the level of knowledge, skills, and competencies that a doctoral-level preparation program should provide. CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This study had four major purposes. The first purpose was to develop a profile of doctoral preparation program faculty and student affairs administrators. A second purpose was to identify the perceptions held by both full-time faculty members who teach in student affairs doctoral preparation programs, and upper-level student affairs administrators (Chief Student Affairs Officers, Deans of Students, and Directors of Housing/ Residential Life), concerning the knowledge, skills, and competencies expected of doctoral preparation program graduates. The third purpose was to identify some standards for the preparation of doctoral students in student affairs administration. A fourth purpose was to formulate the characteristics of a high quality preparation program in student affairs administration, which were derived from characteristics of top preparation programs as perceived and ranked as such by student affairs faculty and administrators. This chapter will present information regarding the selection of the sample, the development and distribution of the instruments, collection of data, the statistical analyses applied to these data, and the limitations of the methodology. Selectionnfjhejample There were three sets of subjects for this study. The first group included the entire population of full-time faculty members who currently teach in student affairs administration doctoral preparation programs. This population was identified from the 1987 American College Personnel Association, Directory of Graduate Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel. The entire population of 81 faculty members was surveyed because of its small size. 71 72 The second group of subjects included a sample of 100 student affairs administrators. This sample of Chief Student Affairs Officers, Deans of Students, and Directors of Housing/ Residential Life were drawn from four- year institutions having enrollments of 5,000 students or more. Administrators at these three levels were selected for study because of their levels of experiences with administering student affairs programs, and in the hiring of student affairs administration graduates. The Higher Education Publications (HEP) 1987 Higher Education Directory was used to identify the population, and a random number table was used to select the sample. Once the sample institutions were identified, the HEP Directory, the Association of College and University Housing Officers - International (ACUHO-I) 1987 Directory, and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) Membership Directory 1987, were used to determine the names and addresses of the current position holders. Four-year institutions which enrolled 5,000 or more students were chosen for the study because of their tendency to have more comprehensive student affairs programs and services, and because they are more likely to offer more employment opportunities for doctoral-level professionals trained in student affairs administration. The responses of these three groups were intended to represent the population of major student affairs administrators in institutions of higher education. The 1987 Directory was initially employed because it was the most comprehensive publication in which the sample desired, those institutions with a student enrollment of 5,000 or more could be easily drawn. This listing helped assure that the rule of random selection process was being followed, where each member of the identified population, had the same chance of being selected (Sheaffer, et. al., 1986:41). 73 According to Babbie (1973), there were two purposes for using a random number table. First, this process provided a check on conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the investigator. It therefore eliminated the danger of allowing an intuitive bias from selecting institutions. which could support the research expectations or hypotheses. More important, the use of this random selection method helped ensure that the body of probability theory, the basis for population parameter estimates, and estimates of error, could be utilized (p. 83). The third group of subjects included the Program Coordinators of selected doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This group was taken from the preparation program rankings provided by the doctoral program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents. The five highest ranked preparation programs from each faculty member and administrator sample generated the follow-up survey sample with the Program Coordinator as the contact person. Of the 81 full-time doctoral preparation program faculty members identified for the study, 85% (N =69) taught at state-supported institutions and 15% =12) taught at private institutions. (See Appendix E for a listing of institutions that employed full-time doctoral preparation program faculty). For the student affairs administrator sample, 69% (N =69) worked at state supported institutions and 31% (N =31) worked at private institutions. (See Appendix D for a listing of institutions included in the study). Winnie The instruments designed for this study included a survey packet for all full-time student affairs preparation program faculty, a survey packet for a sample of student affairs administrators working at institutions with enrollments of 5,000 students or more, and a survey packet for Program 74 Coordinators (See Appendix A for the faculty member survey, Appendix B for the administrator survey, and Appendix C for the program coordinator survey). The questionnaire was constructed to collect data using a variety of question formats. To collect academic, biographic, and professional background data, several types of questions were designed. These questions included ones in which respondents were asked to provide information by checking the appropriate responses within a list of items or ranges, and from short-answer questions which asked for responses in the form of titles and / or numbers. Frequency distributions and means could be calculated from these question responses to analyze and compare respondent data. To collect opinions on what knowledge, skills and competencies should be provided to and developed in doctoral preparation program students, the types of courses and experiences would best provide for appropriate preparation, and doctoral program data, open-ended questions were created. This format was chosen to solicit information based on respondent perceptions and experiences. Finally, questions to collect information concerning preparation program rankings and reactions to the newly-created CAS standards were designed using both numerical scales and open-ended questions. Assistance in the design of the survey, and the construction of the survey questions was provided by three individuals: Dr. Louis C. Stamatakos, Professor of Higher Education at Michigan State University, and the investigator's Doctoral Committee Chair; Dr. Nancy Evans, Coordinator and Associate Professor, College Student Personnel Program, Western Illinois University, and at the time, the ACPA Commission XII Chair (Professional Education of Student Personnel Workers in Higher Education); and Dr. 75 Theodore Mitchell, Professor of Education, Dartmouth College, and the investigator's local faculty liaison. In addition, a pre-test of all three instruments was conducted using both faculty members and student affairs professionals from the University of Vermont. This institution was selected because: (1) of its reputation as a quality institution for the preparation of student affairs professionals at the master's level, (2) it did not have a doctoral preparation program, (3) it was not one of the institutions identified through random sampling, and (4) the faculty members and student affairs administrators would not have been included in the formal data collection. A five-page questionnaire was developed for both doctoral preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators. The instrument was divided into four sections. Section one requested demographic information such as academic rank/ administrative position, gender, age, degree level, field of study, number of years in current position, if a faculty member, whether s/ he ever held an administrative position in student affairs administration and if so, what was the highest level and for how many years, and if an administrator, the number of years working in student affairs administration. Section two requested data on each subject's professional background. The questions were designed to solicit information concerning professional association memberships, offices and / or committee assignments held, attendance at professional meetings, publication lists, consultations, and workshops and seminars presented. Section three requested information concerning doctoral preparation programs. Two open-ended questions in this section asked respondents to list in rank order what knowledge, skills and competencies a person who had successfully completed a doctoral preparation program should possess, 76 and what types of courses, experiences, and areas of emphases would best provide preparation program students with the knowledge, skills and competencies previously identified. The final two questions asked respondents to provide a ranking of the top five doctoral preparation programs based on three criteria-quality of faculty, effectiveness of doctoral program, and change in the doctoral programs over the last five years. The last of those two questions asked respondents to provide substantial reasons for rating a preparation program to be better than it was five years ago. Section four requested information on preparation program standards and guidelines. The first part of this section asked respondents to read a summary of the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services / Development Programs (CAS, 1986), "Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Level for Student Services / Development Professionals at the Postsecondary Level" that was prepared by the investigator, and then answer a series of reaction statements about the possible effects these standards may have on doctoral preparation programs. The second question in this section asked respondents to identify what doctoral preparation programs provided in the way of knowledge and experiences that were not provided in master's degree preparation programs. A three page survey package was developed for doctoral preparation Program Coordinators. It was composed of nine questions about the doctoral preparation programs s/ he coordinated. These questions requested information about program emphasis, preparation program competencies and their measurement, courses designed specifically for doctoral students, including course titles, preparation program strengths and weaknesses, and past and future changes in the preparation program. An open-ended question format to determine the competencies for 77 doctoral preparation program graduates was chosen for two reasons. One, a review of the literature revealed that no studies had been conducted recently which attempted to generate a list of knowledge, skills and competencies specific only to doctoral preparation programs. Many studies had been conducted, however, in which general competencies, or ones which pertained only to master's preparation programs, were used (Domeier, 1977; Hyman, 1977; Minetti, 1977; Ostroth, 1975; Rhatigan, 1965; Marler, 1977; Yates, 1977). Two, the use of the open-ended question allowed the respondents, according to Sheaffer, et. al., (1986) to express some depth and shades of meaning in the answer, and more realistic alternatives and points (p. 31-32). W13 In November, 1987, an instrument package and cover letter was mailed to the 81 full-time doctoral preparation program faculty members and the 100 student affairs administrators. (See Appendix F for the faculty cover letter, and Appendix G for the student affairs administrator cover letter). An addressed, stamped envelope for each respondent was included with the questionnaire. The respondents were asked to return the completed instrument package within three weeks. One week before the instruments were due, a reminder card was mailed to those respondents who had not yet returned the questionnaire. (See Appendix I for the follow-up reminder). By December 14, 1987, a total of 31 (42.5%) of the faculty member questionnaires, and 35 (35%) of the administrator questionnaires had been returned. A total of 55 (35.6% from faculty and 29% from administrators) usable instruments were returned. The population size of the faculty members who taught in Student Affairs Administration doctoral preparation programs decreased from 81. This reduction resulted from notification by faculty members that they did 78 not teach student affairs administration preparation program courses specifically , though they were listed as such in the 1988 Directory. By the end of the first deadline, 36 (50%) of the faculty questionnaires, and 41 (41 %) of the administrator questionnaires had been returned. A total of 66 (43.1% from faculty and 35% from administrators) instruments were usable. The population size of preparation program faculty members decreased to 72. To help increase the return rate of the instruments, another follow-up reminder card was mailed on January 7, 1988 to those respondents who had not yet returned the questionnaires. By January 22, 1988, 44 (63%) of the faculty member questionnaires, and 48 (48%) of the administrator questionnaires had been returned. A total of 76 (50% from faculty and 41% from administrators) instruments were usable. The population size of preparation program faculty members again decreased to 70. Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 present a summary of the responses by date, by population and by sample. TABLE 3.1 Rate of Return of Faculty Member Respondents Returns Returns by Date Percentages by Date 12/87 12/ 87 1/ 88 12/ 87 12/ 87 1/ 88 Usable Returns 26 31 35 35.6 43.1 50.0 Unusable Returns 5 5 9 6.9 6.9 13.0 No Response 42 36 26 57.5 50.0 37.0 Total 73 72 70 100.0 100.0 100.0 79 TABLE 3.2 Rate of Return of Student Affairs Administrator Respondents Returns Returns by Date Percentages by Date 12/87 12/ 87 1/ 88 12/87 12/ 87 1/88 Usable Returns 29 35 41 29.0 35.0 41.0 Unusable Returns 6 6 7 6.0 6.0 7.0 No Response 65 59 52 65.0 59.0 52.0 Total 100 100 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 In January 1988, instrument packages and cover letters were mailed to the Program Coordinators of the top five institutions which received the highest ratings by both preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators (see Appendix H for the program coordinator cover letter). The top five institutions included: feculty Ranking Indiana University Ohio State University Michigan State University University of Georgia Florida State University Administrator Ranking Indiana University Ohio State University Florida State University University of Maryland Michigan State University The six Program Coordinators who were mailed the instrument packet were asked to return it within three weeks. One week before the instruments were due, a reminder card was mailed to those respondents who had not yet returned the questionnaire. Insufficient return rate from the Program Coordinators led to the mailing of a letter and the inclusion of a survey to those Program Coordinators who had yet to respond. Four (67%) of the Program Coordinators returned the survey. 80 W The design of this study is a "1 X 2" factorial. One factor, the individual responses to specific survey questions, and two variations of another factor, faculty member or administrator, were simultaneously analyzed. This factor analysis was conducted to measure the differences between the perceptions and/ or responses of the two respondent types. Significant differences were determined using a statistical method that best fit the question type and format. For those questions for which it was inappropriate or impossible to compare responses between responses, the differences were investigated by either comparing within respondent type or in relation to other variables. Data from both the dependent and independent variables were compared using several statistical methods. With the open-ended questions, three statistical tests were used. In some instances, a chi-square analysis was used with the open-ended questions to determine the relationship among each variable. A basic assumption in using chi-square was that there was independence between each observation recorded in the contingency table (Pagano, 1986:390). Another assumption was the chi-square analysis must meet the goodness of fit test. This test stated that no expected frequency (E- value) be less than 1, and, at most, 20% of the expected frequencies be less than 5 (Weiss and Hassett, 1982:362). To help meet this goodness of fittest, some of the question categories had to be collapsed into broader groups because of the small number of responses in some of the cell responses. Contingency tables were constructed to help investigate these relationships. A contingency table is a two-way table showing the contingency between two variables where the variables have been classified into mutually exclusive categories and the cell entries are frequencies (Pagano, 1986:381). Chi-square analysis method was selected because it was the most frequent and powerful 81 inference test available for analyzing nominal data. Nominal data, according to Pagano (1986) were observations grouped into several discrete, mutually exclusive categories, where one counted the frequency of occurrence in each category (p. 415). Where the number of cases per item was less than 30, and where the contingency table had just two rows and columns, a Fisher's Exact Test, instead of the chi-square test, was used. The Fisher's Exact Test evaluated the same hypotheses as the chi-square test, but was more suitable when there were small cell numbers and only two rows and columns (N orusis, 1986:239). In addition, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze some question responses to determine the variability in the means. i For those questions with scales or ratings, frequency distributions were calculated, and an analysis of variance (AN OVA) was also used to measure the differences between mean scores. Analysis of variance was selected because it allows for the analysis of data from more than two groups or conditions (Pagano, 1986:311). In addition, by using the F-test in the analysis of variance, it allowed the investigator to make one overall comparison that revealed whether there was a significant difference between the means of the groups. The use of this test, according to Pagano (1986), helped reduce the probability that a Type I error could occur (pg. 312). A Type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is actually true (Weiss and Hassett, 1982:265). Decisions regarding each hypothesis were based on the level of significance calculated for the main effects of the interaction between occupation and question response. 82 IreatrnenLaLthLQata There were two different types of responses from the collection of data. First, there were responses to open-ended questions. These responses were categorized into criteria or topical areas based on the types of categorical responses. The second type of responses were provided from the closed- ended questions. The questionnaire data were coded for computer analysis and entered into the Dartmouth College VAX/VMS computer system. Frequency counts, means, standard deviations, and percentages were calculated using the SPSSX Computer Package. 1' 'II' Ell MI] I] The limitations to this study were those common to the methods of data collection being employed in the research. Though the open-ended questions ‘ allowed the respondent to express some depth into their responses, sometimes the responses may not be easily quantifiable, or some answers may be irrelevant to the investigator's intent (Babbie, 1973:141; Scheaffer, et. al., 1986:32). Though the unstructured nature of the questionnaire may lead to inconsistency in coding, this process was performed by one individual to help improve the accuracy and precision of the coding procedures. Another limitation of the questionnaire method of data collection was the assumption that the respondent had both the knowledge about and understanding of the questions and that they were answered honestly. In addition, though the instruments were evaluated by numerous student affairs administration educators, the validity and reliability of the instruments had not been determined. Also, there was a heavy reliance on the use of directories to identify the population and samples for the study. One hopes that the information was accurate and that the position titles, 83 academic and administrative levels, and FTE in their particular field was truthful and accurate. In addition, not all of the respondents fully completed the instruments that were returned to the investigator. Therefore, some of the survey questions received more categorical responses than others. The small number of both preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator responses made it difficult to use more powerful statistical tests, so many of the perceptions between preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators may be offered without the ability to employ more sophisticated tests that could help determine to what degree these differences were significant. Because‘of the design of the sample population of student affairs administrators, and their comparisons to the population of preparation program faculty, any generalizations about doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration, preparation program faculty, and student affairs professionals should be drawn carefully. M This chapter outlined the sample selection, instrumentation, data collection, research methods, treatment of the data, and limitations of the methodology. Eighty-one preparation program faculty members and one hundred student affairs professionals were surveyed to collect their opinions on what competencies, skills, and knowledge persons graduating from doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration should possess. Demographic data from the instruments also allowed the investigator to develop profiles for both preparation program faculty members and student affairs professionals. Though the original number of 84 student affairs administrators sampled did not deviate, the number of preparation program faculty member population decreased from 81 to 70. This resulted from the notification by faculty members that they did not teach student affairs administration preparation courses despite their being listed in the 1988 Directory. The response rate for preparation program faculty members was 63%, with 35 usable retums, and was 48%, with 41 usable returns for the student affairs administrators. The collection of the data were reported in both a descriptive and quantitative manner. The demographic data, reaction statements to the CAS Summary, and the open-ended responses, were coded and entered into the computer for analysis. Either a chi-square analysis, Fisher's exact test, and AN OVA was performed on the responses to the open-ended questions, and an ANOVA was calculated for those responses with scales or ratings. The information generated and the data analysis are discussed in Chapter Four. CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA Six major analyses will be presented in this Chapter. The first analysis will include both individual and comparative profiles of the doctoral preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents. The second analysis will examine the perceptions between doctoral preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents regarding what competencies, skills and knowledge should be developed in students enrolled in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. The third analysis will investigate the courses, experiences and areas of emphases recommended by student affairs administrator and doctoral preparation program faculty member respondents that would assist in the acquisition and/ or refinement of the knowledge, skills, and competencies that should be developed in students enrolled in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. The fourth analysis will compare the perceptions of faculty member and administrator respondents concerning their impressions on how the "Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Degree Level for Student Services/ Development Professionals in Postsecondary Education," prepared by the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services and Development Programs (CAS, 1986) may effect doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. The fifth analysis will provide both the respondents' ranking of "quality" doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration and a comparison of the concentration and content of these "quality" programs. Based on the opinions of preparation program faculty member and student affairs 85 86 administrator respondents, the sixth analysis will describe what student affairs administrator and doctoral preparation program faculty member respondents identified what doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration provide in the way of knowledge, skills, and competencies that are not provided by master's degree programs. The data for the first five analyses were obtained from responses to the survey instruments distributed to a sample of one-hundred student affairs administrators and the entire population of seventy preparation program faculty members. The student affairs administrator respondents returned a total of forty-eight surveys; forty-one (41%) were usable and seven were unusable. Fifty-two (52%) student affairs administrators did notrespond. Of the seventy preparation program faculty member respondents, forty-four were returned (62.8%). Thirty-five (50%) were usable and nine were unusable. Twenty-six ( 37.1%) faculty members did not respond. The percentages of usable survey instruments for each group was 41% for the student affairs administrators and 50% for the preparation program faculty members. . The data for the last analysis were obtained from both the survey instruments distributed to the preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators, and from the six Program Coordinators of the student affairs administration programs that were selected as the "best" by both faculty members and administrators. The total number of usable instruments was four. E II lil"l|EE'l Sections One and Two of both the student affairs administrator and faculty member surveys asked the respondents to provide academic and biographic data, and professional background data (see Appendices A and B 87 for faculty and administrator surveys). The comparative characteristics of both faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents were noted in the areas of gender, age, rank or title, total years in current positions, faculty experience in student affairs administration, highest degree earned, year degree was awarded, field of study, length of teaching, professional association membership, professional meetings attended, professional publications, participation in professional organization activities, and professional consultations. Comparisons revealed a great number of similarities between preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators in many categories. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated for those survey questions where it was possible to compare the means of the faculty and administrator responses. There were some responses for which it was not possible to perform an analysis of variance, or any other statistical analysis, and they were therefore presented in descriptive form. These responses included rank and title of the survey respondents, student affairs employment of faculty respondents, highest student affairs position held by faculty respondents, total years of student affairs employment by faculty respondents, faculty appointments of administrator respondents, teaching disciplines of administrator respondents, years as a faculty member of administrator respondents, professional association involvement of survey respondents, and types of involvement in professional associations of survey respondents. The null hypothesis for those questions in which an analysis of variance was calculated stated that there was no difference between the question responses of items that comprise the professional profiles of the preparation program faculty members and the student affairs administrators who participated in the study. Contingency tables were also created to 88 determine if any relationships existed between respondent type and the particular question variable. The chi-square statistics calculated for each variable were unusable because they did not meet the two assumptions necessary for goodness-of-fit, which included that (1) no expected frequency (E-value) be less than 1, and (2) at most, 20 percent of the expected frequencies be less than 5 (Weiss and Hassett, 1982:362). Slender The data showed that of those who returned the survey, 77.2% of the faculty member respondents and 77.5% of the student affairs administrator respondents were male. To determine if there was a significant difference in the gender of the survey respondents, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the gender of the survey respondents. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and] student affairs administrators who completed the survey, could not be rejected. The number of respondents by gender, percentage, and the F statistic are shown in Table 4.1. TABLE 4.1 -- Gender of the Survey Respondents Gender Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. Male 27 31 77.2 77.5 Female _8 .2 .228 as N = 35 40 100.0 100.0 .001" ’F,05=4.00 with 1,60 degrees of freedom 89 A81 As shown in Table 4.2, the majority of the faculty member respondents were between the ages of 36-40 (25.7%) and 56-60 (20%). Only 2.9% of the respondents were between the ages of 30-35 and 11.4% were 61 years of age and older. The majority of the student affairs administrator respondents were between the ages of 36-45 (46.1%). Only 10.3% of the respondents fell between the ages of 30-35 and 5.1% between 61-65. To determine if there was a significant difference in the ages of the survey respondents, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference in the ages of the respondents. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators who completed the survey, could not be rejected. TABLE 4.2 -- Age of the Survey Respondents Age Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 30-35 1 4 2.9 10.3 ' 36-40 9 10 25.7 25.6 41-45 6 8 17.1 20.5 46-50 4 6 11.4 15.4 51-55 4 6 11.4 15.4 56-60 7 3 20.0 7.7 61-65 2 2 5.7 5.1 66+ .2. 