A STUDY To EXAMINE THE TRAINING OF STUDENT. v , _~ - AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS FOR‘ SPECIFIED ‘ COMPETENCYTASKS, . ‘ . , Dissertation for the Degreeof ’Ph. 9-] . ‘ ' MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' ' PATRICIA EILEEN DOMEI’ER. ‘ 1977 I III III/I III IIII III III IIII IIII II IIII III IIII IIII IIII III I I I"? Q A 6» 0686678 “ [21; 2': ‘ lQLatc University I This is to certify that the thesis entitled A 5" 002% tC- E {u V‘,‘ .‘“4. éhi Tfi m(M\:¢\¢ OI 3 T'U‘pfmf‘ “(4% 511 rs‘ IQ J v.“ n Is+r~‘~(0"$ I {rov spec. (fed) Caroupef‘“°‘\ TGS {(5. presented by 3 - ‘ KIA ‘\ Q; <. u} E. DO “184' fill has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ~.)" _ I I\. b degree in II -. “‘1 I; r l" I: ohm atom r /’/' , D K t (\I\ \‘\.'\.' Va» '1' -‘\ Major professor Datei'jc /'/ I 0-7639 ABSTRACT A STUDY TO EXAMINE THE TRAINING OF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS FOR SPECIFIED COMPETENCY TASKS BY Patricia Eileen Domeier The Purposes The purposes of this study were to develop com- petency tasks used by Student Affairs Administrators in a university setting and to examine the training of the administrators for the tasks. The Procedure Student Affairs Administrators in eight Michigan universities were selected to respond to a questionnaire developed for the purposes of this study. The instrument included four questions regarding the training of each administrator for fifty-eight competency tasks which had been developed from the review of the literature. From 180 potential respondents in eight insti— tutions, 42 percent returned questionnaires that could be used in the final analysis. The chi-square and Fisher Exact statistics were used for tests of independence between the position category (executive, middle Patricia Eileen Domeier management, entrance) and the training of Student Affairs Administrators in relation to the fifty-eight competency tasks in eight competency areas: Budget Management, Com- munication, Cooperative Relationships, Leadership, Per- sonnel Management, Professional Development, Research and Evaluation, and Student Contact. Findings The major findings based on the responses to the questionnaire resulted in the following conclusions: 1. There were significant differences among the three position categories regarding the use of the compe— tency tasks for forty-three of the fifty-eight tasks. 2. There were significant differences among the positions for forty-one of the competency tasks pertaining to the training of the administrators for the tasks. 3. There were significant differences among the position categories for only one of the tasks regarding the need for additional training. 4. There were significant differences among the position categories for all but six of the competency tasks regarding the appropriate source(s) of additional training for the tasks. In other words respondents by position category did not significantly agree on the applicability and fre- quency of using the tasks in their present positions. They also did not agree according to their position Patricia Eileen Domeier category on the sources of training they had for each of the tasks. Nor did they agree by position category on the appropriate sources of additional training for the compe- tency tasks. And yet, there was general agreement that additional training for the competency tasks would be beneficial to them in their present positions. The findings based on answers to each of the four questions as related to the total population response yielded the following conclusions: 1. Ninety—nine percent of the competency tasks were used by at least 45 percent of the respondents in their present positions; 73 percent were used by three- fourths of the administrators, and 86 percent were used by at least two-thirds of the administrators. 2. The Student Affairs Administrators indicated the following order of training they had for the compe- tency tasks in general--first, on-the-job experience; second, their own professional activities; third, formal education degrees; and, last, formal in-service training. 3. A majority of the administrators indicated that additional training would be beneficial for 90 per— cent of the tasks. Forty-one percent of the administra- tors indicated a need of additional training for every competency task for use in their present positions. 4. In-service training was selected as the most appropriate source of additional training for 90 percent Patricia Eileen Domeier of the competency tasks. Seventy-five percent of the administrators indicated a need of additional training for one task in particular--Professional Development, define and participate in appropriate self-renewal and in-service training programs and activities. Thus, it was possible to generate competency tasks used by Student Affairs Administrators in their present position from the literature. It was also pos— sible to determine the source(s) of training administra— tors had for each competency task; whether or not addi- tional training for every task would be beneficial to their present position; and, to determine the most appropriate source(s) of additional training for each competency task. A STUDY TO EXAMINE THE TRAINING OF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS FOR SPECIFIED COMPETENCY TASKS BY Patricia Eileen Domeier A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1977 C) Copyright by PATRICIA EILEEN DOMEIER 1977 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer expresses her sincere appreciation to Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, chairperson of her doctoral com- mittee, and to the members of the committee, Dr. Richard Featherstone and Dr. Robert Sidnell for their assistance, patience, and understanding. The writer expresses her love and appreciation to her parents and brother and sisters for their encourage- ment and support which made the doctoral study possible. Special appreciation is expressed to Joy Tubaugh for herself, and to Bob Minetti, Mark Holysz, Jim Hope, Barb and Jim Keinath, Patty Miller, and Kris and Bill Neale for their friendship, encouragement, harassment, and special assistance through times of sorrow and happiness. A word of thanks is extended to Dr. Laurine E. Fitzgerald for providing motivation for perseverance among other intangibles. Appreciation is expressed to all faculty, staff, and friends at Michigan State University, Miami University, and De Pauw University for encouragement and support. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I 0 THE PROBLEM O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 Introduction and Statement of the Problem Objectives of This Study . . . . . Scope and Limitations of This Study . . Significance of This Study . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . Overview of This Study. . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . Trends in Student Affairs Administration. Training Opportunities for Student Affairs Practitioners . . . . Research Relevant to the Development of Competencies for Student Affairs Administrators. . . . . . . . . III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . Generation of the Administrative Compe- tency Tasks. . . . . . . . . . Development of the Instrument . . . . Collection of the Data. . . . . . . Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis: Question 1 How Important Is Each Competency Task to Your Present Position? . . . . . Analysis: Question 2 Indicate the Source(s) of Training You Have Had for Each Competency Task . . Analysis: Question 3 If Available, Would Additional Training Be Beneficial to Your Present Position? Specify the Tasks To Be Included. . iii Page '—l 17 25 37 50 50 58 63 66 66 67 78 79 Chapter V. APPENDI APPENDI A. B. F. SELECTE Analysis: Question 4 What Would Be the Appropriate Source(s) of Additional Training for Each Com- petency Task? . . . . . . Analysis Summary. . . . Introduction to the Total Population Responses . . . . . . Population Response-~Question 1. Population Response--Question 2. Population Response-~Question 3. Population Response--Question 4. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A Summary of the Development of the Study 0 O O O O O O O O 0 Conclusions . . . . . . . . Discussion. . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . CES X DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY. CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF STUDENT PERSONNEL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE . . . A.C.P.A. SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES IDENTIF- ICATION PROJECT . . . . . . STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION CONTACTS COVER LETTER FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE D BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . iv 0 Page 80 82 83 83 93 101 106 115 115 126 134 139 141 144 147 154 166 167 168 Table 1. LIST OF TABLES RESULTS OF THE HYPOTHESIS TEST ACCORDING TO COMPETENCY TASK . . . . . . . . . PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RESPONSE QUESTION I . . . . . . . . . . RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE POPULATION, TASKS, AND SOURCES OF TRAINING QUESTION 2 . . . . . . . . . . PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RESPONSE QUESTION 2 O O O O O O O O O O PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RESPONSE QUESTION 3 C C O O O O O O O O PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RESPONSE QUESTION 4 O O O O O O O O O O RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE POPULATION, TASKS, AND SOURCES OF TRAINING QUESTION 4 O O O O O O O O O O Page 69 84 94 98 102 107 111 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction and Statement of the Problem The status of higher education in America is being summarized by all possible sources of the communi- cation media. An aura of uncertainty fills campus environments bringing increased emphasis on closer scrutiny to all facets of the educational process. Fiscal and political pressures are placing demands on adminis— trators to produce quality opportunities at minimal cost. Individualization of a student's education in all potential campus learning arenas continues to be a goal, but is tempered by the results of such processes as cost- effectiveness analysis. Program frills are disappearing along with the personnel who made them possible. Con— troversy exists as to what is and what should be and who is most qualified to do what. Throughout the history of Student Affairs Admin- istration, there have been controversial issues regarding the purpose of College Student Personnel Work and the nature or need for professional preparation or training of its practitioners. Today, administrative personnel are being evaluated more closely than ever. At a time when questions are being raised concerning actual skills and performance productivity, currently employed Student Affairs personnel come from many different educational backgrounds with various levels of training experience (Rockey, 1972). In a study of role expectations con— ducted by Upcraft (1971), less than half of the sample of chief College Student Personnel Administrators in universities of over 10,000 students had been profes- sionally trained. Usually training of Student Affairs administrators has been a primary concern of three groups: (1) those who staff the College Student Personnel preparation programs, i.e., faculty; (2) those responsible for hiring Student Personnel Workers; and (3) those who are immediately responsible for supervision of these practitioners. A review of the literature indicates that there has been little examination of on—the-job training needs of Student Affairs practitioners, particularly in relation to any specified administrative competencies. Research which has been conducted usually focused only on the chief Student Affairs Administrator (Gross, 1963). Pro- fessional