2 17. M N = 35 39 999a 100.0 1 .18" aDoes not add up to 100.0% due to rounding procedures used. *F_05=2.15 with 7,66 degrees of freedom 90 RanklIifl: The majority of the preparation program faculty member respondents, 42.8%, stated that they held the rank of full Professor. All faculty respondents except one worked at some professorial level. Of the student affairs administrator respondents, 40% held the position of Dean of Students, and 30% each held the position of Vice President of Student Affairs and Director of Housing/Residence Life. The inability to do more than compare responses between survey respondents prevented a statistical analysis from being calculated for this question. A breakdown by type and percentage is presented in Table 4.3. TABLE 4.3 - Rank/ Title of the Survey Respondents Rank / Title Type Percentage Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. Vice Pres. Stdt. Aff. -- 12 --- 30.0 Dean of Students -- 17 ---- 40.0 Dir. of Housing/ Res. Life -- 12 ---- 30.0 Professor 15 -- 42.8 ---- Assoc. Prof. 10 -- 28.6 ---- Asst. Prof. 9 - -- 25.7 -—-- Other i -_- 2.9 ---- N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Of the preparation program faculty member respondents, 60% have held their current positions for 1-15 years, and of the student affairs administrator respondents, 55% have held their current positions for 6-20 years. In contrast,45% of all administrator respondents have held their current positions for 21-31+ years, compared with 28% of the faculty 91 member respondents. An analysis of variance was conducted to see if there was a significant difference in the total years each respondent type had spent in his/her current position. An F score was computed and when compared with the F score in a statistical table at the 95% confidence interval, the null hypothesis that there was no difference between question responses of survey respondents was rejected. There was a statistically significant difference in the total number of years spent in the respondent's current position, with the student affairs administrators spending significantly more years in their current positions than the preparation program faculty members. A complete breakdown of years by type and percentage is outlined in Table 4.4. TABLE 4.4 -- Total Years in Current Position of the Survey Respondents Years Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 1-5 7 -- 28.0 -- 6-10 5 5 20.0 12.5 11-15 3 10 12.0 25.0 16-20 3 7 12.0 17.5 21-25 2 8 8.0 20.0 26-30 2 8 8.0 20.0 31+ .3. _2- 29. if) N = 25 40 100.0 100.0 3.72" ‘F.05=2.25 with 6,58 degrees of freedom ElIE . 'Sllllff' As shown in Table 4.5, a majority of the preparation program faculty member respondents had experience as full-time student affairs administrators. Of the faculty respondents, 77.1% held a position in student 92 affairs administration. TABLE 4.5 - Student Affairs Employment of Faculty Respondents Employment Number Percentage Faculty Faculty Yes 27 77.1 N 0 _8 ' Q N = 35 1 00.0 An analysis of the types of positions held by faculty member respondents found that the greater number, (37%), of these respondents listed the Dean of Students as their highest position of employment, followed by an Assistant Dean/ Director of a student affairs department (26%). In addition, 18.5% of the faculty member respondents served as a Vice President of Student Affairs. A breakdown by position, number of faculty member respondents and percentage are presented in Table 4.6. The majority of the faculty member respondents, 45.2%, worked between 5-10 years in student affairs administration. The total years of student affairs employment by preparation program faculty members is provided in Table 4.7. The inability to compare responses between survey respondents prevented a statistical analysis from being calculated for this question. 93 TABLE 4.6 - Highest Student Affairs Position Held by Faculty Respondents Position Number Percentage Faculty Faculty Vice President 5 18.5 Dean of Students 10 37.0 Director 3 11.1 Associate Dean/ Director 2 7.4 Assistant Dean / Director _7_ _2_6._0 N = 27 100.0 TABLE 4.7 - Total Years Student Affairs Employment by Faculty Respondents Years N umber Percentage Faculty Faculty 5-10 ' 14 45.2 11-15 5 16.1 16-20 5 16.1 21-25 1 3.2 26-30 2 6.5 31 + .4 122 N = 31 100.0 Hi D E rn As shown in Table 4.8, the majority of the student affairs administrator respondents, 69.2%, and all of the preparation program faculty member respondents, 100%, had earned either a Ph.D or an Ed.D. as their terminal degree. Only 5.1% of the Directors' of Housing/ Residence Life and none of the Deans of Students' terminal degree was a Bachelor's Degree. Of the total percentage of respondents for which the Master's Degrees was their terminal degree, 44.5% were earned by Deans of Students and 55.5% were earned by Directors of Housing/ Residence Life. 94 Of all degrees earned, 28.6% of the preparation program faculty members' degrees were earned at institutions judged to have "quality" programs in student affairs administration. The percentage of student affairs administrators who earned their degrees from institutions judged to possess "quality" programs in student affairs administration was 26.9% (a breakdown of institutional rankings is presented on page 79 of this study). One of the major hypotheses of this study stated there is no difference between the professional education of student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members, and those student affairs administrators who participated in this study. To determine if this hypothesis was true, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to statistically identify if there were any significant differences in the education of the two respondent types. The F score calculated from the ANOVA, when compared with the F score from a statistical table at the 95% confidence level showed that there was a difference in the professional education of the respondent types. Therefore, the null hypothesis as stated above must be rejected. Statistically, there was a significant difference between the types of degrees earned by the respondents. This could be predicted since none of the full-time preparation program faculty members had earned less than a Ph.D. or Ed.D. 95 TABLE 4.8 - Highest Degree Earned of the Survey Respondents Degree Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. BA/ BS -- 2 -- 5.1 MA/ MS -- 9 -- 23.1 Ph.D. 21 19 60.0 48.7 Ed.D. 14 8 40.0 20.5 Other :1 _l. r:_ _226. 3.87 * N = 35 39 100.0 100.0 "F.05=2.53 with 4,69 degrees of freedom WM - As outlined in Table 4.9, the majority of both the preparation program faculty member respondents, 52.9%, and the student affairs administrator respondents, 69.2%, earned their highest degree after 1971. In addition, 26.5% of the faculty respondents and 25.6% of the administrator respondents earned their highest degrees between 1961-70. Two (5.2%) of the administrator respondents, and seven (20.6%) of the faculty member respondents, earned their highest degrees between 1940-1960. To determine if there was a significant difference in the year the degrees were awarded to the survey respondents, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference in the degree granting years of the survey respondents. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators who completed the survey, could not be rejected. 96 TABLE 4.9 - Year Degree Awarded of the Survey Respondents Year Type Percentage ‘ F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 1940-1950 2 1 5.9 2.6 . 1951-1960 5 1 14.7 2.6 1961-1970 9 10 26.5 25.6 1971-1980 14 23 41.2 59.0 1981+ _4_ A 11.7 m N: 34 39 100.0 100.0 1.31" *F,o5=2.51 with 4,68 degrees of freedom W As shown in Table 4.10, most of the preparation program faculty member respondents, 47.1%, and most of the student affairs administrator respondents, 47.4%, noted Higher Education Administration as the field in which they received their highest degrees. However, many of the respondents identified Student Affairs Administration as a part of their program of study, though Higher Education Administration or Counseling was the primary concentration of their preparation programs. Only 5.9% of the faculty respondents and 13.1% of the administrator respondents received degrees in a field of study that was not related to Higher Education Administration, Student Affairs Administration, or Counseling. An analysis of variance was calculated to determine if there was any significant difference between the survey respondents and their chosen fields of study. At the 95% confidence level, the F score computed from the ANOVA could not be rejected when compared with the F score in the statistical table. Therefore, the null hypothesis that there was no difference between the question responses of the faculty members and student affairs administrators was retained. Statistically, there was no significant 97 difference between the survey respondents and their chosen fields of study. TABLE 4.10 - Field of Study of the Survey Respondents Field Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. Student Affairs Admin. 11 9 32.3 23.7 Higher Education Admin. 16 18 47.1 47.4 Counseling 5 6 14.7 15.8 Other .2 _i _5_-2 i1. N = 34 38 100.0 100.0 .412" *F,05=2.75 with 3,66 degrees of freedom leaching Of the survey respondents, 76.5% of the preparation program faculty members and 44.4% of the student affairs administrators noted they were currently teaching. An analysis of variance was calculated to determine if there were any significant differences between the means of the numbers of respondents who were currently teaching. An F score was computed and compared with the F score from the statistical table at the 95% confidence level. Based on this score, the null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators who completed the survey, was rejected. There was a significant difference in the number of respondent types currently teaching, with the number of preparation program faculty members who were involved in teaching being greater than the number of student affairs administrators. These number of respondents, percentages, and F score are presented in Table 4.11. 98 TABLE 4.11 - Numbers Teaching of the Survey Respondents Teaching Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. Yes 26 16 76.5 ' 44.4 No _8 E 23.5 55.6 N = 34 36 100.0 100.0 8.13" "F.05=3.99 with 1,68 degrees of freedom As shown in Table 4.12, 33.3% of the preparation program faculty members taught at least one doctoral level class per year, compared with 17.1% of the student affairs administrator respondents. The average number of courses taught by faculty members each year was 2.21 and the average number of courses taught by student affairs administrators each year was 1.70. I At the extreme end of the spectrum, one faculty member (2.8%) taught 7 doctoral- level courses per year, and one student affairs administrator (2.4%) taught 6 doctoral level courses per year. To determine if there was a significant difference between the number of courses taught by student affairs administrators and preparation program faculty member respondents, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference in the number of courses taught by the survey respondents. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the question responses of preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators who completed the survey, could not be rejected. 99 TABLE 4.12 - Doctoral Level Courses Taught by the Survey Respondents Courses Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 12 31 33.3 75.6 1 12 7 33.3 17.1 2 3 2 8.3 4.9 3 6 -- 16.7 --- 5 2 -- 5.6 -- 6 -- 1 --- 2.4 7 .1. .2: 228. 2 N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 1.40" ‘F,05=2.54 with 5,29 degrees of freedom Student affairs administrator respondents appeared to be actively involved in teaching at their respective institutions. As shown in Table 4.13 and 4.14, 63% of the respondents had a regular faculty appointment, 51.9% held adjunct faculty appointments, and 61.5% of all appointees taught courses in Education. TABLE 4.13 -- Faculty Appointments of Administrator Respondents Appointment Number Percentage Administrator Administrator Adjunct 14 51.9 Affiliate 2 7.4 Joint 6 22.2 Other 4 m N = 26 100.0 100 TABLE 4.14 - Teaching Discipline of the Administrator Respondents Discipline Number Percentage Administrator Administrator Education 16 61.5 Counseling 7 26.9 Other _3 1_1_._5_ N = 26 ’ 100.0 As outlined in Table 4.15, 36.6% of the student affairs administrator respondents noted that they have held their faculty appointments for 1-10 years, and 17.1% have held their appointments for 16-25 years. The inability to compare responses for the number of faculty appointments of the student affairs administrator respondents, the teaching disciplines of the student affairs administrator respondents, and the years as a faculty member of the student affairs administrator respondents prevented a statistical analysis from being calculated. TABLE 4.15 -- Years as a Faculty Member of Administrator Respondents Years N umber Percentage Administrator Administrator 0 11 26.8 1-5 8 19.5 6-10 7 17.1 11-15 8 19.5 16-20 5 12.2 21-25 .2. _‘Q N: 41 100.0 101 BE . IQ . I' lff'l'l' Both preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents were active in professional organizations. The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA) was the prevalent choice of both respondent types, followed by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA). A large number of respondents were active in other organizations not included in the survey, including The American Council on Education/ Association for the Study of Higher Education (ACE / ASHE), The American Association for Counseling and Development (AACD), The Association of College and University Housing Officers- Intemational (ACUHO-I), The Association of College Unions-International (ACU-I), and regional and state professional associations. To determine if there was a significant difference in the professional organization affiliation of the survey respondents, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was a significant difference in all cases related to the professional organization affiliation of the respondents except for those who were members of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors (N AWDAC). The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators who completed the survey, was rejected in all areas but one. The statistical differences showed that more student affairs administrator respondents were affiliated with N ASPA and Other professional organizations than were faculty members, and that more ' preparation program faculty member respondents were affiliated with 102 ACPA. However, there was no significant difference between the mean number of respondents who were members of N AWDAC. A breakdown of organization affiliation and F score is provided in Table 4.16. TABLE 4.16 -- Professional Organization Affiliation of survey Respondents Organization Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. N ASPA 22 35 71.0 89.7 8.16" ACPA 24 19 68.6 48.7 5.04" N AW DAC 12 3 34.3 7.7 1.80‘ Other 10 25 28.6 62.5 6.49" *F,05=3.98 with 1,72 degrees of freedom Pr 'nl'rnizai Ivlvm Both preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents were active within the professional associations with which they were affiliated, however, student affairs administrator respondents appeared to be more active than preparation program faculty member respondents. The percentage of respondents who were active in one or more professional associations was 85.4% for student affairs administrators and 65.7% for preparation program faculty members. As shown in Table 4.17, preparation program faculty member respondents were more active in ACPA and state or regional associations, while student affairs administrator respondents were more active in NASPA and state or regional associations. The nature of involvement in these professional associations varied by respondent type. However, most respondents had been involved in professional associations through committee/ commission membership, through serving as committee/ commission chairs, and through elected or appointed positions. A breakdown by association and respondent type is 103 presented in Table 4.18. This data were collected from open-ended question responses. The small number of responses, or no responses in some categories prevented a statistical analysis from being calculated for both the professional association involvement and type of involvement of survey respondents. TABLE 4.17 - Professional Association Involvement of Survey Respondents Organization Number Faculty Administrator AACD 3 -- ACPA 16 10 ACUHO-I -- 9 N ASPA 6 17 N AWDAC 2 --- Regional/ State 9 21 Other -- 4 TABLE 4.18 -- Type of Involvement in Professional Associations of Survey Respondents Type of Involvement » Number Faculty Administrator President (state, regional, national) 10 9 Vice President 1 3 Secretary 4 4 Treasurer 4 2 Parliamentarian 1 -- Member at Large 14 Editorial Board 11 9 Association Director 1 -- Committee/ Commission Chair 16 29 Subcommittee/ Task Force Chair 1 4 Committee/Commission/Task Force Member 39 48 . 104 ill I IRE . 1111' Over the past five years, both preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents had attended national, regional, state, and local meetings of their profession. As shown in Table 4.19, the majority of the student affairs administrators, 61.1%, had attended between 1- 5 national association meetings, and the majority of the preparation program faculty members, 46.9%, had attended between 6-10 national association meetings. TABLE 4.19 - National Meetings Attended by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 1-5 13 22 40.6 61.1 6-10 15 13 46.9 36.1 11-15 2 —- 6.3 -- 16-20 -- -- -- -- 21-25 1 -- 3.1 -- 26-30 1 1 3.1 2.8 31 + :1 .1; _::_ .2 1.371 * N = 32 36 100.0 100.0 "F,05=2.53 with 4,60 degrees of freedom Table 4.20 shows the majority of the preparation program faculty member respondents, 84%, and the majority of the student affairs administrator respondents, 86.7%, had attended 1-5 state association meetings. 105 TABLE 4.20 - State Meetings Attended by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 1-5 21 26 84.0 86.7 6-10 2 3 8.0 10.0 1 1-15 1 1 4.0 3.3 16-20 -- -- -- -- 21-25 -- -- -- -— 26-30 1 -- 4.0 -— 31 + 2 2 2 2 .408" N = 25 30 100.0 100.0 *F,05=2.79 with 3,50 degrees of freedom As shown in Table 4.21, 95.2% of the faculty member and 93.6% of the student affairs administrator respondents had attended 1—5 regional association meetings. TABLE 4.21 -- Regional Meetings Attended by the Survey Respondents N umber Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 1-5 20 29 95.2 93.6 6-1 0 -- 1 -- 3.2 1 1-15 1 1 4.8 3.2 16-20 -- -- _ -- -- 21-25 -- -- -- -- 26-30 -- -- -- -- 31+ 2 2 2 _2 .694" N = 21 31 100.0 100.0 ‘F.05=3.18 with 2,50 degrees of freedom Table 4.22 shows student affairs administrator respondents, 60%, had attended 1-5 local association meetings and preparation program faculty member respondents, 66.6%,. had attended between 1-10 local association 106 meetings. TABLE 4.22 - Local Meetings Attended by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 1-5 2 9 33.3 60.0 6-10 2 3 33.3 20.0 1 1-15 1 2 16.7 13.3 16-20 -- -- -- -— 21-25 1 -- 16.7 «- 26-30 -- ~— 6.7 31 + 2 2 2 2 .793" N = 6 15 100.0 100.0 *F,05=3.06 with 4,15 degre; of freedom To determine if there was a significant difference in the number of meetings attended by the survey respondents at the national, state, regional, and local levels, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference in the number or type of meetings attended by the respondents. Tables 4.19 through 4.22 provide the number of meetings attended by respondent type, the percentages by respondent type, and the F score. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators who completed the survey, could not be rejected. 2 E . l I! l l' l' The preparation program faculty member respondents, in all areas surveyed, produced more publications than the student affairs administrator respondents. However, in all cases, the statistical differences were not 107 significant. Working with the hypothesis that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and the student affairs administrators who completed the survey, an analysis of variance (AN OVA) was calculated to determine if there was a statistically- significant difference in the number of publications produced by the respondent types. After computing an F score for each publication type, and comparing each with F scores from statistical tables, it was determined that, at the 95% confidence level, there was no difference. Therefore, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Both types of respondent types published pieces in all the forms of print media listed in the survey. The'types of publications in which the majority of the preparation program faculty member respondents published included Book Co-Authored (55.5%), and National Journal articles (69.4%). There were no publication areas in which the majority of the administrator respondents were concentrated. In all publication categories except for "Books Co-Authored" and "N ational Journal Articles," the number of preparation program faculty members who had never published exceeded the number of preparation program faculty members who had published. The number of student affairs administrators who had not published outnumbered those administrators who had published in all publication categories. Tables 4.23 through 4.33 offer a breakdown of publications by type, the number and percentage of survey respondents who published in each category, the mean number of publications by respondent type in each category, the standard deviation, and the F score from each analysis of variance. 108 TABLE 4.23 - Books Authored by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 23 38 66.7 92.6 1-3 1; _3_ 33.3 _7_._3_ N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 2.0 1.0 5.1). .74 .00 3.60" "F.05=3.89 with 2,12 degrees of freedom TABLE 4.24 - Books Co-Authored by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 15 35 44.5 85.4 1-12 . 2.0 .6. iii. M N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 3.3 3.2 SD. 2.9 2.9 1.66" "F.05=2.66 with 6,18 degrees of freedom TABLE 4.25 -- Books Edited by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 26 38 75.0 92.6 1-3 2 _3; 25.0 _73 N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 1.9 1.7 SD. .78 .58 .360" "F.05=4.26 with 2,9 degrees of freedom 109 TABLE 4.26 - Monographs Authored by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 19 37 55.6 90.2 1-9 1_6_ _4_ 44.4 _9_.§ N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 2.5 1.0 SD. 2.3 .00 .720" "F.05=2.96 with 5,14 degrees of freedom TABLE 4.27 - Monographs Contributed to by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 27 ' 37 77.8 90.3 1-4 ' _8 _‘L _2_22. 2.2 N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 2.1 1.8 SD. 1.2 1.5 1.04" "F.05=4.26 with 2,9 degrees of freedom TABLE 4.28 -- Monographs Edited by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 30 38 86.1 92.8 1-3 _5 _1 13.2 _Z_._2_ N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 1.8 2.0 SD. 1.1 1.0 .809" ”F.05=5.79 with 2,5 degrees of freedom 110 TABLE 4.29 - National Journal Articles Authored by Survey Respondents N umber Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 10 26 30.6 63.6 1-80 25 1_5, 69.4 56;]; N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 15.3 8.9 SD. 16.3 12.2 1.20" "F.05=2.55 with 8,17 degrees of freedom TABLE 4.30 -- State Journal Articles Authored by the Survey Respondents N umber Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 23 37 66.7 92.3 1-9 12 _4_ 23.3. .22 N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 3.0 2.5 SD. 2.5 1.9 .433" "F,05=3.22 with 6,10 degrees of freedom TABLE 4.31 -- National Newsletter Articles Authored by Respondents N umber Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 26 30 ' 75.0 73.1 1-25 _9 11_ 25.0 _2_6§ N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 8.2 3.8 SD. 7.8 3.6 .961 " "F.05=3.33 with 5,10 degrees of freedom 111 TABLE 4.32 - Regional Newsletter Articles Authored by Respondents N umber Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 31 32 88.9 78.0 1-50 _4_ _9_ 11.1 e; N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 17.5 3.4 SD. 22.0 3.8 3.36" "F.05=5.05 with 5,5 degrees of freedom TABLE 4.33 - State Newsletter Articles Authored by Survey Respondents N umber Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 31 35 88.9 85.3 1-50 A _5 11.1 122. N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 17.5 5.0 SD. 22.0 3.8 .350" "F_05=19.30 with 5,2 degrees of freedom gerrferenee Presentatiene Both preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents were involved in presentations at the national, state, regional, and institutional and organizational levels. The average number of presentations was higher for the preparation program faculty member respondents, with 18.3% presenting at national conferences compared with 12.4% of the student affairs administrator respondents, 10.7% versus 5% at state conferences, 10.4% versus 7% at regional conferences, and 25.8% versus 12.9% at institutions and organizations. 112 TABLE 4.34 - National Conference Presentations by Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 7 9 22.2 21.9 1-70 _2_§ E, 77.8 25; N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 18.3 12.4 SD. 16.0 14.0 .697" "F.05=2.34 with 8,25 degrees of freedom Despite the greater number of presentations by preparation program faculty members, there was no statistical significance between survey respondents and the number of- presentations each made at the national, state, regional, institutional, and organizational levels. TABLE 4.35 -- State Conference Presentations by Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. O 1 1 17 33.4 41.4 1-60 24 A 66.6 fl N = 35 41‘ 100.0 100.0 Mean 10.7 5.0 SD. 12.7 3.4 .861 " "F.05=2.22 with 9,29 degrees of freedom An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated to test the hypothesis that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and the student affairs administrators who completed the survey. The F scores calculated from the AN OVA, when compared with the F scores in the statistical tables, showed that, at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference in the number of conference presentations made by the survey respondents. Therefore, the 113 null hypothesis could not be rejected. Tables 4.34 through 4.37 offer a breakdown of presentations by type, the number and percentage of survey respondents who presented in each category, the mean number of presentations by respondent type in each category, the standard deviation, and the F score from each analysis of variance. TABLE 4.36 - Regional Conference Presentations by Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 11 13 33.4 31.7 1-70 14 § 66.6 555 N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 10.4 7.0 SD. 14.7 6.4 .789" "F.05=2.33 with 7,30 degrees of freedom TABLE 4.37 - Inst./ Org. Presentations by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 15 19 44.5 46.3 1-100 20 2_2_ 55.5 1.7 N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 25.8 12.9 SD. 24.3 21.3 1.72" "F.05=2.96 with 5,14 degrees of freedom 13 I . l C 11 I' As with conference presentations, both preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents were actively involved in professional consultations. Preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents were more involved in college/ university consultations, as shown in Table 4.38, and foreign 114 consultations, as shown in Table 4.39, than with ministerial consultations, as shown in Table 4.40. TABLE 4.38 -- Coll./ Univ. Consultations by the Survey Respondents N umber Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 4 9 13.9 21.9 1-100 3_1 5; 86.1 m N = ' 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 19.3 6.2 SD. 26.3 5.8 .763" "F.05=2.18 with 8,40 degrees of freedom TABLE 4.39 - Foreign Consultations by the Survey Respondents Number ' Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 27 37 77.8 90.2 1-20 _§ 3. _222 .28 N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 4.6 1.5 SD. 6.4 1.0 .408" "F.05=4.35 with 3,7 degrees of freedom Both groups were also involved with other types of consultations, as shown in Table 4.41, primarily with Boards of Trustees, and private corporations. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the two groups of respondents and their professional consultations except under "Other Consultations," where there was a significant difference between the number of consultations performed by the respondent groups. 115 TABLE 4.40 -- Ministerial Consultations by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 33 39 94.5 ’ 95.1 1-5 _2 __2_ 5.5 $2 N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 1.5 3.0 SD. .71 2.8 .200" "F.o5=19.00 with 2,2 degrees of freedom The F score calculated from the analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed at the 95% confidence level, preparation program faculty members were more involved in other types of professional consultations, such as those for Boards of Trustees and corporations, than were student affairs administrators. Therefore, the null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and the student affairs administrators who completed the survey was retained in all cases but one. TABLE 4.41 - Other Consultations by the Survey Respondents Number Type Percentage F Fac. Adm. Fac. Adm. 0 25 34 72.2 82.9 1-40 19 1 27.8 _17_.1 N = 35 41 100.0 100.0 Mean 9.1 7.7 SD. 9.3 14.3 6.62" "F.05=3.84 with 4,8 degrees of freedom Tables 4.38 through 4.41 offer a breakdown of consultations by type, the number and percentage of survey respondents who consulted in each 116 category, the mean number of consultations by respondent type in each category, the standard deviation, and the F score from each analysis of variance. Summary ef Faculry and Administrator flefilee The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the question responses of the preparation program faculty members and the student affairs administrators who completed Sections One and Two of the survey, was retained in 83% of the comparative areas for which an analysis of variance was computed. Those areas in which there was no statistically-significant difference between the means of the respondent groups included Gender, Age, Year Degree Awarded, Field of Study, Doctoral Level Courses Taught, Attendance at Professional Meetings, Professional Publications, Conference Presentations, and Professional Consultations. Those areas in which the null hypothesis was rejected included Total Years in Current Position, Highest Degree Earned, Numbers Teaching, and Organization Affiliation. The categories in which no statistical analysis was preformed included Rank/ Title of Survey Respondents, Student Affairs Employment of Faculty Respondents, Highest Student Affairs Position Held by Faculty Respondents, Total Years of Student Affairs Employment by Faculty Respondents, Faculty Appointments of Administrator Respondents, Teaching Discipline of Administrator Respondents, Years as a Faculty Member of Administrator Respondents, Professional Association Involvement, and Type of Involvement in Professional Associations. 