literature has generally focused on: guidelines and principles for professional development (Truitt & Gross, 1966; Stamatakos & Oliaro, 1972); plans and ”hit ~ - implementations of specific institutional programs (Myerson, 1974; Passons, 1969); or on general models for the development of in—service training programs (Brown, 1972; Crookston, 1972; Newton, 1975; Parker, 1971; Wanzek & Canon, 1975). Dissertation studies have recommended further examination and field study for determining the nature and need of specific training for practitioners (Davies, 1970; Foy, 1967; Gross, 1963; Haller, 1967; Hester, 1971; Lynam, 1970; Reynolds, 1961; Rockey, 1972; Rodgers, 1963; Upcraft, 1967). However, seemingly prohibitive factors such as time, cost, and questionnaire utilization have squelched such projects. The intent, then, of this investigation is to focus on the training of Student Affairs practitioners in relation to a set of specified administrative compe- tency tasks. Objectives of This Study The entire area of how and on what basis Student Affairs Administrators receive necessary on-the-job training or retraining has not been studied directly, as evidenced by a review of the literature. This researcher thought a direct approach of asking prac- titioners questions pertaining to their training for specified competency tasks would be fruitful. More specifically it was the intent of this researcher to: (l) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Review pertinent literature pertaining to Student Affairs Administration with particular emphasis on those areas relating to training, competency development, and staff in-service education pro- grams; Generate competency tasks utilized by Student Affairs Administrators; Develop a questionnaire instrument which will survey the training needs among the various positions levels of Student Affairs Adminis- trators in relation to specified tasks; Indicate, on the basis of the survey, Specific competency tasks performed at the various position levels of Student Affairs Administration; Indicate, on the basis of the survey, appropriate sources of in-service training for specified competency tasks; and, Recommend, on the basis of the survey, a model for the in-service training of Student Affairs Administrators. In examining the training of Student Affairs Administrators for specified competency tasks, it was necessary to establish a framework of organization. Many approaches could have been taken to examine the various aspects of professional training. This study focused on sources of training for specific competency tasks. It also recognized various positions held by administrators which implied various training experiences and opportuni- ties. Thus as a framework for examining the relationship among three variables (administrators, competency tasks, and training), a general hypothesis was formulated. General Hypothesis: There are no significant differences among the position categories of Student Affairs Administrators and their training for specified competency tasks. The results and conclusions of this study indicate the degree to which these objectives and the hypothesis have been satisfied. Scope and Limitations of This Study This study was conducted within the following framework: 1. The population surveyed was limited to Student Affairs Administrators in Michigan universities. For the purpose of this study, a Student Affairs Administrator is a person supervised or employed by the Chief Student Personnel Administrator through a recognized position such as the Vice President for Student Affairs. Due to the many possible organizational structures of American universities, it was probable that any one Office of Student Affairs would not be responsible for exactly the same administrative functions. The intent of this study was not to examine organizational structure, but to assess the training of personnel within a singular span of control. This study was based on a questionnaire instrument. Use of this procedure assumed: honesty on the part of the respondent, understanding of the intent of each question, responses that reflect the intent of the respondent, and correct inter— pretation of the responses by the researcher. However, these assumptions may not have been always accurate. Questionnaires have been acceptable tools of survey research. While a response rate is diffi— cult to anticipate, much field research would not occur without the use of this technique due to financial and time consumption constraints. It was the intent of this researcher to accept the initial number of responses (including one follow—up request) as sufficient for this study. Results and conclusions were considered descrip- tive of the training of Student Affairs Administrators in relation to specified compe- tencies within the parameters of the total number of questionnaire returns. There was no reason to believe that Michigan uni- versities were not typical of American uni— versities in relation to the number of personnel and the designation of positions held within Student Affairs Administration. This study assumed that a set of competencies for Student Affairs Administrators could be generated. Competencies which were generated would be basic in some degree to the functioning of Student Affairs Administrators as they fulfill their delegated responsibilities. It was assumed that statements from the literature and research in educational administration, col- lege student personnel work, and administrative and organizational behavior were applicable to Student Affairs Administration. This study assumed that Student Affairs Adminis- tration is responsible for the effectiveness of the nomothetic and ideographic dimensions of its organizational development as described by Jacob W. Getzels in "Administration as a Social Process" (Griffiths, 1964): "The social system is comprised of two dimensions; the nomothetic which consists of the institution, role, and