117 Knowledge. Skills, and Competencies of Doctoral Preparation Program Graduates Two questions in Section Three of both the student affairs administration and preparation program faculty member surveys asked respondents to answer two questions. Question One asked respondents to identify, in their opinions and in rank order, the knowledge, skills and competencies that should be provided to and developed in students enrolled in a doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration. Question Two asked respondents to identify the types of courses, experiences, and areas of emphases that would best provide doctoral preparation program students with the competencies identified in Question One (see Appendices A and B for both faculty and administrator surveys). There was a high degree of survey completion among the respondents, with 97.6% of the administrators, and 91.4% of the faculty members responding to these questions. The format of both survey questions was open-ended, and the responses were first coded by the investigator and then entered into the computer for analysis. The null hypothesis for the first question stated that there was no difference between the perceptions of the student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators concerning the recommended knowledge, skills, experiences, and competencies for doctoral preparation programs. The null hypothesis for the second question stated that there was no difference between the perceptions of the student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators concerning the types of courses and experiences that should be offered in doctoral preparation programs. To determine if there were any significant differences between the 118 mean scores of the two groups of respondents, a chi-square analysis was originally calculated for each item in the two questions. However, because of the differences in the ranked importance by the respondents of the identified knowledge, skills, and competencies, the rankings had to be collapsed into broader categories so that the chi-square goodness-of-fit test, that no expected frequency (E-value) be less than 1, and, at most, 20% of the expected frequencies be less than 5, could be met (Weiss and Hassett, 1982:362). For the knowledge, skills, and competencies where the number of ranked responses by the survey respondents totaled less than 30, the Fisher's Exact Test was calculated to test the null hypothesis. IE I l S] '1] I C I . After scoring all of the responses to this open-ended question, the rankings for each identified knowledge, skill and competency were compiled to determine an overall ranking by both the student affairs administrator and preparation program faculty member respondents. The scorings were computed by assigning a numerical value to each item ranking. The top set of knowledge, skills and competencies identified by the student affairs administrator respondents, in rank order, included Human Development Theory, Budgeting and Finance, Human Resource Management, Counseling, Organizational Behavior and Development, Administrative and Management Skills, History of Higher Education and Student Affairs, Higher Education Administration, Research and Evaluation, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Communication Skills, Higher Education Law, Writing Skills, Leadership Skills, and Computer Technology. The top set of knowledge, skills and competencies identified by the preparation program faculty member respondents, in rank order, included 119 Research and Evaluation, Human Development Theory, Administrative and Management Skills, Organizational Behavior and Development, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Counseling, History of Higher Education and Student Affairs, American College Student, Higher Education Law, Budgeting and Finance, Higher Education Administration, Leadership Skills, Human Resource Management, Program Development and Evaluation, Writing Skills, and Computer Technology. After the top knowledge, skills, and competencies for each respondent type were identified, the ranking responses were entered into the computer and either a chi-square analysis, or a Fisher's Exact Test was computed to determine if there was any relationship between rankings of the items by the survey respondents. Tables 4.42 and 4.43 lists the top knowledge, skills and competencies identified by the survey respondents, the percentage of responses for each item, its chi-square or Fisher's statistic, and its level of significance. El 1' E11 II III! II . The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the perceptions of the student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators concerning the rankings of recommended knowledge, skills, and competencies for doctoral preparation programs, was retained for a majority of the ranked items. A brief analysis of each item is described below. Humanflexelemnentlhm As a knowledge, skill, or competency, human development theory was the top ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number two by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 50% of the student affairs administrator and 62.5% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a 120 knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Human development theory was ranked first or second by 65% of the preparation program faculty member and by 60% of the student affairs administrator respondents. ' B I I' I K As a knowledge, skill, or competency, budgeting and finance was the second ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number ten by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 62.5% of the student affairs administrator and 37.5% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Budgeting and finance was ranked first through sixth by 50% of the preparation program faculty member and by 76% of the student affairs administrator respondents. Went As a knowledge, skill, or competency, human resource management was the third ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number thirteen by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Many of the items related to human resource management were integrated into this area, including supervision, employee negotiation, personnel administration, performance appraisal and employee evaluation. Of the survey respondents, 52.5% of the student affairs administrator and 18.7% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Human resource management was ranked first through sixth by 66.7% of the preparation program faculty member and by 81% of the student affairs administrator respondents. 121 Re. 0A mém KM: came—0:53. SSQEOU Em. 3 26 6.8 mesa 955663 Sm. E «.66 m.~m 6:65 west; SH. «1 odm odm 33 concusum kiwi i... e; 93 Qmm maxm consumcsfifiou 3N. mé 9.3 0.9. .En< what/w .confim Co 82686— 98 8365.5 m8. TH aAm Qmm cozmfigm can soummmom 38. oé can Qmm cozmhmEmEu< cosmosnm cmcwm: EH. Y— odw mxm whet/w .5va can concusvm LEE: mo 32mm: emu. m4 Gnu mNm maxm Eofiowmcflz can o>_.mbm_58c< cow. mé New 93 assay—@2650 use 5323 Ecozmumcmqu 09 mA RNA Qmm manomcamu Rm. 0% 95 m.~m .cofiommcmE 82.08% SESI «S. 9" ads mNe 853E tam wcnowcsm 3K. NA ode 0.8 .3095. “cofimggofl p.863: mocmuficwmm was—:3— mwmucoouom www.coocmm Co 634 we owcmm EEO 3_ch So: 30,—. :8: Ecoucommom soumbmmfifigx EEE< acevfim Co momocozomfiou tam mac—m Jumps—BBQ 3533: N3. mqmfih 122 hue. c.” odm mNN xwflo—Boflw “Bum—:00 8.... 3 6.8 2: dim , we. Es ll 0% mg 93 conmfigm can “assume—gon— Emuwofi . Em. e; odm hwy .cofiowacmz 830QO 5:53 mam. 0.“ 58 c.- 32m E59833 v8. 0; 5mm QNN conmbflfifigx common—cm “came «4:. 0A 98 mxm museum was werewuam 3". «1 :N 9:4 3s..— coumoaum 55w“! ll. e; 0.8 mg “Spam owozou neurone fl. I own ad. a3? .5666 9.6 868:5 6.3: .6 has: 69. m; cdm mNe mam—emcsou SN. 2 mas 6.8 .83. £32 28% .6 86666.5 Es 816:5 98. mé mac odm Essie—250 use .8323 ficozmnmcmqu can. m; 9mm «cm 2.2m Eofiowmcm—z use gambmmfifiua‘ 3R NA ode mNo >825. “5.55350 555$ m8. Y~ ado flan aonmggm use :uumomom cosmocEwmm wfixcam owfluoouum . owsgouom mo 35‘— Co owns— .530 33am :5: 33. :8: 6.52863 8562 £364 .6 868.8560 ea aim $62392 3552 «3 RES. . 123 C 1' As a knowledge, skill, or competency, counseling was the fourth ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number six by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Many of the items related to counseling were integrated into this area, including interpersonal relations, mediation, group dynamics, conflict resolution, listening skills, and problem solving. Of the survey respondents, 55% of the student affairs administrator and 62.5% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Counseling was ranked first through fifth by 50% of the preparation program faculty member and by 72.7% of the student affairs administrator respondents. Q . I' l B l . l D l I As a knowledge, skill, or competency, organizational behavior and development was the fifth ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number four by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 45% of the student affairs administrator and 50% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Organizational behavior and development was ranked first through third by 62.5% of the preparation program faculty member and by 66.7% of the student affairs administrator respondents. 11"11' 1M .51." As a knowledge, skill, or competency, administrative and management skills was the sixth ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number three by the preparation program faculty 124 member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 37.5% of the student affairs administrator and 56.2% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Administrative and management skills was ranked first through third by 55.6% of the preparation program faculty member and by 73.3% of the student affairs administrator respondents. H'I EII'I E! l' 15'! IEEE' As a knowledge, skill, or competency, the history of higher education and student affairs was the seventh ranked choice of both the student affairs administrator and preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 37.5% of the student affairs administrator and 47% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. The history of higher education and student affairs was ranked first through fourth by 53.3% of the preparation program faculty member and by 80% of the student affairs administrator respondents. II'I El 1' 11"11' As a knowledge, skill, or competency, higher education administration was the eighth ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number eleven by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 35% of the student affairs administrator and 22% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Higher education administration was ranked first through sixth by 85.7% of the preparation program faculty member and by 78.6% of the student affairs administrator 125 respondents. 2"] 121° ESIIIEEE' H'°|l° As a knowledge, skill, or competency, the principles and practices of student affairs administration was the tenth ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number five by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 40% of the student affairs administrator and 50% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. The principles and practices of student affairs administration was ranked first through third by 62.5% of the preparation program faculty member and by 40% of the student affairs administrator respondents. If I E I l' I As a knowledge, skill, or competency, higher education law was the twelfth ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number nine by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 30% of the student affairs administrator and 41% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Higher education law was ranked first through fourth by 23.1% of the preparation program faculty member and by 50% of the student affairs administrator respondents. 11! '1' El '11 As a knowledge, skill, or competency, writing skills was the thirteenth ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number fifteen by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 32.5% of the student affairs administrator and 18.7% of 126 the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Writing skills was ranked first through sixth by 60% of the preparation program faculty member and by 69.2% of the student affairs administrator respondents. I l l . SI '1] As a knowledge, skill, or competency, leadership skills was the fourteenth ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number twelve by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 20% of the student affairs administrator and 22% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Leadership skills was ranked first through sixth by 85.7% of the preparation program faculty member and by 62.5% of the student affairs administrator respondents. Commrtefl‘nhnclch As a knowledge, skill, or competency, computer technology was the fifteenth ranked choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and ranked number sixteen by the preparation program faculty member respondents. Of the survey respondents, 18.7% of the student affairs administrator and 27.5% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Computer technology was ranked first through sixth by 50% of the preparation program faculty member and by 54.5% of the student affairs administrator respondents. 127 B. I. “I NIIH I] . The null hypothesis was rejected for only one item, research and evaluation. This could be anticipated since this item was the top choice of the preparation program faculty member respondents, and the ninth choice of the student affairs administrator respondents. Of the survey respondents, 55% of the student affairs administrator and 78.1% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a knowledge, skill or competency that should be provided to or developed in preparation program graduates. Research and evaluation was ranked first through fourth by 68% of the preparation program faculty member and by 31.9% of the student affairs administrator respondents. WW There were also three items for which an analysis was not computed since they were not ranked by both groups of survey respondents. These three items included communication skills, program development and evaluation, and the American College Student. Communication skills was ranked eleventh by the student affairs administrator respondents. It was chosen as a ranked knowledge, skill or competency by 35% of the respondents, and was ranked first through sixth by 57% of the administrator respondents. The American College Student was ranked eighth by the preparation program faculty member respondents. It was chosen as a ranked knowledge, skill or competency by 34.3% of the respondents, and was ranked first through sixth by 63.6% of the preparation program faculty member respondents. Program development and evaluation was ranked fourteenth by the preparation program faculty member respondents. It was chosen as a ranked knowledge, skill or competency by 25% of the respondents, and was ranked first 128 through sixth by 87.5% of the preparation program faculty member respondents. WWW Preparatien Program Qraduatg The first null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the perceptions of preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators concerning the recommended knowledge, skills, and competencies for doctoral preparation programs, was retained for a majority of the recommendations. The ranking of the knowledge, skills and competencies that should be provided to and developed in preparation program graduates by both types of survey respondents differed. The top set of knowledge, skills and competencies identified by the student affairs administrator respondents, in rank order, included Human Development Theory, Budgeting and Finance, Human Resource Management, Counseling, Organizational Behavior and Development, Administrative and Management Skills, History of Higher Education and Student Affairs, Higher Education Administration, Research and Evaluation, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Communication Skills, Higher Education Law, Writing Skills, Leadership Skills, and Computer Technology. The top set of knowledge, skills and competencies identified by the preparation program faculty member respondents, in rank order, included Research and Evaluation, Human Development Theory, Administrative and Management Skills, Organizational Behavior and Development, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Counseling, History of Higher Education and Student Affairs, American College Student, Higher Education Law, Budgeting and Finance, Higher Education Administration, Leadership 129 Skills, Human Resource Management, Program Development and Evaluation, Writing Skills, and Computer Technology. Though there were differences in the rankings, the null hypothesis was retained for all items except for Research and Evaluation, in which the relationship between the ranking of this item by the survey respondents was found to be statistically significant. Three items, Communication Skills, the American College Student, and Program Development and Evaluation were not ranked by both survey respondents, and consequently a statistical analysis was not performed. Doctoral Preparation Courses and Experienees Question Two in Section Three of both preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator surveys asked respondents to identify the types of courses, experiences and areas of emphases that would best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies that they identified in Question Two (see Appendices A and B for both faculty and administrator surveys). There was again a high degree of question completion among the respondents, with 97.6% of the administrators, and 91.4% of the faculty members responding to the question. The format of the question was open- ended, and the responses were first coded by the investigator and then entered into the computer for analysis. The null hypothesis for this question stated that there was no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administration preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators concerning the types of courses and experiences that should be offered in doctoral preparation programs. To determine if there were any significant differences between the mean scores of the two respondent groups, an analysis of variance was 130 calculated. There were some responses for which it was not possible to perform an analysis of variance because they were only selected by one respondent group. These responses included Psychology, Seminars, Writing, and Communication Skills. 1 WW After scoring all of the responses to this open-ended question, the identified courses and experiences were entered into the computer so that frequencies, respondent means, and an analysis of variance could be calculated. The top set of courses and experiences identified by the student affairs administrators, in order of choice, included Internships, Practicum Opportunities, Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Higher Education, Cognate Studies, Research and Evaluation, Counseling, Management Theory, Budgeting and Finance, Higher Education Administration, Professional Development and Evaluation, Human Development Theory, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Higher Education Law, Organizational Behavior and Development, Seminars, Assistantships, Independent Study, Psychology, Leadership Skills, Human Resource Management, Writing, Computer Technology, and the American College Student. The top set of courses and experiences identified by the preparation program faculty members, in order of choice, included Research and Evaluation, Budgeting and Finance, Internships, Organizational Behavior and Development, Counseling, Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Higher Education, Human Development Theory, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Human Resource Management, Higher Education Law, Practicum Opportunities, Higher Education Administration, Computer Technology, American College Student, Independent Study, Management 131 ......5.:. .6 £32.... 8.. 5.; x...m..m....... ..... 3.. 3. m c mgr; 1.. 6.: 3. s o 6.2.88 8.3 man odo— 2 mm acted—9m 6.8 5833. 1. 6.2 a... m o 36.9.6464 3N mxm mi 2 v 286.5350 .228805 «N— mdu «.3. a Z 5283:3834 £53. .5036 *0 80206.5 98 83655 R. ddo ddm v.6. m 8:33:0me 5502095 mad mss adv K 3 EmEm0E>0Q d 835:5 3:023:8qu and odm «.6 NF m .3005. Emfiowmcm—z mu. m.- No m N Sofia—2050 958634 Na. 36 0.3. R E 826525 E. mfi 3: m m beam 263866:— 8.0 3: «.8 v 2 208%ng 0050a; :25: mm." Qmm Q; S Q .3005. 2330.039 5.551 mmd m5. 9:. 3 m— cozmuzcm Sawf do mconadcsom REESE—Em use BEBE: cm; 92 «.8 m. 2 33 cosmoscm 3:3: end mxm QE 2 o conchmEEE 52835 8:3: as mam men 2 2 5.62.80. 8N ms od~ m e .Amgoczufl. Logdfiou ..... dd ms c m m=§m cozmuEsfiEou Ed can vd 3 m 862m Eacmou 8N msm d5. 2 2 00:65”— ?8 manomezm Kmé QB Nd o N 3295333.. omd Qm an: N m Emdam owe—BU 502052 .Ev< dam .83.. dam f.— 0w25206— 896:2 mmusou Emvzommmm .323. .3 mmocmtomxm 0cm JEFF—sou note—om 3i. mam}: 132 Theory, Cognate Studies, Communication Skills, Professional Development and Evaluation, Leadership Skills, Assistantships. After the top courses and experiences for each respondent type were identified, the responses were entered into the computer and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated. Table 4.44 lists the top courses and experiences as identified by the survey respondents, the percentage of responses for each item, and its F-statistic from the ANOVA. WW1: The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the perceptions of preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents concerning the types of courses and experiences that should be offered in doctoral preparation programs, was retained for a majority of the selected items. A brief analysis of each item is described below. Intsmshipa As an experience, Internships were the top choice of the student affairs administrators and the third choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 67.5% of the student affairs administrator and 44% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified internships as an experience that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Internships as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared to the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was a significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from 133 this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that the use of Internships contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. E I' Q I 'I' As an experience, Practicum Opportunities was the second choice of the student affairs administrators and the eleventh choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 60.0% of the student affairs administrator and 25% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified practicum opportunities as an experience that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Practicum Opportunities as an experience, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared to the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was a significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that the use of Practicum Opportunities contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. Hi rialnPhil hi lFun in inhrE i As a course or area of emphasis, the Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Higher Education was the third choice of the student affairs administrators and the fifth choice of the preparation program faculty 134 members. Of the survey respondents, 47.5% of the student affairs administrators and 41% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of the Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Higher Education as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified'it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administratorrespondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that a course in the Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Higher Education contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. W As a course or area of emphasis, Cognate Studies was the fourth choice of the student affairs administrator and the seventeenth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 35% of the student affairs administrators and 9.4% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified cognate studies as courses, or areas of emphases that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Cognate Studies as courses or areas of emphases, 135 an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the AN OVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was a significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Cognate Studies contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. Researchjnflxalnatim As a course, experience or area of emphasis, Research and Evaluation was the fifth choice of the student affairs administrator and the top choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 32.5% of the student affairs administrators and 100% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, experience or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Research and Evaluation as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was a significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that preparation program faculty member respondents felt more positive than student affairs administrator respondents that a course in Research and Evaluation contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of .doctoral preparation programs should possess. 136 Slamming As a course, experience or area of emphasis, Counseling was the sixth choice of the student affairs administrator and the eighth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 32.5% of the student affairs administrators and 37.5% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, experience or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Counseling as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Counseling contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. ManagemenLIhem As a course or area of emphasis, Management Theory Was the seventh choice of the student affairs administrator and the sixteenth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 30% of the student affairs administrators and 9.4% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as'a course or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey 137 respondents in the choice of Management Theory as a course or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated with compare the means. An F score was computed from the AN OVA, and when compared to the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was a significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Management Theory contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. B I l' I K As a course, experience or area of emphasis, Budgeting and Finance was the eighth choice of the student affairs administrator and the second choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 27.5% of the student affairs administrators and 47% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, experience or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Budgeting and Finance as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Budgeting and Finance contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral 138 preparation programs should possess. Hi] E! I' H ..| l' As a course, experience or area of emphasis, Higher Education Administration was the ninth choice of the student affairs administrator and the twelfth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 27.5% of the student affairs administrators and 19% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, experience or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. ' To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Higher Education Administration as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Higher Education Administration contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. WW As a course or experience, Professional Development was the tenth choice of the student affairs administrator and the nineteenth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 27.5% of the student affairs administrators and 12.5% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, experience or area of emphasis 139 that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Professional Development as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the AN OVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Professional Development contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. W As a course or area of emphasis, Human Development Theory was the eleventh choice of the student affairs administrator and the sixth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 25% of the student affairs administrators and 41% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Human Development Theory as a course or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from 140 this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Human Development Theory contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. 2"] IE I' ESIIIEEE' H"ll° As a course, experience or area of emphasis, the Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration was the twelfth choice of the student affairs administrator and the seventh choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 22.5% of the student affairs administrators and 34.4% of the preparation program faculty member respondentsidentified it as'a course, experience or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that the Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. 141 H' l E I I' I As a course, experience or area of emphasis, Higher Education Law was the thirteenth choice of the student affairs administrator and the tenth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 17.5% of the student affairs administrators and 31.2% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, experience or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Higher Education Law as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared With the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Higher Education Law contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. As a course, experience or area of emphasis, Organizational Behavior and Development was the fourteenth choice of the student affairs administrator and the fourth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 17.5% of the student affairs administrators and 43.8% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, experience or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, 142 and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Organizational Behavior and Development as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the AN OVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was a significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that preparation program faculty member respondents felt more positive than student affairs administrator respondents that a course in Organizational Behavior and Development contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. E . I I l . As an experience, Assistantships were the fifteenth choice of the student affairs administrator and the twenty-first choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 15% of the student affairs administrators and 6.2% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as an experience that-could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Assistantships as an experience, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more 143 positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Assistantships contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. W As a course or experience, Independent Study was the sixteenth choice of the student affairs administrator and the fifteenth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 12.5% of the student affairs administrators and 16% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course or experience that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Independent Study as a course or experience, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Independent Study contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. I I l . S] '1] As a course or experience, Leadership Skills was the seventeenth choice of the student affairs administrator and the twentieth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 12.5% of the student affairs administrators and 6.2% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course or experience that could best provide 144 doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Leadership Skills as a course or experience, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that the development of Leadership Skills contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. Humanficsnananagemsm As a course, experience or area of emphasis, Human Resource Management was the eighteenth choice of the student affairs administrator and the ninth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 10% of the student affairs administrators and 33.4% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, experience or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Human Resource Management as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was a 145 significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that preparation program faculty member respondents felt more positive than student affairs administrator respondents that Human Resource Management contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. CnmnutcLIcchnnlogx As a course or experience, Computer Technology was the nineteenth choice of the student affairs administrator and the thirteenth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 7.5% of the student affairs administrators and 19% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course, experience or area of emphasis that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of Computer Technology as a course, experience, or area of emphasis, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that Computer Technology contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. . 146 W As a course, the American College Student was the twentieth choice of the student affairs administrator and the fourteenth choice of the preparation program faculty members. Of the survey respondents, 16% of the student affairs administrators and 5% of the preparation program faculty member respondents identified it as a course that could best provide doctoral preparation program students with the knowledge, skills, and competencies described in the previous section. To determine if there was a significant difference between survey respondents in the choice of the American College Student as a course, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference between the means. Though both respondent types identified it in their responses, from this analysis it could be determined that student affairs administrator respondents had not felt more positive than preparation program faculty member respondents that a course in the American College Student contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that graduates of doctoral preparation programs should possess. Wm There were also four items for which an analysis of variance was not computed since they were not chosen by both groups of survey respondents. These four items included Seminars, Psychology, Writing, and Communication Skills. Seminars was selected by student affairs administrator respondents as a course that contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that should be provided to students in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs 147 administration. It was chosen by 17.5% of the student affairs administrator respondents. Psychology was selected by student affairs administrator respondents as a course or area of emphasis that contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that should be provided to students in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. It was chosen by 12.5% of the student affairs administrator respondents. Writing was selected by student affairs administrator respondents as a course or area of emphasis that contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that should be provided to students in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. It was chosen by 7.5% of the student affairs administrator respondents. Communication Skills was selected by preparation program faculty member respondents as a course or experience that contributed to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that should be provided to students in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. It was chosen by 9.4% of the preparation program faculty member respondents. Summary of Doctoral Preparation Courses and Experiences The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administrator and preparation program faculty member respondents concerning the types of courses, experiences and areas of emphases that should be offered in doctoral preparation programs, was retained 63% of the time. The courses, experiences, and areas of emphases in which the null hypothesis was retained included the Historical and Philosophical Principles of Higher Education, Counseling, Budgeting and Finance, Higher Education Administration, Professional Development, 148 Human Development Theory, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Higher Education Law, Assistantships, Independent Study, Leadership Skills, Computer Technology, and the American College Student. The courses, experiences, and areas of emphases in which the null hypothesis was rejected included Internships, Practicum Opportunities, Cognate Studies, Research and Evaluation, Management Theory, Organizational Behavior and Development, and Human Resource . Management. There were four courses, experiences, or areas of emphases in which no comparison could be made since the items were only chosen by one of the survey respondents. These items included Psychology, Writing, Communication Skills, and Seminars. CAS Perceptions Section Four of both the preparation program faculty member and student affairs administration questionnaires asked respondents to read a summary of the "Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Degree Level for Student Services / Development Professionals in Postsecondary Education" prepared by the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services and Development Programs (CAS, 1986), and respond to the following question, "What effects do you believe these Master's Degree standards will have on Doctoral preparation programs?" They responded to this question by answering a series of eight questions (see Appendices A and B for faculty and administrator surveys). The intent of these questions was to analyze the perceptions of both the preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators about how the CAS Standards could affect doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. 149 The null hypothesis for these questions stated that there was no difference between the responses of the student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators to the questions regarding the effect the CAS Standards may have on doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. To determine if there were any significant differences between the mean scores of the two groups of respondents, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was calculated for each question. Table 4.45 and Table 4.46 provides the percentage of respondents, means, standard deviations, and F scores of both respondent types. Each question was accompanied by a four-point scale with the following rating: Strongly Agree=4, Agree=3, Disagree=2, and Strongly Disagree=1. An assessment of each question is listed below. Question #1: They will help improve the quality of doctoral preparation programs by encouraging them to at least meet the minimum standards recommended for the Master's level. The mean score for this question was slightly higher, 3.18, for the student affairs administrator respondents than for the preparation program faculty member respondents, 2.91. The student affairs administrator respondents were slightly more optimistic that the standards for Master's degree programs may contribute to the improvement of doctoral preparation program standards than were the preparation program faculty member respondents. Statistically, there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the two respondent types. Based on the F score computed from the analysis of variance, when compared with the F score from the statistical table at the 95% confidence level, the null hypothesis could not be rejected. Therefore, it could be determined that though the higher mean score of the student affairs 150 son..— ..woé toad LAN LN.— ..mvN *mvd tom; Nab. Nmo. wme. owv. mum. Sm. cum. So. .D.m med Na.— 3N mod mm.— mod mfim 36. :32 ——_.¢—J.d.4—_ to I.d.4—..A afia «1..» ——~_/’ AV.“ m fawn—I \lllllll III In «.8 Adm Nam fimm fimm fima fimm fimm GE 2mm mmcommmm .88on :3:2§EEU< :32833 .23: a mo 228956 a 3 Eco 2:9? cosmbm_:_EU< 853‘ .5635 :2: 63:69 on? 39: be £253 @6303 E3 .35. .mumnEmE 5:68 332 ES. 2 3.2.5 6%: on 53 9:8on song—~35 .8280 .mESwoa :ozmhmmma $3663 .8“ Eamovm on E? mtumncmfi 325. 682on .8286 28:3 :o gumbo o: «>2 EB .35. . .55on 53635.2“ .32ro m .8 v8: 2: 982836 33986 ~85 mo 83m: m>8§£$d§8 9:. dong—358% mo 88 638mm «.85 a 2 $58 E—Emcmw m :8: Emuwoa :ozmummma 122906 9: 5.7. E? >23. .mEEwoa 38606 ..8 33655 .6 €25“ng 95 “$8385 53 >22. .32: $3.32 2: how 3988882 $686.87. 53558 2: .85 “was 8 2 82: wEmeoozm .3 mESwoi consummma .8286 no .3536 2: 63:95 Em; E? .35. 558:0 :nmmuwmmmo bwcozm “Nummuwmmfi ..mumflwaw “vummuwa‘ bwcobmv @958on concummma .8280 so 32 53 £82283. 98me 9.5.32 of 36:99 so» op 325m “23.. muofibflfifiwoxx .3 €59.33 m2. omN EN EN :83. 8.3 u. 3 v.3 v.3 M6... NS .38 vém .98. 25. 282.8% .8888 82.8.2883. 8.8880 82...... a 8 82.888 8 2. >.8 p.323 828.288.... 8.8... .862m .8.. 82.2. 2.3 82.. 8. .8238 828:. ...3 >2. ... 82.888 5.38. 82:. 88. 2 >..2:m 8m: 2. ...3 8888 8:88.88 .8280 8888:. :28888 .828: .8. 8.8.8 2. ...3 8.8.288 82.... 888on .8288 88:5 :0 82.8 0: ~58. ...3 >2. ... . 88on 8:88.85 .8286 m 8. .82. 2.. 2.2.83.8 88.288 88;. 8 8.5.8. 8282.82.88 2. ... 82.8.2888 8 88 2.82.... 288 m 2 8. .m..828w a 88. 888.... 2.2.88.2“. .828U 2.. .....m ...3 >2. ... .88w8n. .828: .8. 88.28% .0 8882.288“. 2.. 88.828 ...3 >2. ... . ..88. p.283. 2.. .8. 8288882 288.88 838.88 2.. .88 .82 .m 2 82.. 838.828 >9 m88woa 82.88.88 .828: .8 >58... 2.. 8888. 22. ...3 >2. ... :o..8:0 288880 >.w8:m £88820 8.883. 888w... >.w:o:m. .8888on 82.88.88. .8280 :8 «>8. ...3 88.887. 8.580 98.8.). 2.. 82.2. 30> o: 28.8 .82... 82.883. 3.38... >9 88.285 mn< 33:88 5:68 5:3 x53 98 2. Sam—288835 mo oncom mo “5855350 3. .nmznsm .5238 836:8 9 3231‘ 2. comma—«momma «0 35A zwmm .2. hoof. poocm>c< «0 363m on. E85. p853)». mo vam mm. commummmfi we 58on 3850 3. £36 godmomom panama 8. 83m E58684 8* conmummoi om. Enmuflogum. mo ~26.— nwf we. mEmuSonom No 325 swam we. mmEmEBE paw mmEmacfimmmm’x 5:30 3. mExm nonaomom vocmwm masoncommom mzcmncommom as momcommmm ..ozmbm_:_8n< as .momcommmm :93on :20: 80c EEwoR :ozfimmma 8..on £232 a .65 moocmtomxm can mwumrsosx mo be: on. E «ESE Samoa consummofi 18826 a moon :23 32:30 So» 5.. mucoocommom :3 c.0530 acumen :osmummoi 9 momsommom mZESQEoU 3 .v mum—<9 160 thinking (12%), the opportunity to translate theory into practice (12%), and the opportunity to obtain instructional experiences (12%). Table 4.47 presents both the preparation program faculty and student affairs administrator responses and the percentage of respondents who identified each response. _SQmmary of Master's Versus Doctoral Preparation Programs When asked what doctoral preparation programs provided in the way of knowledge and experiences that a Master's Degree program does not, the faculty member and student affairs respondents identified collectively the following items: quality assistantships and internships, a high level of scholarship, refined research skills, and the study of advanced theory. The faculty member respondents also identified the following items: the preparation of leadership roles, general program of preparation, the ability to conduct research, publish, and work with faculty members, the opportunity to obtain advanced knowledge of organizational theory and development, and the ability to integrate cognate studies into a program of study. The student affairs administrators also identified the following items: a high level of specialization, the development of a sense of professionalism, the development of critical thinking, the opportunity to translate theory into practice, and the opportunity to obtain instructional experiences. Institutional Rankings Question three in Section Three of the survey instrument sent to both preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators asked each respondent to rank, according to three criteria, five institutions believed to 161 have high quality doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration (see Appendices A and B for faculty and administrator surveys). The null hypothesis for this question was that there was no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administration preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators concerning the ranking of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. The three criteria used to rank these doctoral preparation programs and to test this hypothesis included quality of graduate faculty, effectiveness of doctoral program, and change in the preparation program over the last five years. In the assessment of a preparation program's quality of graduate faculty, the respondents were asked to also consider its scholarly competence and achievements. The numerical ranking for this criterion was 1=Distinguished, 2=Strong, 3=Good, 4=Insufficient Information. For the assessment of the effectiveness of doctoral programs, the respondents were asked to take into account the accessibility of the faculty and its scholarly competence, the curricula, the instructional and research facilities, the quality of graduate students, and other factors that contributed to the effectiveness of a doctoral program. The numerical ranking for this criterion was 1=Extremely Effective, =Effective, 3=Acceptable, 4=Insufficient Information. In assessing the change in the doctoral program over the last five years, respondents were asked to consider these changes from an absolute sense by comparing the programs chosen to what they had to offer five years earlier. The numerical ranking for this criterion was 1=Better, 2=Little or No Change, 3=Insufficient Information. The rankings of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration were as follows: 162 663:. _o 32w"... a.“ .53 mmdumcm; E38: 3 82?". as 5.3 2.?83 588: 2o 82»qu ma .23 wanna": E38: 3 893% man 5.3 gang? 6353 _o semen mm.“ 5;. «Sums? 588.. .o semen Ba 5.: 8.08.": E88: 3 824% SN 5? Banana 6352. .0 semen 3m .23 madame? ...... E S. .... 3 od 3 ed 4 -.. Esta: .0 basic: :3. E 2.. 8% S 5 week. o.~ 3 m m bases: 23. 8:6: ...... od 2 ...... ad 3 ...... 9o 3 -.. 4 swaso .6 3333:: a3 3 3 6:: «a 3 «SN 3 2 m m 52265 2% 5&222 6:: S M: is. S S 66%. E f N N bases: 2% 2.50 83. .2 3 can“. 3 3 «Km. 3 3 _ _ 3383:: 223 .53 .5 .63. 2a .53. can mowzmsu $283.8me chu—amm .Eu< dam m 88on m 58on m Ho 3:250 678% sexism:— flzoucommmm xmism mo mev—cmm 3:25:85 .8. mucoom :82 £3 mafia. 163 Faculty Rankings Administrator Rankings 1. Indiana University 1. Indiana University 2. Ohio State University 2. Ohio State University 3. Michigan State University 3. Florida State University 4. University of Georgia 4. University of Maryland 5. Florida State University 5. Michigan State University I i i l ' i n Indiana University was the top choice of both the student affairs administrator and preparation program faculty member respondents. The mean score for the quality of faculty criteria was 1.8 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 1.9 for the student affairs administrator respondents. For program effectiveness, the mean score was 1.9 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 2.0 for the student affairs administrator respondents. The mean score for the program changes criteria was 2.0 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 2.2 for the student affairs administrator respondents. To determine if there was a significant difference between the survey respondents and the three preparation program criteria, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score. table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the respondents. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the perceptions of preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators concerning the ranking of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration, could not be rejected for any of the three criteria. Table 4.48 shows the rankings, mean criteria scores, and F scores of both survey respondents. Ohio State University was the next choice of both the student affairs administrator and faculty member respondents. The mean score for the quality 164 of faculty criteria was 1.6 for the preparation prOgram faculty member respondents and 1.7 for the student affairs administrator respondents. For program effectiveness, the mean score was 1.9 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 1.7 for the student affairs administrator respondents. The mean score for the program changes criteria was 1.8 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 1.9 for the student affairs administrator respondents. To determine if there was a significant difference between the survey respondents and the three preparation program criteria, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the respondents. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the perceptions of preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators concerning the ranking of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration, could not be rejected for any of the three criteria. Table 4.48 shows the rankings, mean criteria scores, and F scores of both survey respondents. Michigan State University was the third choice of the preparation program faculty member respondents and the fifth choice of the student affairs administrator respondents. The mean score for the quality of faculty criteria was 2.2 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 2.6 for the student affairs administrator respondents. For program effectiveness, the mean score was 2.1 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 2.4 for the student affairs administrator respondents. The mean score for the program changes criteria was 1.9 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 2.1 for the student affairs administrator respondents. 165 To determine if there was a significant difference between the survey respondents and the three preparation program criteria, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the AN OVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the respondents. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the perceptions of preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators concerning the ranking of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration, could not be rejected for any of the three criteria. Table 4.48 shows the rankings, mean criteria scores, and F scores of both survey respondents. The University of Georgia was the fourth choice of the preparation program faculty member respondents, and was not one of the top five choices of the student affairs administrator respondents. The mean score for the quality of faculty criteria was 2.2. For program effectiveness, the mean score was 2.3. The mean score for the program changes criteria was 1.7. Since this institution was ranked by only one respondent type, no statistical analysis could be calculated. Table 4.48 shows the ranking, and mean criteria scores given by the preparation program faculty member respondents. The University of Maryland was the fourth choice of the student affairs administrator respondents, and was not one of the top five choices of the preparation program faculty member respondents. The mean score for the quality of faculty criteria was 1.9. For program effectiveness, the mean score was 1.9. The mean score for the program changes criteria was 1.7 Since this institution was selected by only one respondent type, no statistical analysis could be calculated. Table 4.48 shows the ranking, and mean criteria scores given by the student affairs administrator respondents. 166 Florida State University was the fifth choice of the preparation program faculty member respondents and the third choice of the student affairs administrator respondents. The mean score for the quality of faculty criteria was 2.1 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 2.0 for the student affairs administrator respondents. For program effectiveness, the mean score was 1.7 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 1.9 for the student affairs administrator respondents. The mean score for the program changes criteria was 2.1 for the preparation program faculty member respondents and 2.1 for the student affairs administrator respondents. To determine if there was a significant difference between the survey respondents and the three preparation program criteria, an analysis of variance was calculated to compare the means. An F score was computed from the ANOVA, and when compared with the F score table at the 95% confidence level, there was no significant difference in the mean scores of the respondents for the quality of the faculty and program changes. There was a statistically significant difference in the means between survey respondents for program effectiveness. The preparation program faculty member respondents felt the program effectiveness of Florida State University’s doctoral preparation program was stronger than did the student affairs administrator respondents. The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the perceptions of professional preparation program faculty members and those of student affairs administrators concerning the ranking of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration, could not be rejected for the quality of faculty and program changes criteria, but could for the program effectiveness criterium. Table 4.48 shows the rankings, mean criteria scores, and F scores of both survey respondents. A follow-up question to this section also asked respondents, if they 167 ranked a doctoral preparation program to be "better than five years ago" to specify the factors that influenced their evaluation. The most common responses by both preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators included new faculty appointments, the maturity of the current faculty, the strengthening of the preparation program, the increased number of faculty appointments, and the quality of research productivity. The response rate to this question on the ranking of preparation programs was low for both faculty members and administrators. Fifty-eight percent (24) of all student affairs administrators responded to this section of questions, and sixty-eight percent (24) of all preparation program faculty members responded. The primary reasons provided by the respondents for choosing not to answer this section of questions were their inability to assess the quality of doctoral preparation programs, and their lack of knowledge about doctoral preparation programs. Summary of Institutional Rankings The null hypothesis, that there was no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administration preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators concerning the ranking and characteristics of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration, was retained for a majority of the items. The ranking of doctoral preparation programs by the survey respondents differed. The preparation program faculty member respondents ranked the preparation programs in the following order: Indiana University, Ohio State University, Michigan State University, University of Georgia, and Florida State University. The student affairs administrator respondents ranked the preparation programs in this order: Indiana University, Ohio State University, Florida 168 State University, University of Maryland, and Michigan State University. Under the categories of Quality of Faculty and Program Changes, the mean scores from the survey respondents for each institution did not differ significantly and the null hypothesis was retained. Under the category of Program Effectiveness, the mean scores of the survey respondents for each institution did not differ significantly except for the mean score for Florida State University. The preparation program faculty member respondents felt that the effectiveness of the program was stronger than did the student affairs administrator respondents. Characteristics of Quality Doctoral Preparation Programs Following the identification of the six quality doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration by faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents, survey packages were mailed to the Program Coordinators of these preparation programs (see Appendix C for program coordinator survey). The intent of the questionnaires was to compile the characteristics that exemplified top preparation programs as identified by the initial survey respondents. Four of the Program Coordinators returned the questionnaires, for a response rate of 67%. Pr r ' Pr ra ra i Question One asked respondents to identify what percentage of their doctoral program concentrated on the following areas: Administration, Student Development, Counseling, and Other. Administration was the prevalent concentration of the preparation programs, comprising 50% of the curriculum. The range of emphasis for Administration was 10% to 90%. Student Development was the second highest concentration of the preparation programs, comprising 27% of the curriculum. The range of emphasis for 169 Student Development was 0% to 60%. Counseling was the third highest concentration of the preparation programs, comprising 12.5% of the curriculum. The range of emphasis for Counseling was 0% to 30%. The Other category was the fourth highest concentration of the preparation programs, comprising 10.5% of the curriculum. Cognate studies or areas of emphases were identified as the types of areas that fell within the Other category. The range of emphasis for Other was 0% to 32%. Table 4.49 shows the areas of concentration, curriculum percentages, and range of emphasis. TABLE 4.49 - Preparation Program Concentration by Survey Respondents Concentration Curriculum Percentage Range of Emphasis Administration 50.0 10 - 90 Student Development 27.0 0 - 60 Counseling 12.5 0 - 30 Other 10.5 0 - 32 Total 100.0 I I l' E' l' E C I . Question Two asked respondents to identify the competencies which were developed in graduates of their doctoral preparation program. Seventy- five percent (3) of the Program Coordinators responded to this question. The responses varied according to program emphasis. Some competencies and/ or knowledge were identified by all Program Coordinators. These items included Research Design and Statistical Methods, History of Higher Education, Higher Education Administration, and the History and Philosophy of Student Affairs Administration. There were also items identified by two-thirds of the Program Coordinator respondents. These items included Knowledge of Human 170 Development Theory and Application, and Student Development Theory and Intervention Practices. The remainder of the competencies and knowledge identified by the Program Coordinators included Applied Skills, Assessment, Budgeting and Finance, Career Development Theory and Application, Counseling, Group Dynamics and Group Practice, Human Development and Psychometric Assessment/ Measurement Techniques, Instruction and Faculty Consultation, Organizational Theory/ Dynamics and Behavior, Philosophy of Education, Politics of Higher Education, Research on College Students, and Systems Intervention. Table 4.50 presents the competencies identified by the Program Coordinators and their response rate by percentage. TABLE 4.50 - Preparation Program Competencies by Survey Respondents Competency Response Rate (%) Higher Education Administration 100.0 History of Higher Education 100.0 History and Philosophy of Student Affairs Administration 100.0 Research Design and Statistical Methods 100.0 Human Development Theory and Application 67.0 Student Development Theory and Intervention Practices 67.0 Applied Skills 34.0 Assessment 34.0 Budgeting and Finance 34.0 Career Development Theory and Application 34.0 Counseling 34.0 Group Dynamics and Group Practice 34.0 Human Development and Psychometric Assessment Tech. 34.0 Instruction and Faculty Consultation 34.0 Organizational Theory/ Dynamics and Behavior 34.0 Philosophy of Education 34.0 Politics of Higher Education 34.0 Research on College Students 34.0 Systems Intervention 34.0 171 W Question Three asked respondents to identify how the competencies and knowledge determined in Question Two were measured. Seventy-five percent (3) of the Program Coordinators responded to this question. The most common measurements identified included Comprehensive Examinations and the writing and defense of a Dissertation. In addition, Written Examinations, Faculty Observations and Formative Feedback, and Field Experience Evaluations were also identified as competency and knowledge measurement techniques. Other forms of competency and knowledge measurement included Coursework, Oral Examinations, Peer Evaluations, and the Writing of Papers. B I' I Q I 'l' Question Four asked survey respondents to list the remedial actions available to students who did not sufficiently demonstrate a required competency. Seventy-five percent (3) of the Program Coordinators responded to this question. The most commonly-noted remedial action was the repeating of particular coursework. Other remedial opportunities included the development of individualized remedial programs which were designed by the student's doctoral committee, student referral to an on-campus laboratory to assist in competency development, and special instructor assignments. Some additional remedial opportunities included repeating comprehensive examinations, and advising and counseling students which may result in their transferring to another program or voluntarily withdrawing from the preparation program. W The next two questions dealt with doctoral preparation program courses. Question Five asked Program Coordinators if the preparation programs they 172 administered had any student affairs courses designed exclusively for doctoral students. All four Program Coordinators acknowledged that their programs contained courses designed specifically for doctoral students. Question Six asked the respondents to list the titles of those courses designed for doctoral preparation program students. Eleven courses were identified, including Advanced Practica in Student Affairs Administration, Advanced Seminar in Student Affairs Administration, Advanced Seminar in Student Development Theory, American College Student, Environmental Assessment and Design, First Year Doctoral Seminar, Law and Higher Education, Research Seminar in Counseling and Human Development Services, Second Year Doctoral Seminar, Seminar in Organizational Development in Student Affairs Administration, and Student Affairs Internships. Doctoralkmgramfitmgthmndflnknesm Question Seven asked respondents to note what they considered to be the strengths and weaknesses of the doctoral program which they administered. All four Program Coordinators responded to this question with detail and candor. The items identified by Program Coordinators that contributed to the strength of their doctoral preparation programs included the long term continuity of the teaching faculty, the breadth of the‘program, faculty members' work experience in upper levels of student affairs administration, the ability to place students in a wide variety of internships and assistantships both on and off campus, the close relationships that develop between students and faculty members, the close relationships that develop between doctoral students, a large, loyal and helpful alumni/ae network, and the high degree of program credibility and placement. Additional preparation program strengths included the high visibility of faculty members on a national and international 173 level, the individualized approach to program studies, special projects available outside of formal classroom experiences, the quality of preparation program faculty members, the availability of an Institute of Higher Education as a means of student support, an emphasis on student development theory and application, the opportunities for teaching experiences, strong student affairs staff, the opportunities for research experiences, and the strong relationships with counseling and psychology programs. The weakness within these quality doctoral preparation programs as identified by their Program Coordinators included the heavy reliance upon a limited number of faculty members, the limited number of internship sites, the lack of paid internships, an insufficient number of graduate assistantships, the inability to secure specialized sections of research methodology/ statistics courses tailored to the specific needs of student affairs administration students, and the use of semi-retired faculty because of the difficulty experienced in hiring full-time faculty members. Brenaratinmlimgramflanges Question Eight asked respondents what types of program changes occurred in the doctoral program over the past' five years. All four Program Coordinators responded to this question. Many of the program changes appeared quite extensive and included establishing a clearer difference between the Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs, adding additional course offerings, expanding the number of available graduate assistantships, moving to a competency-based curriculum, completely revising the program curriculum, increasing the number of faculty members, and receiving CACREP accreditation. W The ninth and final question asked respondents to identify any future program changes being discussed, planned, or anticipated. Seventy-five percent 174 (3) of the Program Coordinators noted possible changes being considered in their doctoral preparation programs. These changes included the addition of new faculty members, the complete overhaul of the doctoral program curriculum, securing more funding support for graduate assistantships and fellowships within the academic program, the expansion of the emphases opportunities in the program, and securing a wider range of assistantships within and related to student affairs administration. Summary of the Characteristics of Quality Doctoral Preparation Programs In assessing the content and concentration of those programs identified as quality doctoral preparation programs by the faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents, the following characteristics were noted by the Program Coordinators responsible for administering their program. Administration was the prevalent concentration of most programs, comprising 50% of the curriculum. Student Development was the second highest concentration, comprising 27% of the curriculum, and Counseling was the third highest concentration, comprising 12.5% of the curriculum. An Other category, whose concentration included cognate studies or areas of emphases, stood in fourth place and comprised 10.5% of the curriculum. Program Coordinators identified nineteen competencies and understandings which were developed in graduates of their doctoral programs. The most prevalent choices included Research Design and Statistical Methods, History of Higher Education, Higher Education Administration, and the History and Philosophy of Student Affairs Administration. Ten competency measures were identified by Program Coordinators. The most common forms of measurement included Comprehensive Examinations, the writing and defense of the Dissertation, Written 175 Examinations, Faculty Observations and Formative Feedback, and Field Experience Evaluations. The remedial opportunities for doctoral students included a wide range of alternatives. The most common were the repeating of particular coursework, the development of individualized remedial programs designed by the student's doctoral committee, student referral to an on-campus laboratory, and special instructor assignments. All of the Program Coordinator respondents stated there were courses in the programs they administer that were designed specifically for doctoral students. Eleven courses were listed; two were related to practica and internships, six were seminars, and three were regular courses. A varied and detailed description of preparation program strengths and weaknesses were offered by the Program Coordinator respondents. The most predominant strengths included the long term continuity of the teaching faculty, program breadth, faculty member's work experiences in upper levels of student affairs administration, the ability to place students in a wide variety of assistantships and internships, close faculty-student relationships, and the high degree of program credibility and placement. Preparation program weaknesses included the heavy reliance on specific faculty members, the limited number of internship sites, the lack of paid internships, an insufficient number of graduate assistantships, the inability to secure profession-specific research methodology/ statistics courses, and the inability to hire full-time faculty members. Seven items were identified by the Program Coordinator respondents concerning the types of changes that have occurred in their preparation programs over the past five years. These changes included the clearer differentiation between Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs, adding additional course 176 offerings, expanding the number of available assistantships, moving to a competency-based curriculum, revising the program curriculum, increasing the number of faculty members, and receiving CACREP accreditation. Future changes in the preparation programs being discussed, planned, or anticipated by Program Coordinator respondents included the addition of new faculty members, the complete overhaul of the curriculum, securing more funding support for assistantships and fellowships, the expansion of emphases opportunities, and a wider range of assistantships related to student affairs administration. CHAPTER FIVE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Since the creation of the first preparation program in 1913 at Teachers College, Columbia University, leaders and associations in the field of student affairs administration have been unable to agree upon a consistent set of competencies, skills, and knowledge for preparation programs in student affairs administration, other than at the Master's degree level in 1986, that would satisfy the divergent needs and philosophies of American colleges and universities. As a result, no standards and guidelines have been established for doctoral level preparation programs, and there has been no generally accepted agreement on the factors that constitute a quality doctoral preparation program. To address this critical component of professional preparation, a descriptive and analytical study was conducted to: (1) develop demographic and academic profiles about a group of student affairs administration faculty and administrators selected to participate in the study; (2) identify the knowledge, skills and competencies that may be critical in developing guidelines and standards for these preparation programs; (3) analyze the perceptions of both faculty member and practitioner respondents in student affairs administration about the content and concentration of doctoral preparation programs; and (4) identify the best preparation programs as perceived by student affairs faculty member and administrator respondents. The need for this study was precipitated by several factors. Over the past few years there had been several attempts to determine what should constitute a quality doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration. However, the results appeared to have either not provided 177 178 enough information to make comprehensive program recommendations or changes, not used by individual institutions to make major or minor changes, or not used at all. If Bradley's (1985), statement holds true, that "one rationale for preparation programs is that mastery of a specific body of knowledge is required for satisfactory professional performance," then the profession's continuing inability to agree on such a body of knowledge at the doctoral level could have serious effects on preparation programs and on the profession's credibility as an important partner in the education of students. In many of the studies conducted on doctoral preparation programs, the specific content areas, offerings, or outcomes used to make program recommendations were general in nature and recommended originally for use in master's level programs. Some of the studies or reports offered conflicting views on faculty and staff perceptions and differences, few recommended anything new or different, and at the doctoral level, no attempt or progress had been made in reaching a consensus concerning core curriculum, emphasis, or learning outcomes. Despite these attempts, the profession has apparently been unable to agree upon competencies, or standards for doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. As Stamatakos (1981) noted, "Ph.D., Ed.D., and Ed.S. curricula in student affairs have, for the most part, been totally neglected in the development of core programs at the M.A. level." (p. 203). Based on the most predominant needs of the professional preparation programs at the doctoral level, this study was directed toward the following provisions. First, it was expected that developing a profile of student affairs administration faculty members and administrators would contribute to the identification of characteristics and experiences common to both preparation program faculty members and student affairs professionals holding positions 179 at or near the top in administration. These profiles would provide such information on the educational backgrounds of both faculty members and student affairs administrators, their years of professional and academic affiliation with student affairs administration, their levels of involvement in professional associations, and their types of work and professional experiences. Second, the investigation provided the investigator with an opportunity to yield an agreed-upon set of knowledge, skills, and competencies a person completing a doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration should possess in order to function effectively as a scholar, teacher, or administrator in various areas of student affairs administration. These recommendations could be used as a benchmark by the faculty members of each preparation program to determine if their particular preparation program provided for the appropriate education and experiences which would contribute to the development and application of these competencies. Third, the information collected in this study was believed to be useful in developing standards and guidelines for doctoral preparation programs. These standards could identify critical subject and/ or developmental areas that would contribute to each student's acquisition of knowledge and competencies needed to function as an effective student affairs administrator. Fourth, the investigation was intended to provide useful demographic and curricular information about other doctoral preparation programs to other faculty members, administrators, and institutions which have doctoral programs in student affairs administration. This information could be used to compare program content, concentration, and trends evident in doctoral preparation programs, especially those rated to be the best by both faculty members and student affairs administrators. Fifth, the information from this study could be used to assist in the 180 evaluation of current student affairs preparation programs. This examination could assist in the measurement or identification of program effectiveness, the consistency of educational preparation, and in the recommendation of changes needed for preparation programs to remain a viable and timely educational opportunity for future student affairs professionals. Sixth, the study was to yield information about how both faculty members, preparation program coordinators, and student affairs practitioners perceived the concentration and intent of doctoral preparation program. Insights gleaned from such perceptions could aid the profession in reducing the gap between student affairs preparation and practice. As Nyre (1979:38) noted, "as long as theory and practice are viewed as separate entities—to be balanced, not integrated—and 'scholars' and 'practitioners' are viewed as adversaries-to be separated, not reconciled-the progress of professional education will be hindered." There were three sets of participants for this study. The first group included the entire population of the 70 full-time faculty members who taught in doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration in United States colleges and universities in 1987. Thirty-five (50%) of the faculty member respondents returned usable survey instruments. The second group of subjects included a sample of. 100 student affairs administrators who were employed in United States colleges and universities in 1987. This sample included current Chief Student Affairs Officers, Deans of Students, and Directors of Housing/ Residential Life drawn from four-year institutions having enrollments of 5,000 students or more. Forty-one (41 %) of the student affairs administrator respondents returned usable survey instruments. The third group of subjects included the six Program Coordinators of 181 selected high "quality" doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This group of preparation programs was determined by the rankings provided by the faculty members and student affairs administrators participating in this study. Four (67%) of the Program Coordinators returned usable survey instruments. Each faculty member and student affairs administrator selected for participation in the study was asked to complete a five page survey (see Appendices A and B for surveys). The instrument was divided into four sections. Section one requested demographic information, section two requested information on each subject's professional affiliations and activities, section three requested information concerning doctoral preparation programs, and section four included a summary of the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/ Development Programs (CAS, 1986), "Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Level for Student Services/ Development Professionals in Postsecondary Education" developed by the investigator, along with a series of reaction statements about the possible effects these standards may have on doctoral preparation programs. In addition, a three-page instrument package was mailed to the Program Coordinators whose doctoral preparation program was identified as a "high quality" doctoral preparation program by student affairs administrator and faculty member respondents in the first phase of data collection. It contained a series of questions concerning particular elements of the doctoral program they administer, including program emphases, expected knowledge, skills, and experiences of graduates, competency measurements, required courses, program strengths and weaknesses, and previous and anticipated program changes. 182 The design of this study was a "1 X 2" factorial. One factor, the individual responses to specific survey questions, and two variations of another factor, faculty member or student affairs administrator, were simultaneously analyzed. Data from both the dependent and independent variables were compared using several statistical methods. With the open- ended questions, three statistical tests were used. In some instances, a chi- square analysis was used to determine the relationship between each variable. Contingency tables were constructed to help investigate these relationships. If the sample group response to a particular question or item equalled less than 30, a Fisher's Exact Test, was used. Finally, an analysis of variance (AN OVA) was used for some questions to measure the differences between two means. For those questions with scales or ratings, frequency distributions were calculated, and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) table was computed to measure the differences between mean scores. Hypotheses, Findings and Conclusions Six hypotheses, stated in the null form, were tested in this study. Below are the major findings relative to each hypothesis. Overall, the null hypotheses for this study were retained more than rejected, revealing the similarity in perceptions of the faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents. I. W There is no difference between the question responses of the items that comprise the professional profiles of the preparation program faculty members and the student affairs administrators who participated in this study. This hypothesis was developed to determine what differences, if any, 183 existed between the survey respondents in terms of their academic, biographic, and professional backgrounds. The generation of these profiles was important for two reasons. First, it identified the characteristics and experiences of both the preparation program faculty members and student affairs administrators, thus enabling the investigator to describe the similar and dissimilar attributes of each respondent group. Second, the similarities and differences of each respondent group's characteristics and experiences might help explain the differences in the item identification, rankings, and opinions generated from the responses in other sections of the survey instrument. Overall, the null hypothesis was retained for 42.1% of the items and rejected for 10.5% of the items. A statistical comparison could not be conducted for 47.1% of the items because some of the questions in the survey . instrument were specific to the respondents' vocation, and did not allow for comparison between respondent type. A. Retention of the Null Hypothesis The hypothesis was retained for the following items: Gender, Age, Doctoral Level Courses Taught, Attendance at Professional Meetings, Professional Publications, Conference Presentations, and Professional Consultations. The specific findings, based on an analysis of variance (AN OVA) included the following: 1. The gender of the majority of the survey respondents was male (77.3%). 2. There was no significant difference in the ages of the survey respondents. In all but three cases, the percentage within each age members and 10.3% of the student affairs administrators were between the ages of 30-35; 20% of the faculty member and 7.7% of 184 the student affairs administrator respondents were between the ages of 56-60; and, 5.7% of the faculty member respondents and none of the student affairs administrator respondents were 66 years of age or older. There was no significant difference in the number of courses taught by the respondent groups. The average number of courses taught by faculty member respondents each year was 2.21, and 1.70 for student affairs administrator respondents. Over the past five years, there was no significant difference between the number of professional association meetings at the national, regional, state, and local level that were attended by faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents. There was no significant difference between the number of publications, by category, produced by the respondent types. Both the faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents published written materials pieces in all the forms of print media listed in the survey. There was no significant difference between the number of presentations, by conference type, conducted by the survey respondents. Presentations were conducted by all respondent types at national, state, regional, and local conferences. There were more respondent types who noted they were involved in conference presentations than those who noted they had never made a presentation at a conference. Overall, there was no significant difference in the professional consultations of the survey respondents. Specifically, there was no difference in the categories of College and University Consultations, 185 Ministerial Consultations, and Foreign Consultations. There was a difference in Other Consultations, which included meetings with Boards of Trustees and private corporations. B. Rejection of the Null Hymthesis The null hypothesis was rejected for the following items: Total Years in Current Position, Numbers Teaching, and Organization Affiliation. The specific findings, based on an analysis of variance (AN OVA), included the following: 1. There was a significant difference between the survey respondents and the total number of years the respondents had been in their current position. The analysis showed that student affairs administrators spent significantly more years in their current positions than did preparation program faculty members. 2. There was a significant difference between the number of survey respondents who were currently teaching. Of the faculty member respondents, 76.5%, were currently involved in teaching, and of the student affairs administrator respondents, 44.4%, were currently involved in teaching. The difference between the variances of the respondent means was significant enough to reject the null hypothesis. 3. Overall, there was a significant difference in the organizational affiliation of the survey respondents. Specifically, there was a difference for those respondents who were members of ACPA, N ASPA, and ACUHO-I. There was no difference for those respondents who were members of N AWDAC. C. Non-Comparable Items of the Null Hymthesis A comparative analysis could not be computed for the following 186 items because of the variability in question types that were asked of each respondent type: Rank/ Title of Survey Respondents, Student Affairs Employment of Faculty Respondents, Highest Student Affairs position held by Faculty Respondents, Total Years of Student Affairs Employment by Faculty Respondents, Faculty Appointments of Administrator Respondents, Teaching Discipline of Administrator Respondents, and Years as a Faculty Member of Administrator Respondents. In addition, there were two items, Professional Association Involvement, and Type of Involvement in Professional Associations in which it was not possible to conduct any type of analysis because the lack of question clarity resulted in unusable responses. The specific findings, based on frequency distributions, included the following: 1. The majority of the faculty member respondents held the rank of Professor (42.8%), followed by Associate Professor (28.6%), Assistant Professor (25.7%), and Other (2.9%). The majority of the student affairs administrator respondents held the position of Dean of Students (40%), followed by Vice President of Student Affairs (30%), and Director of Housing/ Residence Life (30%). 2. The majority of the faculty member respondents had been employed in student affairs administration (77.1%). The highest position held was Dean of Students (37%), and the majority of all respondents were employed as student affairs administrators between 5-10 years (45.2%). 3. A large portion of the student affairs administrator respondents, 44.4%, were currently involved in teaching. The majority of the student affairs administrator respondents (61.5%), taught in a College of Education. The percentage of student affairs 187 administrators who held a regular faculty appointment was 63%, with 36.6% holding their appointments between 1-10 years. The majority of both faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents participated most actively in the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (N ASPA), the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), and at regional, state, and local conferences. Respondent . involvement in professional associations was through committee/ commission membership, serving as committee/ commission chairs, and through elected or appointed positions. D. Conclusion The following conclusion can be drawn from the findings related to Hypothesis One: 1. More similarities than differences existed between the faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents regarding their academic, biographic, and professional backgrounds. This conclusion was supported by findings that showed the null hypothesis was retained for 42.1% of the comparative items and was rejected for only 10.5% of the comparative items. A statistical comparison could not be conducted for 47.1% of the items related to the hypothesis because of the variability in question that were asked of each respondent type. II. M There is no difference between the professional preparation of student affairs administration professional preparation faculty members, and those student affairs administrators, who participated in this study. This hypothesis was developed to determine what differences, if any, 188 existed between the survey respondents in terms of their academic and professional preparation backgrounds. This information was important for two reasons. First, it permitted the investigator to identify the professional preparation of both the faculty members and student affairs administrators, thus enabling the investigator to describe the similar and dissimilar attributes of each respondent group. Second, the similarities and differences of each of the respondent group's professional preparation may help explain the differences in the item identification, rankings, and opinions generated from the question responses of the other sections of the survey instrument. Overall, the null hypothesis was retained for 66.6% of the items and rejected for 33.4% of the items. A. Retention of the Null Hymthesis The null hypothesis was retained for the areas of Year Degree Awarded and Field of Study. The specific findings, based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA), included the following: 1. There was no significant difference between the survey respondents in terms of the year they earned their highest degree. The majority of both the faculty member respondents, 52.9%, and the student affairs administrator respondents, 69.2%, earned their highest degree after 1971. 2. There was no significant difference between the survey respondents in terms of their chosen field of study. Higher Education Administration was the prevalent field of study for both faculty member (47.1 %), and student affairs administrator (47.4%) respondents. 189 B. Rejection of the Null Hypgthesis There was a significant difference between the Types of Degrees Earned by the survey-respondents and therefore the null hypothesis was rejected. The specific findings, based on an analysis of variance (AN OVA), included the following: 1. All of the faculty member respondents, 100%, and 69.2% of the student affairs administrator respondents had earned either a Ph.D. or an Ed.D. as their terminal degree. 2. Of the student affairs administrator respondents, 5.1% earned a Bachelor's as their terminal degree, and 23.1% earned a Master's as their terminal degree. C. Conclusions _ No conclusions can be drawn from the findings related to Hypothesis Two. III. W: There is no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators concerning the ranking of recommended knowledge, skills, and competencies for doctoral preparation program students. This hypothesis was developed to determine what differences, if any, existed between the survey respondents and their ranking of recommended knowledge, skills, and competencies for doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This information was important because it identified the perceptions of both the faculty members and student affairs administrators, thus enabling the investigator to describe the similar and dissimilar attributes of each respondent group as they related to the professional preparation of students enrolled in doctoral preparation 190 programs. Overall, the null hypothesis was retained for 93% of the items and rejected for 7% of the items. A. Retention of the Null Hypgthesis The null hypothesis was retained for the respondent rankings of the following knowledge, skills, experiences and competencies: Administrative and Management Skills, Budgeting and Finance, Computer Technology, Counseling, Higher Education Administration, History of Higher Education and Student Affairs, Higher Education Law, Human Development Theory, Human Resource Management, Leadership Skills, Organizational Behavior and Development, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, and Writing Skills . The specific findings, based on a chi- square analysis or Fisher's exact test, included the following: 1. The faculty member respondents identified the following knowledge, skills, experiences, and competencies, in rank order, that should be developed in graduates of doctoral preparation programs: Research and Evaluation, Human Development Theory, Administrative and Management Skills, Organizational Behavior and Development, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Counseling, History of Higher Education and Student Affairs, American College Student, Higher Education Law, Budgeting and Finance, Higher Education Administration, Leadership Skills, Human Resource Management, Program Development, Writing Skills, and Computer Technology. 2. The student affairs administrator respondents identified the following knowledge, skills, experiences and competencies, in rank order, that should be developed in graduates of doctoral 191 preparation programs: Human Development Theory, Budgeting and Finance, Human Resource Management, Counseling, Organizational Behavior and Development, Administrative and Management Skills, History of Higher Education and Student Affairs, Higher Education Administration, Higher Education Administration, Research and Evaluation, Principles and Practices ' of Student Affairs Administration, Communication Skills, Higher Education Law, Writing Skills, Leadership Skills, and Computer Technology. B. Rejection of the Null Hyppthesis The hypothesis was rejected for the item Research and Evaluation. The difference in the ranking of this item between the respondent types was significant enough to reject the null hypothesis. Research and Evaluation was the top choice of the faculty member respondents and the ninth choice of the student affairs administrator respondents. C. Non-Comparable Items of the Null Hymthesis A statistical analysis could not be computed for three items that were not ranked by both types of survey respondents: Communication Skills, Program Development and Evaluation, and the American College Student. D. Conclusions The following conclusions can be drawn from the findings related to Hypothesis Three: 1. Student affairs administrator and faculty member respondents agreed that graduates of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration should possess similar knowledge, skills, and competencies inclusive of Human Development Theory, Administrative and Management Skills, Organizational Behavior 192 and Development, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Counseling, History of Higher Education and Student Affairs, Higher Education Law, Budgeting and Finance, Higher Education Administration, Leadership Skills, Human Resource Management, Writing Skills, and Computer Technology. This conclusion was supported by findings that showed the null hypothesis was retained for 93% of the items and was rejected for one item, Research and Evaluation. 2. The knowledge, skills, and/ or competencies associated with Research and Evaluation was much more important to preparation program faculty member respondents as necessary and appropriate to successful student affairs administration than believed by student affairs administrator respondents. This conclusion was supported by the finding that this item was the only one which did not support the hypothesis, and because it was the top choice of the faculty member respondents and the ninth choice of the student affairs administrator respondents. IV. 11mm There is no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators concerning the types of courses and experiences that should be offered in doctoral preparation programs. This hypothesis was developed to determine what differences, if any, existed between the survey respondents in terms of their recommended courses and experiences for doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This information was important because it identified the perceptions of both the faculty members and student affairs administrators, 193 thus enabling the investigator to describe the similar and dissimilar item selections of each respondent group as they related to the professional preparation of students enrolled in doctoral preparation programs. Overall, the null hypothesis was retained for 63% of the items and rejected for 37% of the items. ‘ A A. Retention of the Null Hypothesis The null hypothesis was retained for the following courses and experiences: Historical and Philosophical Principles of Higher Education, Counseling, Budgeting and Finance, Higher Education Administration, Professional Development, Human Development Theory, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Higher Education Law, Assistantships, Independent Study, Leadership Skills, Computer Technology, and the American College Student. The specific findings, based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA) included the following: 1. The faculty member respondents identified the following coursework, experiences, and/ or areas of emphases that would best provide doctoral preparation students with the previously- identified knowledge, skills, and competencies: American College Student, Assistantships, Budgeting and Finance, Cognate Studies, Communication Skills, Computers, Counseling, Higher Education Administration, Higher Education Law, Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Higher Education, Human Development Theory, Human Resource Management, Independent Study, Internships, Leadership Development, Management Theory, Organizational Behavior and Development, Practicum Opportunities, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Professional Development, and Research 194 and Evaluation. 2. The student affairs administrator respondents identified the following coursework, experiences, and/ or areas of emphases that would best provide doctoral preparation students with the previously-identified knowledge, skills, and competencies: American College Student, Assistantships, Budgeting and Finance, Cognate Studies, Computers, Counseling, Higher Education Administration, Higher Education Law, Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Higher Education, Human Development Theory, Human Resource Management, Independent Study, Internships, Leadership Development, Management Theory, Organizational Behavior and Development, Practicum Opportunities, Principles and Practices of Student Affairs Administration, Professional Development, Psychology, Research and Evaluation, Seminars, and Writing. B. Rejectign of the Null Hymthgsis The null hypothesis, based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA), was rejected for the following items: Internships, Practicum Opportunities, Cognate Studies, Research and Evaluation, Management Theory, Organizational Behavior and Development, and Human Resource Management. The variance between the mean number of responses by respondent type was significant enough to reject the null hypothesis. C. N on-Comparable Items of the Null Hypothesis A statistical analysis was not performed on four items since they were not chosen by both sets of survey respondents. These items included: Psychology, Writing, Communication Skills, and Seminars. 195 D. Conclusions The following conclusions can be drawn from the findings related to Hypothesis Four: 1. Agreement did not exist between respondent groups regarding the fit between courses and experiences and the knowledge, skills, and competencies students need to learn and acquire in student affairs administration doctoral programs. This conclusion was supported by findings that showed the null hypothesis was retained for 63% of the items. The Internship experience was much more important to student affairs administrator respondents as necessary and appropriate to the development of knowledge, skills, and competencies than believed by preparation program faculty respondents. Internships were recommended by 67.5% of the student affairs administrator ' respondents and by and 44% of the faculty member respondents. The experiences associated with Practicum Opportunities were much more important to student affairs administrator respondents as necessary and appropriate to the development of knowledge, skills, and competencies than believed by preparation program faculty respondents. Practicum Opportunities were recommended by 60% of the student affairs administrator respondents and by 25% of the faculty member respondents. The courses and experiences recommended by student affairs administrator respondents as necessary and appropriate to the development of knowledge, skills, and competencies were less theoretical in nature than recommended by preparation program faculty respondents. - 196 V. KW There is no difference between the responses of the student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators to the questions regarding the effect that the CAS Standards may have on doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This hypothesis was developed to determine what differences, if any, existed between the survey respondents and their responses to the questions about the effect that the CAS Standards may have on doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This information was important because it identified the perceptions of both the faculty members and student affairs administrators about the effects of the CAS Standards, thus enabling the investigator to describe the similar and dissimilar attributes of each respondent group as they related to doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. Overall, the null hypothesis was retained for 83% of the items and rejected for 17% of the items. A. Retention of the Null Hypothesis The null hypothesis, based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA), was retained for seven of the eight questions concerning the effects that the CAS Standards may have on doctoral preparation programs. These seven questions included: 1. They (CAS Standards) will help improve the quality of doctoral preparation programs by encouraging them to a least meet the minimum standards recommended for the Master's level. 2. They (CAS Standards) will encourage the development of standards for doctoral programs. 3. They (CAS Standards) will shift the doctoral preparation program B. 197 from a generalist focus to a more specific area of administration. The comprehensive nature of these (CAS) standards questions the need for a doctoral preparation program. They (CAS Standards) will have no effect on current doctoral programs. Doctoral preparation programs will be used strictly to train future faculty members. They (CAS Standards) will provide support for those who believe that Student Affairs Administration should only be a component of a Higher Education Administration program. Rejection of the Null Hymrhfiis The null hypothesis, based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA), was rejected for the question, "These (CAS) standards will be adopted for doctoral preparation programs." Statistically, the student affairs administrators felt more positive than did the faculty member respondents that these standards would be adopted. C. anclusion The following conclusion can be drawn from the findings related to Hypothesis Five: 1. Faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents held similar feelings about the effects that the CAS Standards may have on doctoral preparation programs. An agreement existed between the faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents that the CAS standards for master's degree programs would not negatively affect doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This conclusion was supported by the findings that showed the null hypothesis was retained for 83% 198 of the items. VI. Hypmhgsim There is no difference between the perceptions of student affairs administration professional preparation program faculty members, and those of student affairs administrators concerning the ranking and characteristics of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This hypothesis was developed to determine what differences, if any, existed between the survey respondents in terms of their rankings and characteristics of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This information was important because it identified the perceptions of both the faculty members and student affairs administrators, thus enabling the investigator to describe the similar and dissimilar attributes of each respondent group as they related to the professional preparation of students enrolled in doctoral preparation programs. A. Retention of the Null Hypothesis Overall, the null hypothesis, based on an analysis of variance (ANOVA), was retained for institutions under the categories of Quality of Faculty, Program Effectiveness, and Program Changes. B. Conclusion The following conclusion can be drawn from the findings related to Hypothesis Six: 1. Based on the criteria of Quality of Faculty, Program Effectiveness, and Program Changes, faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents were in general agreement about the top doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. This conclusion was supported by the findings related to the null hypothesis. 199 Additional Findings . Some additional findings were identified during the study that were not statistically tested by a hypothesis. These findings, based on frequency distributions, included: WWW Pr - 1. The majority of faculty member respondents identified the following knowledge and experiences that doctoral preparation programs provide that are not provided by master's programs: Refined Research Skills, High Level of Scholarship, Preparation for Leadership Roles, General Program of Preparation, Study of Advanced Theory, Ability to Conduct Research, Publish, and Work with Faculty Members, Advanced Knowledge of Organizational Theory and Development, Cognate Studies, and Quality Assistantships and Internships. The majority of student affairs administrator respondents identified the following knowledge and experiences that doctoral preparation programs provide that are not provided by master's programs: Quality Assistantships and Internships, High Level of Scholarship, Refined Research Skills, Study of Advanced Theory, High Level of Specialization, Development of Critical Thinking, Opportunity to Translate Theory to Practice, and Instructional Experiences. .. .1. . R ... -~ .1 ~ (1. e ' n. ._._ '1‘°"_4-.n‘ Program Coordinators of quality preparation programs identified Administration as the prevalent concentration of their programs, followed by Student Development, Counseling, and Other, which encompassed Cognate Studies and Areas of Emphases. 200 Program Coordinators of quality preparation programs identified the following competencies and understandings which were developed in graduates of their doctoral program: Research Design and Statistical Methods, History of Higher Education, Higher Education Administration, History and Philosophy of Student Affairs Administration, Knowledge of Human Development Theory and Application, Student Development Theory and Intervention Practices, Applied Skills, Assessment, Budgeting and Finance, Career Development Theory and Application, Counseling, Group Dynamics and Group Practice, Human Development and Psychometric Assessment/ Measurement Techniques, Instruction and Faculty Consultations, Organizational Theory/ Dynamics and Behavior, Philosophy of Education, Politics of Higher Education, Research on College Students, and Systems Intervention. Program Coordinators identified the following knowledge and competency measurements for student enrolled in their preparation programs: Comprehensive Examinations, Writing and Defense of the Dissertation, Written Examinations, Faculty Observations and Formative Feedback, Field Experience Evaluations, Coursework, Oral Examinations, Peer Evaluations, and Writing of Papers. Program Coordinators identified the following remedial opportunities for students enrolled in their graduate programs: repeating of particular coursework, the development of individualized remedial programs designed by the student's doctoral committee, student referral to an on-campus laboratory to 201 assist in competency development, special instructor assignments, the repeating of comprehensive examinations, and advising and counseling which may result in the student's transferring to another program or voluntarily withdrawing from the preparation program. Program Coordinators noted that their preparation programs contained courses exclusively designed for doctoral student. These courses included Advanced Practica in Student Affairs Administration, Advanced Seminar(s) in Student Affairs Administration, Advanced Seminar(s) in Student Development Theory, American College Student, Environmental Assessment and Design, First Year Doctoral Seminar, Law and Higher Education, Research Seminar in Counseling and Human Development Services, Second Year Doctoral Seminar, Seminar in Organizational Development in Student Affairs Administration, and Student Affairs Internships. Program Coordinators identified the following attributes as strengths of their preparation programs: long term continuity of the teaching faculty, breadth of the program, faculty members' work experience in upper levels of student affairs administration, ability to place students in a wide variety of internships and assistantships both on and off campus, development of close relationships between the faculty and students, development of close relationships between students, large, loyal and helpful alumni /ae network, high degree of program credibility and placement, high visibility of faculty members on a national and international level, individualized approach to program studies, 202 special projects available outside of formal classroom experiences, quality of preparation program faculty members, availability of support services, emphasis on student development theOry and application, opportunities for teaching experiences, strong student affairs staff, opportunities for research experiences, and strong relationships with academic programs. Program Coordinators identified the following areas as weaknesses in their doctoral preparation programs: heavy reliance on a limited number of faculty members, limited number of internship sites, lack of paid internships, insufficient number of graduate assistantships, inability to secure specialized sections of research methodology / statistics courses designed for student affairs administration students, and use of semi-retired faculty members because of difficulty in hiring full-time faculty members. Program Coordinators identified the following changes that have been made in their preparation programs over the past five years: clearer distinction between the Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs, adding additional course offerings, expanding the number of available graduate assistantships, moving to a competency-based curriculum, completely revising the program curriculum, increasing the number of faculty members, and receiving CACREP accreditation. Program Coordinators identified the following items as changes being'discussed, planned, or anticipated in their preparation programs: addition of new faculty members, complete overhaul of doctoral program curriculum, securing more funding support for graduate assistantships and fellowships, expansion of 203 emphases opportunities, and securing a wider range of assistantships within and related to student affairs administration. Conclusions - The following conclusions can be drawn from these additional findings: 1. There was no agreement between Program Coordinators concerning which preparation program concentration was the most prevalent, though Administration was identified as the predominant concentration. Program Coordinators generally agreed with the knowledge, skills, and competencies identified by the faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents. However, the small number of Program Coordinator responses prevented a statistical analysis ‘ from being conducted, thus preventing the calculation of any mean variances or significance levels. Programs listed as among the top doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration are analyzed and modified periodically. Providing a sufficient number of assistantships for doctoral students which would assist them in obtaining practical experience, and provide additional sources of financial support, is important to Program Coordinators. Several Program Coordinators noted that they will request additional assistantships in'their departments and elsewhere at the institution, and seek additional funding for assistantships and fellowships. The seminar format, in which the smaller class size allows for more opportunities to discuss and explore educational issues in a more comprehensive manner, is considered to be the best way to educate 204 students in courses designed specifically for doctoral preparation programs. Implications Brepmatinmflmgrmnankinga The rankings of quality doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration have varied over the past two decades. Prior to this study, there had been two previous studies which identified quality doctoral preparation programs. Though some of the institutions which housed these quality preparation programs appeared in all of the past studies, their position in the rankings fluctuated. In this study, the top doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration as selected by faculty member respondents, in rank order, included Indiana University, The Ohio State University, Michigan State University, University of Georgia, and Florida State University. The ranking of top doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration by the student affairs administrator respondents included Indiana University, The Ohio State University, Florida State University, University of Maryland, and Michigan State University. . Comparatively, Rockey's (1972:103-104), study ranked the doctoral preparation programs, as identified by the Program Coordinators, in the following order: Michigan State University, Indiana University, Florida State University, Teachers College-Columbia University, and the University of Minnesota. Sandeen's (1982:54), study, which investigated professional preparation programs based on the assessments by chief student personnel officers, ranked doctoral degree programs in student personnel services in 205 higher education as follows: Indiana University, Michigan State University, The Ohio State University, Florida State University, Columbia University, University of Florida, University of Minnesota, University of Michigan, University of Georgia, and Oregon State University. When comparing the past rankings to the one developed in this study, Indiana University held its position from the Sandeen study and improved its position from the Rockey study from two to one. Michigan State University lost ground from both the Sandeen and Rockey studies, dropping from second to third or fifth when comparing the rankings of this study to the Sandeen study, and from first to third or fifth when comparing this study to the rankings of the Rockey study. The doctoral preparation programs that increased their standing more than any other program were The Ohio State University and the University of . Georgia. The Ohio State University was not included in the top five doctoral preparation programs identified by Rockey in 1972, was ranked third in the 1982 Sandeen study, and was ranked second in this study. University of Georgia has also moved up in the rankings. It was not included in the Rockey study, was ranked ninth in the Sandeen study, and ranked fourth in the faculty member responses of this study. Indiana University, Michigan State University, and Florida State University have appeared in the top five rankings of all studies. Columbia University and the University of Minnesota, which were present in both the Rockey and Sandeen studies, did not appear in this study. University of Maryland, which did not appear in either the Rockey or Sandeen studies, ranked fourth in the student affairs administrator responses of this study. It appeared as though there were some consistently-ranked benchmark programs in student affairs administration over a sixteen year period. 206 Specifically, Indiana University, The Ohio State University, Michigan State University, and Florida State University continued to be identified as leaders in the preparation-of student affairs administrators at the doctoral level. In Rockey's (1972) study, the program rankings, which included Indiana University, Michigan State University, and Florida State University, were identified based on criteria such as the quality of the faculty, quality of the graduates, and the visible leadership in the field by faculty and graduates. In Sandeen's (1982) study, Indiana University, Michigan State University, The Ohio State University, and Florida State University, were included in the assessment by chief student affairs officers as the best graduate degree programs in student affairs administration in higher education. In this study, Indiana University, The Ohio State University, Michigan State University, and Florida State University were identified using such criteria as the quality of the graduate faculty, the effectiveness of the doctoral program, and changes in the preparation program in the last five years. 2 l' E C I I' The concentration of the quality doctoral preparation programs were represented in four areas - Administration, Student Development, Counseling, and Cognate Studies. These areas supported the position by numerous scholars and practitioners that an interdisciplinary curriculum could best prepare doctoral program students for leadership roles in student affairs administration (Brown, 1972; Garland, 1985; Greenleaf, 1968; Miller, 1967; Mueller, 1968; Sandeen, 1983; Stamatakos, 1981; and Trueblood, 1966). However, even the programs that were identified as quality programs by the survey respondents may not offer their students a true interdisciplinary curriculum. For example, one Program Coordinator noted that 90% of the doctoral preparation program he administered had an Administration 207 concentration. In contrast, another preparation program had an Administrative concentration of 10%. Though some programs may have developed a reputation for a particular program emphasis, a more balanced curriculum may contribute to the development of the scholar-educator- administrator that is so vital to student affairs administration. Garland (1985) recommended restructuring student affairs preparation programs, either at the master's or doctoral levels, in such a way that they would: 1. Attend more to management skills, research and evaluation skills, and a better understanding of organizational behavior and development. 2. Address the needs of diverse student populations. 3. Create a greater awareness among professionals of societal trends, higher education issues, and institutional responses that demand enlightened responses from student affairs. 4. Develop those skills - research, teaching, and scholarship - through which the profession will be able to increase its credibility within the institution (p.98). Taking a more balanced approach to a preparation program curriculum may contribute to the development of more consistent standards for doctoral preparation, a position which continues to gathers support among the profession (Delworth and Hanson, 1980; Stamatakos, 1981). Over the years, though preparation programs have shifted their emphasis from a heavy Counseling to an Administration and Student Development concentration, there was little indication that the leading doctoral preparation programs provided a consistent or broad-based program concentration or curriculum. From this study, the "quality" preparation programs in student affairs administration had different areas of concentration 208 that dominated their programs, and offered a varied and inconsistent set of core courses. oquwr :-t.~. our 'tu'q: 0.6'10. .ubmnr. am... Qfierings _ A comparison between survey respondent identification of knowledge, skills, and competencies, coursework and experiences, in master's versus doctoral preparation programs produced a variety of findings and observations. Quality Assistantships and Internships were the top choice of the student affairs administrator respondents and the bottom choice of faculty member respondents when differentiating between the offerings of a master's and doctoral preparation program, In one instance, this distinction paralleled the coursework and experience selections by the survey respondents, where the student affairs administrator respondents identified Internships (67.5%) and Practicum Opportunities (60%) more than did faculty member respondents (44% and 25% respectively), as ways to provide knowledge, skills, and competencies. In contrast, though there was no significant difference in their responses, the identification of Assistantships was low for both respondent groups. It was identified by 15% of the student affairs administrator respondents, and it was noted by 6.2% of the faculty member respondents. This poses an interesting question. First, this notion runs counter to Program Coordinator concern for not having enough assistantships for graduate students and the attempt to increase their offerings. Though they are essential to many students as necessary forms of financial aid and as ways to obtain field experience, why are they not as valued by the faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents? Are assistantships not viewed as a . legitimate means of obtaining skills or experiences? Refined research skills was identified consistently by both respondent groups as knowledge and experiences that should be provided by a doctoral 209 preparation program, although it was perceived as being a much more significant type of knowledge or experience to faculty member respondents than to student affairs administrator respondents. It was the most important knowledge, skill, or competency noted by faculty member respondents. However, the student affairs administrator respondents ranked it ninth out of fifteen items, and in a comparison of the rankings between the survey respondents, Research and Evaluation was the only item for which a. statistical difference existed. This finding seemed to indicate that faculty members value the importance of research more than student affairs administrators. One could possibly infer that student affairs administrators rely more heavily on the experiential and on program evaluation as opposed to formal research methodology. Many of the other items identified as knowledge and experiences that should be provided for in a doctoral preparation program versus a master's degree program were particular to the respondent type, and varied in consistency when compared to the responses to the other open-ended questions listed on the survey instrument. For faculty member respondents, items such as the, "opportunity to obtain advanced knowledge of organizational theory and development," was consistent with its identification in the rankings of knowledge, skills and competencies that should be provided to students enrolled in a doctoral preparation program, and was included in the list of recommended coursework and experiences. In contrast, the ability to integrate cognate studies into a program of study item was not mentioned in either the rankings of knowledge, skills, and competencies responses or the recommended coursework and experiences responses. This difference may have resulted from the respondents being specific about knowledge, skills, and competencies, and choosing broader means, such as cognate areas, to support 210 the commitment to the in-depth interdisciplinary education and development in doctoral preparation program students. In a comparison of the responses by student affairs administrator respondents to the question of mas ter's versus doctoral preparation programs, one of the perceived differences, a high level of specialization in a particular aspect of student affairs administration, was noted by 17% of the respondents. However, identification of program specialization ran counter to the general preparation concentration evidenced in their responses to both the knowledge, skills, and competencies question and to the coursework and experiences question. This contradiction may be a result of the feeling by the respondents that doctoral preparation programs should provide a more in- depth education than master's preparation programs. .... '- nu- -. -~. ...... am... .__.- One of the major criticisms of student affairs administration was that the preparation programs still do not possess a consistent set of learning criteria and outcomes for their graduates. As Stamatakos (1981), noted, there was no published research to support the notion that professional preparation educated adequately for the development of agreed upon skills and competencies. Though several studies have been conducted which attempted to identify competencies and learning outcomes for doctoral preparation programs, (Marler, 1977; Rhatigan, 1968; Yates, 1977), they were done using predetermined lists or competencies that were developed for general preparation, and not for doctoral preparation specifically. This study attempted to identify a list of the knowledge skills, and competencies that both preparation program faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents felt should be acquired or developed in doctoral preparation 211 program students. Between the two respondent groups there was a considerable amount of agreement both on the types and the rankings of knowledge, skills and competencies. Even though the list for this study was respondent-generated, this finding ran counter to Rhatigan's (1965) study of how closely a group of preparation program faculty members and student personnel practitioners agreed on a series of training recommendations for graduate preparation at the doctoral level. In his study, little consensus existed between groups or within groups on most items. In addition, some of the recommended knowledge, skills and competencies that related to the practical administration of student affairs programs were emphasized by both sets of survey respondents, and supported the recommendations of Bolton (1974) who called for additional preparation in areas such as fiscal management, office management, computer science, and human relations. Based on the types of responses, the knowledge, skills, and competencies identified by both student affairs administrators and preparation program faculty members can be separated into six general competency areas. These investigator-generated competencies included: Theoretical Competence: an in-depth understanding of the historical, philosophical, and theoretical foundations upon which student affairs administration is formulated. Sghslarly ngpgtengg: the development and perpetuation of scholarship through inquiry, critical interpretation, investigation, research and writing. Functional Competence: the development, maintenance or enhancement of those skills needed to perform both simple and complex functions in an effective manner. Transferral Competence: the ability to transform theoretical and philosophical foundations of student affairs administration into practical applications. 212 Environmental Competence: an understanding of and the ability to work within and to help shape the environment in which student affairs administration exists. Human Relations Competence: the ability to understand, direct, communicate with, and interact with primary constituents, colleagues, and peers who are a part of the higher education environment. These competency areas provide a broad developmental framework for doctoral preparation. They also lend support to the recommendations about the preparation of students at the doctoral level advocated by other student affairs professionals, like Delworth and Hanson (1980), who noted that the core of doctoral training in student affairs administration should include: 1. Demonstrated competence in both understanding and production of relevant research. 2. Demonstrated mastery of core and specialized competencies that are essential for leadership in at least one of the role orientations or models of practice (p. 483). With supporting coursework and experiences, such as the ones recommended by the survey respondents, these general competency areas offer the opportunity to integrate the major concentration areas - Administration, Student Development, Counseling, and Cognate Studies - into a program that would prepare a scholar/ educator / administrator for any leadership role in student affairs administration. Recommendations for Future Research This investigation has helped identify other areas related to the preparation of doctoral preparation programs for which there is an opportunity for further research and inquiry. These areas include: 1. An in-depth investigation into the course offerings of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. Such an investigation 213 could determine what differences exist, if any, in the core course offerings, elective course, and program concentrations. This analysis could determine the degree of difference that may or may not exist between doctoral preparation programs in areas such as recommended core course requirements, programs of study, and preparation program concentration. This knowledge would be beneficial in helping to develop more consistent program standards for doctoral preparation, to provide better balances between the program emphases, and to help develop more consistent preparation programs at the doctoral level. 2. An investigation into the duplication of course requirements for master's degree and doctoral degree programs. Such an examination could identify what needs to be a clearer distinction between course requirements, content, and offerings for master's and doctoral preparation programs. Many faculty member and student affairs administrator respondents stated that doctoral level preparation should provide more in-depth and concentrated courses and experiences than preparation at the master's level. This inquiry could determine the prevalence of this position, and provide recommendations for Program Coordinators whose institutions have both master's and doctoral preparation programs concerning the development of distinct and specialized coursework and experiences for doctoral preparation program students. 3. An investigation into the shifts in the ranking of doctoral preparation programs in student affairs administration. Recent studies on "quality" preparation programs have produced different program rankings. An analysis of the shifts in program rankings could help identify what causes these shifts in perception and in rankings. It would be useful to discover if these fluctuations correspond to the changes in the number of faculty members, the retirement or 214 relocation of notable faculty members, host university support for these preparation programs, the involvement of faculty members in professional organizations, the quality of program graduates, standards of admission, or other related items. The analysis of these or other variables may provide clearer data on what constitutes "quality" in our doctoral preparation programs. APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT PACKAGE SENT TO PREPARATION PROGRAM FACULTY MEMBERS 215 DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION FACULTY SURVEY Section One: Academic and Biographic Data 1. 2. 10. Institution Current Academic Rank: 3. Gender: Professor Male Associate Professor Female Assistant Professor Instructor ' Other (Specify) Age: 5. Number of years as a faculty member 30-35 51—55 36-40 56-60 41-45 61-65 46-50 66 + 1m Il'll Highest Degree Earned Year Awarded Awarding Institution BA or BS MA or MS Ph.D. ED.D. Other Field of study Are you currently teaching a graduate course/ seminar in Student Affairs Administration at the doctoral level? Yes If yes, how many No Have you ever held a full-time administrative/ professional position in Student Affairs Administration? Yes If yes, what was your highest position No Total number of years as administrator/ professional in Student Affairs Administration. 5-10 1-25 11-15 _ 26-30 16-20 _ 31+ 216 Section Two: Professional Background Data 1. Are you currently a member of student affairs professional associations: (check all that apply) NASPA ACPA NAWDAC OTHER Please Provide Initials 2. Offices and committee assignments you have held in these organizations: Organization Office Held Major Committee Membership 3. How many of the following professional meetings have you attended in the last five years? . National State Regional Local 4. Please list publications in Student Affairs or related areas. If available, attach a publication list. Number Books-Authored or Co—Authored Books-Contributor Books-Edited Monographs-Authored or Co-Authored Monographs-Contributor Monographs-Edited Juried Journals-National Juried Journals-State Newsletters-National Newsletters-Regional Newsletters-State 5. Please list the total number of workshops and/ or papers presented at: National Conferences ‘ Regional Conferences State Conferences Institutions / Organizations 6. Please list the number of times you have consulted for: Colleges/ Universities Foreign Countries Ministries . Other 217 Section Three: Doctoral Program and Evaluative Data 1. In your opinion, what knowledge, skills and competencies should be provided to and developed in students enrolled in a doctoral preparation program in Student Affairs Administration. Please list them in order of importance. 1 \oooummpmto u-dp—I HO 2. What types of courses , experiences , and areas of emphases would best provide doctoral preparation program students with the competencies you have identified? 218 3. Please rank, based on your knowledge, the five leading doctoral preparation programs in Student Affairs Administration according to the instructions below. Part A: QUALITY OF GRADUATE FACULTY. Circle the number that corresponds most closely to your judgement of the quality of the graduate faculty in your field at the institutions you listed below. Consider the scholarly competence and achievements of the present faculty. Part B: EFFECTIVENESS OF DOCTORAL PROGRAM. Circle the number below the term that corresponds most closely to the way you would rate the institutions you have listed if you were selecting a graduate school to work on a doctorate today. Take into account the accessibility of the faculty and its scholarly competence, the curricula, the instructional and research facilities, the quality of graduate students, and other factors that contribute to the effectiveness of the doctoral program. Part C: CHANGE IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. Circle the number below the term that corresponds most closely to your estimate of the change that has taken place in the quality of graduate education during the last five years at the institutions you have listed. onsider the change from an absolute, not relative standpoint. That is, do not estimate the change in an institution's relative standing among other institutions. Instead, compare its graduate program today with its program 5 years ago. A. B. C. INSTITUTIONS QUALITY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF CHANGE l N GRADUATE FACULTY DOCTORAL PROGRAM LAST 5 YEARS .5. .‘2‘ .E ‘6 ‘66 a, E E .E E 2° E 8 8 9 0 'o .5. 3 5 6 E 2 E m E O .... -§ .2 -5‘ a fi .2 z .5 no .2 > 3 U ... u t: 00 w 8 .... a. a: I- O ‘5: .3 C 3 g g Q ‘5 Q 2 u.- .. g 3 . x m a . g z a 5 m .5 m m < .5 L3 .5. 1 L2 L 4 1 L 3 4 _1__2__3 2 L2 3 4 1 2 L 4 1 L 3 3 L 2 3 A 1 L3 4 l 2 3 4 1_LL 4 LLB 4 1 2 3 5 l 2 3 4 LL 3 4 1 2 3 4. If you ranked a doctoral preparation program to be "Better than 5 years ago," please specify the factors that influenced your evaluation. 219 Section Four: Preparation Standards and Guidelines In 1986, the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services and Development Programs published the "Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Degree Level for Student Services/ Development Professionals in Postsecondary Education." Please read the enclosed summary of these standards and respond to the following question: "What effects do you believe these Master's Degree standards will have on Doctoral preparation programs?" (SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree) SA A D SD They will help improve the quality of doctoral preparation programs 4 3 2 1 by encouraging them to at least meet the minimum standards recommended for the Master's level. They will encourage the development of standards for doctoral programs. 4 3 2 1 They will shift the doctoral preparation program from a generalist focus 4 3 2 1 to a more specific area of focus of administration. The comprehensive nature of these standards questions the need 4 3 2 1 for a doctoral preparation program. They will have no effect on current doctoral programs. 4 3 2 1 These standards will be adopted for doctoral preparation programs. 4 3 2 l Doctoral preparation programs will be used strictly to train future faculty 4 3 2 1 members. They will provide support for those who believe that Student Affairs 4 3 2 1 Administration should only be a component of a Higher Education Administration program. 2. In your opinion, what does a doctoral preparation program provide in the way of knowledge and experiences that a Master's Degree preparation program does not? 220 Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Degree Level for Student Services/ Development Professionals in Postsecondary Education Summary The standards presented in this document were developed by the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/ Development Programs with the assistance of its member associations and especially professors in the field. These standards are intended to be used to develop and assess programs of professional preparation at the master's degree level. They also are intended for use by postsecondary institutions in self-studies of programs of professional preparation and by state, regional, national, or specialty agencies that accredit these academic programs. The standards have been consensually determined and represent what leaders in the field consider as performance areas which are highly related to effective professional practice. While the standards are intended to define the characteristics of programs of quality, they are not to be interpreted rigidly. Creative approaches to professional education are encouraged. Specific Program Emphases Student Development Emphasis -‘ must contain coursework in the following areas: Human Development Theory and Practice Organization Behavior and Development American College Student and College Environment The Helping Relationship and Career Development Higher Education and Student Affairs Functions Research and Evaluation Specialized coursework Administration Emphasis - must contain coursework in the following areas: Administration Performance Appraisal and Supervision Administrative Uses of Computers Organizational Behavior and Development Human Development Theory and Practice Higher Education and Student Affairs Functions Research and Evaluation Specialized coursework Counseling Emphasis - must contain coursework in the following areas: The Hel ing Relationship Group ounseling Life Style and Career Development Appraisal of the Individual Human Development Theory and Practice Higher Education and Student Affairs Functions Research and Evaluation Specialized coursework 221 Supervised Experiences - this includes course assignments, laboratory, practicum, and/ or internship dimensions. 1. Counseling Prepracticum Laboratory Experiences: Counseling and career prepracticum laboratory experiences, providing both observation and participation in specific skill building activities, must be offered in both the counseling and student development emphases. 2. Counseling Practica: Supervised counselin practica are provided, and at least one counseling racticum with at least 15 hours 0 client contact per semester (or its equivalent or other calendars) is required for students in programs with either a counseling or student development emphasis. 3. Student Affairs Practica and Internships: Supervised student affairs practica and/ or internships must be available in various offices, and at least two such field experiences are required of all students in all three program emphases. 4. Supervised field experience in organization development must be provided and at least one such experience is required for students in both the student development and the administration emphases. 5. Supervised field experience in human development must be provided and at least one such experience is required for students in the student development emphasis. Faculty and field supervisors must be qualified and have adequate time allocated to supervise class assignments, laboratory, practica, and internship experiences. The program faculty must develop outreach efforts to the professional field of practice. Suggested Resources for Program Emphases muslin: Career, occu ation, and educational information materials Standardize tests and information on interpretation of data Resource materials for simulations, structured group experiences, and similar materials for human relations training. Wm Informational materials on human and organizational developmental theory, research, and practice. Career, occupational, and educational information materials Instruments and assessment tools that measure development and leadership from the various theoretical points of view, along with scoring and interpretive materials. Resource materials for simulations, structured group experiences, and other data-based interventions for human and organization development. Administration Instruments and assessment tools on topics such as leadership, organizational design, management style, conflict management, time management, and scoring and interpretation Resource materials for structured group experiences and simulations on organizational and administrative behaviors. Library resources must be provided for the program including current and historical books, periodicals, and other media for the teaching and research aspects of the program. The library resources must be carefully selected, reviewed periodically by the program faculty, and accessible to students. APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT PACKAGE SENT TO STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS 222 DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATOR SURVEY Section One: Academic and Biogsaphic Data PPNr—I PPN?‘ 10. ll. 12. . Institution Current position title Number of years in current position Total number of years as administrator/ professional in Student Affairs Administration 510 _ ' 21-25 11-15 _ 26-30 16-20 _ 31+ Highest Degree Earned Year Awarded Awarding Institution BA or B5 MA or MS Ph.D. EDD. Field of study Do you currently hold a faculty appointment? Yes No If yes, in what discipline? Is your faculty appointment: Joint Adjunct Affiliate Number of years as a faculty member Other (please list) Are you currently teaching a graduate course/ seminar in Student Affairs Administration? Yes _ If yes, how many at MA level __ PhD level _ No _ Age: 13. Gender: 30-35 _ 51-55 _ Male 36-40 __ 56-60 _ Female 41-45 61-65 46-50 66+ 223 Section Two: Professional Backgsound Data 1. Are you currently a member of student affairs professional associations: (check all that apply) N ASPA ACPA N AWDAC OTHER Please Provide Initials 2. Offices and committee assignments you have held in these organizations: Organization Office Held Major Committee Membership 3. How many of the following professional meetings have you attended in the last five years? _ National State Regional Local 4. Please list publications in Student Affairs or related areas. If available, attach a publication list. Number Books-Authored or Co-Authored Books-Contributor Books-Edited Monographs-Authored or Co-Authored __ Monographs-Contributor Monographs-Edited Juried Journals-National Juried Journals-State Newsletters-National Newsletters-Regional N ewsletters-State 5. Please list the total number of workshops and/ or papers presented at: National Conferences ‘ Regional Conferences State Conferences Institutions / Organizations 6. Please list the number of times you have consulted for: Colleges/ Universities Foreign Countries Ministries . Other 224 Section Three: Doctoral Proggam and Evaluative Data 1. In your opinion, what knowledge, skills and competencies should be provided to and developed in students enrolled in a doctoral preparation program in Student Affairs Administration. Please list them in order of importance. 1 \OPOVO\UIAOJN Hun-l —-b 2. What types of courses , experiences , and areas of emphases would best provide doctoral preparation program students with the competencies you have identified? 225 3. Please rank, based on your knowledge, the five leading doctoral preparation programs in Student Affairs Administration according to the instructions below. . Part A: QUALITY OF GRADUATE FACULTY. Circle the number that corresponds most closely to your judgement of the quality of the graduate faculty in your field at the institutions you listed below. Consider the scholarly competence and achievements of the present faculty. Part B: EFFECTIVENESS OF DOCTORAL PROGRAM. Circle the number below the term that corresponds most closely to the way you would rate the institutions you have listed if you were selecting a graduate school to work on a doctorate today. Take into account the accessibility of the faculty and its scholarly competence, the curricula, the instructional and research facilities, the quality of graduate students, and other factors that contribute to the effectiveness of the doctoral program. Part C: CHANGE IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. Circle the number below the term that corresponds most closely to your estimate of the change that has taken place in the quality of graduate education during the last five years at the institutions you have listed. onsider t e change from an absolute, not relative standpoint. That is, do not estimate the change in an institution's relative standing among other institutions. Instead, compare its graduate program today with its program 5 years ago. A. B. C. INSTITUTIONS QUALITY OF EFFECTIVENESS OF CHANGE I N GRADUATE FACULTY DOCTORAL PROGRAM LAST 5 YEARS .5 .6 .5 ‘5 I; a) ‘65 E E a; E 8. "" 8 _c 8 '0 5 g E: U .5". i” o J: *" In ... .... .2 8 >. 2 5 Z 5 :3 "‘ '3 O -0 --- I- "- no DD 3 E Z 5 .2 o .2 a M- OI. 9- MI- 2.1 c: :1 2 E a) “" 33 ,2 ‘5 to e (n a s... U a 1: In “:5 a: 5 .15 m fc’ .5 g 5 .5. 1 I Z L 4 1_1 3 4 _I__L_3 2 1_2_3 A j 2 3 4 l 2 3 3 LLLL I 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 IMLQ A LLL‘i 1 2 3 5 L2 3 L LLL‘I l 2 3 :5 If you ranked a doctoral preparation program to be "Better than 5 years ago," please specify the factors that influenced your evaluation. 26 Se tion F u: Pr aration tan ar an ui line In 1986, the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services and Development Programs published the "Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Degree Level for Student Services/ Development Professionals in Postsecondary Education." Please read the enclosed summary of these standards and respond to the following question: "What effects do you believe these Master's Degree standards will have on Doctoral preparation programs?" (SA=Strongly Agree; A=Agree; D=Disagree; SD=Strongly Disagree) SA A D SD They will help improve the quality of doctoral preparation programs 4 3 2 1 by encouraging them to at least meet the minimum standards recommended for the Master's level. 0.) N ...a They will encourage the development of standards for doctoral programs. 4 They will shift the doctoral preparation program from a generalist focus 4 3 2 1 to a more specific area of focus of administration. The comprehensive nature of these standards questions the need 4 3 2 1 for a doctoral preparation program. They will have no effect on current doctoral programs. 4 3 2 1 These standards will be adopted for doctoral preparation programs. 4 3 2 1 Doctoral preparation programs will be used strictly to train future faculty 4 3 2 1 members. They will provide support for those who believe that Student Affairs 4 3 2 1 Administration should only be a component of a Higher Education Administration program. 2. In your opinion, what does a doctoral preparation program provide in the way of knowledge and experiences that a Master's Degree preparation program does not? 227 Preparation Standards and Guidelines at the Master's Degree Level for Student Services/ Development Professionals in Postsecondary Education Summary The standards presented in this document were developed by the Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services/ Development Programs with the assistance of its member associations and especially professors in the field. These standards are intended to be used to develop and assess programs of professional preparation at the master's degree level. They also are intended for use by postsecondary institutions in self-studies of programs of professional preparation and by state, regional, national, or specialty agencies that accredit these academic programs. The standards have been consensually determined and represent what leaders in the field consider as performance areas which are highly related to effective professional practice. While the standards are intended to define the characteristics of programs of quality, they are not to be interpreted rigidly. Creative approaches to professional education are encouraged. Specific Program Emphases Student Development Emphasis - must contain coursework in the following areas: Human Development Theory and Practice Organization Behavior and Develo ment American College Student and Col ege Environment The Helping Relationship and Career Development Higher Education and Student Affairs Functions Research and Evaluation Specialized coursework Administration Emphasis - must contain coursework in the following areas: Administration Performance Appraisal and Supervision Administrative Uses of Computers Organizational Behavior and Development Human Development Theory and Practice Higher Education and Student Affairs Functions Research and Evaluation Specialized coursework Counseling Emphasis - must contain coursework in the following areas: The Helping Relationship Group Counseling Life Style and Career Development Appraisal of_ the Individual Human Development Theory and Practice Higher Education and Student Affairs Functions Research and Evaluation Specialized coursework 228 Supervised Experiences - this includes course assignments, laboratory, practicum, and/ or internship dimensions. 1. Counseling Prepracticum Laboratory Experiences: Counseling and career prepracticum laboratory experiences, providing both observation and participation in specific skill building activities, must be offered in both the counseling and student development emphases. 2. Counseling Practica: Supervised counselin practica are provided, and at least one counseling racticum with at least 15 hours 0 client contact per semester (or its equivalent or other calendars) is required for students in programs with either a counseling or student development emphasis. 3. Student Affairs Practica and Internships: Supervised student affairs practica and/ or internships must be available in various offices, and at least two such field experiences are required of all students in all three program emphases. 4. Supervised field experience in organization development must be provided and at least one such experience is required for students in both the student development and the administration emphases. 5. Supervised field experience in human development must be provided and at least one such experience is required for students in the student development emphasis. Faculty and field supervisors must be qualified and have adequate time allocated to supervise class assignments, laboratory, practica, and internship experiences. The program faculty must develop outreach efforts to the professional field of practice. Suggested Resources for Program Emphases Counseling Career, occupation, and educational information materials Standardized tests and information on interpretation of data Resource materials for simulations, structured group experiences, and similar materials for human relations training. Student Development Informational materials on human and organizational developmental theory, research, and practice. Career, occupational, and educational information materials Instruments and assessment tools that measure development and leadership from the various theoretical points of view, along with scoring and interpretive materials. Resource materials for simulations, structured group experiences, and other data-based interventions for human and organization development. A mini r i n Instruments and assessment tools on topics such as leadership, organizational design, management style, conflict management, time management, and scoring and interpretation Resource materials for structured group experiences and simulations on organizational and administrative behaviors. Library resources must be provided for the program including current and historical books, periodicals, and other media for the teaching and research aspects of the program. The library resources must be carefully selected, reviewed periodically by the program faculty, and accessible to students. APPENDIX C INSTRUMENT PACKAGE SENT TO PROGRAM COORDINATORS 229 DOCTORAL PROGRAMS IN STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM COORDINATOR SURVEY Section One: Doctoral Proggam Data 1. What percentage of your doctoral program focuses on the following areas? Administration _ Student Development __ Counseling __ Other Please list w/ percentage 2. What competencies are developed in graduates of your doctoral preparation program ? 1 2 3 4 5 L 7 8 9 1 0 l l 1 2 3. How are these competencies measured? 230 4. If a student does not sufficiently demonstrate a required competency, what type of remedy is offered, or action taken? 5. Are there any student affairs courses exclusively designed for doctoral students? Yes No 6. If yes, please list course titles: 7. What do you consider the strengths and weaknesses of your doctoral preparation program? 231 8. What types of program changes have occurred in the doctoral program over the past five years? 9. Are there any future program changes in the doctOral program being discussed, planned, or anticipated? APPENDIX D COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES USED IN THE SURVEY OF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS 232 Colleges and Universities Used In The Survey of Student Affairs Administrators Adelphi University Appalachian State University Arizona State University Auburn University Ball State University Baylor University Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania Boise State University Boston College Brigham Young University Brown University California State University-Long Beach California State University~Sacremento Carnegie Mellon University Case Western Reserve University Central Michigan University Clarion University Clemson University College of William and Mary Colorado State University Columbia University Cornell University Creighton University DePaul University Duke University Eastern Illinois University Farleigh Dickinson University Florida Atlantic University Florida State University Georgetown University Georgia Institute of Technology Hofstra University Howard University Humboldt State University Idaho State University Illinois State University Indiana University Indiana University of Pennsylvania James Madison University Kansas State University Kent State University 233 Colleges and Universities Used In The Survey of Student Affairs Administrators Lehigh University Louisiana State University Mankato State University Marquette University Massachusetts Institute of Technology Memphis State University Miami University Montana State University New Mexico State University New York University North Carolina State University Northern Arizona University Northern Illinois University Northwestern University Oakland University Oklahoma State University Pennsylvania State University Pepperdine University Portland State University Purdue University Radford University Rider College Rutgers University Saint Louis University San Diego State University Southern Methodist University Southwest Missouri State University Stanford University SUNY-Stony Brook Syracuse University Texas Tech University Tulane University University of Akron University of Alabama University of California at Berkeley University of California at Los Angeles University of Central Florida University of Delaware University of Florida - University of Illinois University of Maine at Orono 234 Colleges and Universities Used In The Survey of Student Affairs Administrators University of Maryland at College Park University of Miami University of Missouri University of Northern Iowa University of Oregon University of Pittsburgh University of Rhode Island University of South Carolina University of Southern California University of Tennessee at Knoxville University of Texas at Austin University of Tulsa University of Wisconsin--Stevens Point Washington State University Weber State University West Virginia University Western Illinois University Wichita State University APPENDIX E COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES USED IN THE SURVEY OF DOCTORAL PREPARATION PROGRAM FACULTY MEMBERS 235 Colleges and Universities Used In The Survey of Doctoral Preparation Program Faculty Members Auburn University Bowling Green State University Columbia University East Texas State University Florida State University Indiana State University Iowa State University Indiana University Kansas State University Kent State University Michigan State University New York University North Texas State University Ohio State University Ohio University Oregon State University Purdue University Southern Illinois University SUNY-Buffalo University of Alabama University of Connecticut University of Florida University of Georgia University of Iowa University of Maine-Orono University of Maryland University of Nevada-Reno University of North Carolina-Greensboro University of Northern Colorado University of South Carolina University of Toledo University of Virginia Vanderbilt University Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University APPENDIX F COVER LETTER FOR PREPARATION PROGRAM FACULTY MEMBERS Dear Professor I am a doctoral candidate in College and University Administration at Michigan State University, and am beginning the data collection for my dissertation. You have been selected as a participant in the development of my data base. My research questions involve comparing the perceptions between student affairs administration faculty members and student affairs administrators as they relate to doctoral preparation programs which include student affairs administration as a major curriculum emphasis. In addition, I also hope to identify a set of competencies and standards for Ph.D. preparation programs, as well as a ranking of top doctoral preparation programs. I would appreciate it if you could take some time to complete the enclosed instruments. Your response is critical in identifying important perceptions about doctoral preparation programs, and towards the continued development of our profession. To help me stay within my timetable, I need to have these surveys returned by December 4, 1987. I have enclosed a self—addressed, stamped envelope for your convenience. All information collected through these surveys will be used with the utmost integrity and honesty, and you nor your institution will be specifically mentioned unless written permission is requested and obtained from you. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Bud Beatty, Ph.D. Candidate Assistant Dean APPENDIX G COVER LETTER FOR STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS 237 Dear I am a doctoral candidate in College and University Administration at Michigan State University, and am beginning the data collection for my dissertation. You and your college student affairs administration program have been randomly selected as a participant in the development of my data base. My research questions involve comparing the perceptions between student affairs administration faculty members and student affairs administrators as they relate to doctoral preparation programs which include student affairs administration as a major curriculum emphasis. In addition, I also hope to identify a set of competencies and standards for Ph.D. preparation programs, as well as a ranking of top doctoral preparation programs. I would appreciate it if you could take some time to complete the enclosed instruments. Your response is critical in identifying important perceptions about doctoral preparation programs, and towards the continued development of our profession. To help me stay within my timetable, I need to have these surveys returned by December 4, 1987. I have enclosed a self-addressed, stamped envelope for your convenience. All information collected through these surveys will be used with the utmost integrity and honesty, and you nor your institution will be specifically mentioned unless written permission is requested and obtained from you. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Bud Beatty, Ph.D. Candidate Assistant Dean APPENDIX H COVER LETTER FOR DOCTORAL PREPARATION PROGRAM COORDINATORS 238 Dear I am a doctoral candidate in College and University Administration at Michigan State University, and am beginning the data collection for my dissertation. From my preliminary survey conducted earlier this Fall, the doctoral preparation program in student affairs administration at your institution has been identified by a sample of student affairs faculty and administrators as one of the best in the United States. I need your assistance in providing me with additional information about the program. I would appreciate it if you could take some time to complete the enclosed instrument. Your perceptions and comments about the preparation program you coordinate are critical to the continued development of our profession. To help me stay within my timetable, I need to have these surveys returned by February 15, 1988, and have enclosed a self-addressed, stamped envelope for your convenience. All information collected through these surveys will be used with the utmost integrity and honesty. All information will be presented in aggregate form and you will be not be specifically mentioned unless written permission is requested and obtained from you. However, in order for me to include your institution in my ranking, I will need for you to complete and return the enclosed consent form. Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Bud Beatty, Ph.D. Candidate Assistant Dean 239 Consent Form I give Bud Beatty, Ph.D. candidate in College and University Administration at Michigan State University, permission to list the name of my institution, and its doctoral preparation program in print name of institution student affairs administration in the ranking of top student affairs preparation programs. signature date APPENDIX I FOLLOW-UP REMINDERS 240 Dear Colleague: If you haven't already done so, please complete the instrument I sent to you and drop it in the mail by Thank you for your assistance. Bud Beatty BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Albrecht, RA. (1984). "Opportunity and Irnpediment in Graduate Program Innovation." in Keeping Graduate Programs Responsive to National Needs. ( MJ. Pelczar and LC. Solmon, editors). San Francisco, CA: Iossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 11-19. American College Personnel Association. (1969). Directory of Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel, 1968-1969. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. American College Personnel Association. (1984). Directory of Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel, 1984. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. American College Personnel Association. (1987). Directory of Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel, 1987. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. American Council on Education. (1937). The Student Personnel Point of View. American Council of Education Studies, Series 1, Vol. 1, No. 3. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. American Council on Education, Committee on Student Personnel Work. (E.G. Williamson, Chair). (1949). The Student Personnel Point of View. (rev. ed.) American Council on Education Studies, Series 6, No. 13. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. American Personnel and Guidance Association. (1969). "Guidelines for Graduate Programs in the Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Higher Education." Personnel and Guidance Iournal, 47(5), 493-498. Anderson, G.V. (1948). "Professional Standards and Training for College Personnel Workers." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 451-459. 241 242 Armstrong, GE. (1974). "A Study of Doctoral Training Programs for College and University Administrators, Including A Critical Evaluation of the Ph.D. Degree Program in Higher Education Administration at the University of Utah." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utah. Arner, T.D., Peterson, W.D., Arner, C.A., Hawkins, LT, and Spooner, SE. (1976). "Student Personnel Education: A Process-Outcome Model." Journal of College Student Personnel, 17(4), 334-341. Babbie, ER. (1973). Survey Research Methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Barnard, TE. (1974). "Ideal Junior College Student Personnel Programs and Optimum Graduate Programs for the Professional Preparation of Junior College Student Personnel Workers." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Oklahoma State University. Barry, R. and Wolf, B. (1963). Modern Issues in Guidance-Personnel Work. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University. Blaesser, W.W., and Froehlich, GP. (1950). "Major Issues and Trends in the Graduate Training of College Personnel Workers." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10, 588-595. Bolton, CR. (1974). "Recent Graduates' Perceptions of Their Doctoral Training Program in College Student Personnel." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma. Bowen, HR. (1984). "Graduate Education and Social Responsibility." in Keeping Graduate Programs Responsive to National Needs. (MJ. Pelczar and LC. Solmon, editors). San Francisco, CA: Iossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 113-119. Bradley, R.K., Coomes, M.D., and Kuh, GD. (1985). "A Typology for Classifying Student Affairs Knowledge." Iournal of College Student Personnel, 26 (1), 11-18. Broertjes, V.H. (1965). "An Appraisal of the Doctoral Program in Higher Education at the School of Education, Based on a Follow-Up Study of its Graduates." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Indiana University. Brown, RD. (1972). Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher Education: A Return to the Academy. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. 243 Brown, RD. (1984). "Graduate Education for the Student Development Educator: A Content and Process Model." NASPA Journal, 22 (1), 38-43. Burnett, CW. (1954). "Selection and Training of School and College Personnel Workers." Review of Educational Research, XXXIV (2), 121-133. Candon, SA. (1981). "The Evolution of Three Student Personnel Perspectives and Their Effects on Professional Preparation Programs." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Columbia University. Canon, HJ. (1982). "Toward Professionalism in Student Affairs: Another Point of View." Journal of College Student Personnel, 23 (6), 468-472. Carpenter, D.S., Miller, T.K., and Winston, RB. (1980). "Toward the Professionalization of Student Affairs." NASPA Journal, 18 (2), 16-22. Conrad, CF. and Wilson, RF. (1985). Academic Program Reviews: Institutional Approaches, Expectations, and Controversies . ASHE/ ERIC Higher Education Report No. 5, Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Cooper, AC. (1974). "Student Development Services in Higher Education." Journal of College Student Personnel, 15 (1), 74-78. Cooper, AC. (1975). "Student Development Services in Post-Secondary Education." Journal of College Student Personnel, 16 (6), 524-528. Cosby, B. (1965). "Professional Preparation for Student Personnel Work in Higher Education." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 29 (1), 14-18. Cottingham, HT (1955). "Roles, Functions, and Training Levels for College Personnel Workers." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 33 (9), 534-538. Cross, KR (1973). "Student Personnel Work as a Profession." Journal of College Student Personnel, 14 (1), 77-81. Council for the Advancement of Standards for Student Services and Development Programs. (1986). CAS Standards and Guidelines for Student Services/Developmental Programs. Publisher: Author. 101-109. 244 Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education. (1964). A Proposal for Professional Preparation in College Student Personnel Work. Chicago, Illinois: Author. Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education. (1975). Student Development Services in Postsecondary Education. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University. Creamer, D.G. (editor). (1980). Student Development in Higher Education: Theories, Practices, and Future Directions. ACPA Media Publication, No. 27. Cincinnati, Ohio: American College Personnel Association. Crookston, BB. (1972). "An Organizational Model for Student Development." NASPA Journal, 10 (1), 3-13. Delworth, U., and Hanson, GR. (1983). Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Dewey, ME. (1972). "The Student Personnel Worker of 1980." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, 35(2), 59-64. Domeier, RA. (1977). "A Study to Examine the Training of Student Affairs Administrators for Specific Competency Tasks." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University. Dressel, P. (1980). Improving Degree Programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Dressel, P., and Mayhew, LB. (1974). Higher Education as a Field of Study. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Fitzgerald, LE. (1967). "The Role and Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Institutions of Higher Learning." Journal of College Student Personnel, 8 (1), 62—65. Garland, PH. (1985). Serving More Than Students: A Critical Need for College Student Personnel Services. ASHE/ ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 7. Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Greenleaf, EA. (1968). "Who Should Educate the College Student Personnel Worker and to What End?" NASPA Journal, 6 (1), 29-32. 245 Greenleaf, EA. (1977). "Preparation of Student Personnel Staff to Meet Flexibility and Diversity in Higher Education." in Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals. (G.H. Knock, editor). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, 150-165. Hardee, MD. (1964). "The Professional Education of Student Personnel Workers: An Approach Through Higher Education." Paper read at the Convention of the American College Personnel Association, San Francisco, California. Hoyt, DP, and Rhatigan 1.]. (1968). "Professional Preparation of Junior and Senior College Student Personnel Administrators." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 47 (3), 263-267. Hyman, RE. (1983). "An Assessment of Student Affairs Preparation Programs in Relation to Professional Competencies." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Florida. . Jones, A]. (1945). "Preparation of Personnel Workers." Review of Educational Research, 5 (2), 185-190. Jones, JD. (1978). "Student Personnel Work: Current State and Future Directions." NASPA Journal, 15 (4), 2-11. Keim, MC. (1983). "Exemplary Graduate Programs in Higher Education." Education Research Quarterly, 8 (3), 4-11. Keim, MC. (1985). "Student Affairs Preparation Programs: Progressive, Paralyzed or Perishing?" Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American College Personnel Association, Boston, Massachusetts. Keim, MC. (1987). "Graduate Programs for Student Services/ Development Professionals: History, Trends, Impact of CAS Standards." Paper presented at the joint NASPA/ACPA Convention, Chicago, Illinois. Kelley, J.A. (1962). "The Look Ahead in Student Personnel Work: New Dimensions and Directions -- The Challenge to the Student Personnel Workers." The Role of the Student Personnel Worker in Teacher Education. Monograph No. 1. Washington, DC: The Student Personnel Association for Teacher Education. Klopf, G. (1963). "Design for Counselor Preparation." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors. 26, 5-9. 246 Knock, G.H. (1977). Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals. ACPA Student Personnel Services No. 22. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association. Koile, EA. (1966). "Student Affairs: Forever the Bridesmaid." NASPA Journal, 4 (4), 65-72. Koose, K.D., and Anderson, C]. (1970). A Rating of Graduate Programs. Washington, DC: The American Council _on Education. LaBarre, C. (1948). Graduate Training for Educational Personnel Work. Washington, DC: American Council of Education. Series VI, 1-17. Levine, A. (1978). Handbook on Undergraduate Curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc. Marler, JD. (1977). "An Appraisal of the Doctoral Preparation of College Student Personnel Administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University 1965-1977." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University. Matson, LE. (1977). "The Development and Care of Community College Student Personnel Specialists." in Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals. (G.H. Knock, editor). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, 103-122. Mayhew, LB, and Ford, PJ. (1974). Reform in Graduate and Professional Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Inc., Publishers. McDaniel, RR. (1972). "Organization Theory and the Preparation of Student Personnel Workers." NASPA Journal, 10 (2), 101-105. McLeary, LE. (1973). Competency Based Educational Administration and Application to Related Fields. Washington, DC: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Meabon, D.L., and Owens, HF. (1984). "Graduate Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel: The Introductory Course." NASPA Journal, 22 (1), 2-12. Meabon, D.L., Bailey, W.R., and Witten, CH. (1975). "The Competent Student Activities Administrators: A Model for Training." Journal of College Student Personnel, 16 (2), 100-106. 247 Millard, R (1984). "Assessing the Quality of Innovative Graduate Programs." in Keeping Graduate Programs Responsive to National Needs. (MJ. Pelczar and LC. Solmon, editors). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers, 4148. Miller, T.K. (1967). "College Student Personnel Preparation: Present Perspective and Future Directions." NASPA Journal, 4 (4), 171-176. Miller, T.K., and Carpenter, D5. (1980). "Professional Preparation for Today and Tomorrow." in Student Development in Higher Education: Theories, Practices, and Future Directions. (D.G. Creamer, editor). Cincinnati, OH: ACPA Media, 181-204. Miller, T.K., and Prince, IS. (1976). The Future of Student Affairs: A Guide to Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Miller, T.K., Winston, RB, and Mendenhall, W.R. (1984). Administration and Leadership in Student Affairs: Actualizing Student Development in Higher Education. Muncie, IN: Accelerated Development, Inc. Minetti, RH. (1977). "An Analytical Description of the Relationship Between the Academic Training and Assistantship Experiences of Master's Degree Programs in Student Personnel Administration." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University. Morgan, D.R., Kearney, RC., and Regens, IL. (1976). "Assessing Quality Among Graduate Institutions of Higher Education in the United States." Social Science Quarterly, 57 (3), 670-679. Morgan, L.E., Kearney, RC, and Regens, BL. (1976). "Assessing Quality Among Graduate Institutions of Higher Education in the United States." Social Science Quarterly, 57 (3), 670-679. Mueller, K.H. (1967). "Educational Issues and the Training of Student Personnel Workers." NASPA Journal, 4 (4), 167-170. Norusis, M. J. (1986). The SPSS Guide to Data Analysis. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Incorporated. Nyre, GR, and Reilly KC. (1979). Professional Education in the Eighties: Challenges and Responses. ASHE/ ERIC Research Report No. 8. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. 248 O'Banion, T.U. (1966). "A Core Program Proposal for the Professional Preparation of College and University Student Personnel Workers." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University. O'Banion, T.U. (1969). "Program Proposal for Preparing College Student Personnel Workers." Journal of College Student Personnel, 10 (4), 249-253. Oetting, ER, and Hawkes, E]. (1974). ”Training Professionals for Evaluative Research." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52 (6), 434-449. Ostroth, DD. (1975). "Master's Level Preparation for Student Personnel Work." Journal of College Student Personnel, 16 (4), 319-322. Pagano, RR. (1986). Understanding Statistics in the Behavioral Sciences. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company. Pelczar, M..,J and Solmon, L. C. (1984). Keeping Graduate Programs Responsive to National Needs. New Directions for Higher Education, No.46. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Penn, JR (1974). "Professional Accreditation: A Key to Excellence." Journal of College Student Personnel, 15 (4), 257-259. Penney, J.F. (1969). "Student Personnel Work: A Profession Stillborn." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 47 (10), 958-962. Peterson, W.D. (1977). "What the Doctor Prescribed: A Process-Outcome Approach to Student Personnel Education." in Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals. (G.H. Knock, editor). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, 40-63. Pottinger, PS, and Goldsmith, J. (editors). (1979). Defining and Measuring Competence. New Directions for Experiential Learning, No. 3. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Pruitt, A. S. (1979). "Preparation and Student Development Specialists During the 1980's. " Counselor Education and Supervision, 18, 190-198. Rentz, AL. (1976). " A Triadic Model Master's Program in Student Development." Journal of College Student Personnel, 17 (6), 453-458. Rhatigan, J]. (1965). "The Professional Preparation of Student Personnel Administrators as Perceived by Practitioners and Faculty-Trainers." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa. 249 Rhatigan, 1.]. (1968). "Professional Preparation of Student Personnel Administrators as Perceived by Practitioners and Faculty." Journal of College Student Personnel, 9 (1), 17-23. Riker, H. (1977). "Learning by Doing." in Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals. (G.H. Knock, editor). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, 129-142. Robinson, D.W. (1966). "Analysis of Three Statements Relative to the Preparation of College Student Personnel Workers." Journal of College Student Personnel, 7 (4), 254-256. Rockey, MC. (1972). "Doctoral Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel in Selected Universities in the United States." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University. Rodgers, RF. (1977). "Student Personnel Work as a Social Intervention." in Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals. (G.H. Knock, editor). Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association, 12-33. Sandeen, A. (1982). "Professional Preparation Programs in Student Personnel Services in Higher Education: A National Assessment by Chief Student Affairs Officers." NASPA Journal, 20 (2), 51-58. Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall, W., and Ott, L. (1986). Elementary Survey Sampling. Boston, MA: Duxbury Press. Schein, EH. (1972). Professional Education. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. Shoben, EJ. (1967). "Psychology and Student Personnel Work." Journal of College Student Personnel, 8 (4), 239-245. Silverman, RI. (1974). "Student Personnel Work: An Area in Search of Scholars." Journal of College Student Personnel, 15 (4), 260-264. Spooner, SE. (1977). "Preparing the Student Development Specialist: The Process-Outcome Model Applied." Journal of College Student Personnel, 20 (1), 45-53. Stamatakos, L. C. (1981). "Student Affairs Progress Toward Professionalism: Recommendations for Action- Part 1. " Journal of College Student Personnel, 22 (2),105-113. 250 Stamatakos, LC. (1981). "Student Affairs Progress Toward Professionalism: Recommendations for Action - Part 2." Journal of College Student Personnel, 22 (3), 197-207. Stamatakos, LC, and Rogers, RR. (1984). "Student Affairs: A Profession in Need of a Philosophy." Journal of College Student Personnel, 25 (5), 400-411. Stark, J.S., Lowther, M.A., Hagerty, B.M.K., and Orczyk, C. (1986). "A Conceptual Framework for the Study of Preservice Professional Programs in Colleges and Universities." Journal of Higher Education, 57 (3), 231-257. Stark, J.S., Lowther, M.A., and Hagerty, B.M.K. (1986). Responsive Professional Education. Balancing Outcomes and Opportunities. ASHE / ERIC Higher Education Report No. 3. Washington, D. C.: Association for the Study of Higher Education. Stoughton, R.W. (1957). "The Preparation of Counselors and Personnel Workers." Review of Educational Research, 27 (2), 174-185. Strange, C. C. (1983). "Human Development Theory and Administrative Practice in Student Affairs: Ships Passing in the Daylight?" NASPA Journal, 21 (1), 2-8. Strange, CC, and Contomanolis, E. (1983). "Knowledge Perceptions of Human Development Theory Among Student Affairs Masters Students." Journal of College Student Personnel , 24 (3), 197-201. Stripling, RD. (1965). "Professional Preparation for Student Personnel Service." NASPA Proceedings of the Forty-Seventh Conference, Washington, DC. . (1975). "A Student Development Model for Student Affairs in Tomorrow's Higher Education." Journal of College Student Personnel, 16 (4), 334-341. Trueblood, BL. (1966). "The Educational Preparation of the College Student Personnel Leader of the Future." in College Student Personnel Work in the Years Ahead. (G..J Klopf, editor), ACPA Student Personnel Series No. 7. Washington, D. C.: American Personnel and Guidance Association, 77-84. United States Office of Education. (1964). Preparation in School and College Personnel Work, 1963-1964. Circular No. 717. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. 251 Upcraft, ML (1971). "Does Training Make a Difference?" NASPA Journal, 9 (2), 134-137. Warren, J.R. (editor). (1983). Meeting the New Demand for Standards. New Directions for Higher Education, No. 43. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers. Whittington, N. (1983). "State Level Review of Doctoral Programs in Texas." ERIC Document, (HE 016 968), 2-11. Williamson, EC. (1958). "Professional Preparation of Student Personnel Workers." School and Society, 86, 3-5. Woolf, M.D., and Woolf, J.A. (1953). The Student Personnel Program. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wrenn, CG. (1948). "The Greatest Tragedy in College Personnel Work." Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 412-429. Wrenn, CG, and Darley, JG. (1949). "An Appraisal of the Professional Status of Personnel Work." in Trends in Student Personnel Work. (E.G. Williamson, editor). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 264-287. Yates, J.M. (1977). "The Perceptions of Chief Student Personnel Administrators and Coordinators of Preparation Programs Regarding the Intended Outcomes of Doctoral Programs in Student Personnel Administration." Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Memphis State University.