expectation; and the ideographic which consists of the individual, his personality, and his need-dispositions" (p. 101). Significance of This Study There is a need for more research on the role of Student Affairs Administration in Higher Education if only to contribute to a better understanding of the nature of administration in Higher Education. Controversy exists regarding the application of administrative theory typi- cally utilized in corporate structures outside the realm of educational administration as compared to such utili- zation within educational administration. To a greater extent the diversity of functions, practices, and services typically aligned with Student Affairs Administration call into question the role of the Student Affairs worker as an administrator. This study was helpful in identify- ing those competencies utilized by practitioners in their day-to—day performance roles. The information gathered in this study was helpful in identifying training needs for specified competencies of the different position categories within Student Affairs Administration. Specifically, Student Affairs Administrators, professional organizations, and others involved with professional development concerns can benefit from the clarification of specific training needs for the different position levels in determining profes- sional development activity emphasis. Further, infor- mation gathered might be useful in developing and modify- ing job descriptions of Student Affairs Administrators. In View of accountability demands, the continued professional growth of Student Affairs Administrators could be essential to one's survival in the field. The set of administrative competencies established by this study should provide a baseline behavioral definition of job performance. They should be of value to all employed in the field of Student Affairs Administration. In addition this set of competencies should be an asset to those who attempt to communicate to others what Student Affairs Administration encompasses. An important aspect of this study was the develop- ment of a questionnaire instrument with two basic compo— nents: a set of administrative competencies, and questions which emphasize training. The administration of the questionnaire (with appropriate modifications) at any individual institution should provide impetus for better identification of specific training needs and possible redirection of emphasis of specific in—service training programs. With some modification the questionnaire could also be utilized as an assessment instrument or as a 10 guide to competency development in Student Affairs preparation programs. Essentially this study was important to all engaged in or touched by Student Affairs Administration. It should identify and clarify the importance of compe- tency based in-service training to the individual which ultimately should result in greater benefits for students and for the institutions. Too often busy schedules pre- clude professional development activities. In addition, professional inertia often sets in once formalized edu— cation has been completed. Williamson (1961) recognized this problem when he wrote: "As a worker gets further away from his graduate training, he is more likely to become frozen in his professional practice if he does not do research or keep up with the changing disciplines related to his practice in other ways" (p. 135). Definition of Terms An appraisal of the literature relative to Student Affairs Administration reveals some confusion and dupli- cation of terminology and meanings. To avoid semantic confusion the following definitions of specific terms were applied in this study: Administrative Competency.—-An administrative competency is a capacity "to synthesize and actualize relevant knowledge for the purpose of: a) facilitating 11 institutional planning; b) resolving problems which inter— fere with the achievement of organizational goals and objectives; and c) evaluating institutional progress toward goal achievement" (Lynam, 1970, p. 9). Note: Clarification for the generation of this term as developed by Lynam can be found in Appendix A. Administrative Competency Task.——Task is defined as "a piece of work, especially one assigned to or demanded of a person" (Webster, 1975, p. 1867). An Administrative Competency Task refers to those tasks specifically related to a particular Administrative Competency. Administrative Position Level.—-Three different levels of position are identified within a Student Affairs organizational structure: (1) Executive Level, (2) Man- agerial Level, and (3) Entrance Level. This classifi- cation is based upon Sherburn's (1968) "Conceptual Model of Student Personnel Organizational Structure." Complete definition of each level including (1) position descrip— tion, (2) educational and professional requirements, and (3) qualifying questions is available in Appendix B. (Position level or position category are used inter— changeably.) 12 Chief Student Affairs Administrator.-—The college or university administrator who is immediately responsible for the direction and coordination of the Student Affairs program and staff. In—service Training.--Activities of employed Student Affairs Administrators that contribute to their continual professional development. The terms "in—service training," "in-service education," and "training" can be used interchangeably. Student Affairs Administration.--The program within an institution of Post Secondary Education con- cerned with the provision of services for students which complement and supplement the academic mission of Higher Education institutions. Student Affairs Administrator.--An educator employed in the field of Student Affairs Administration. Performance of various tasks requires different roles to be assumed, i.e., administrator, counselor, consultant, disciplinarian, faculty member, programmer, teacher. Overview of This Study This study will be organized and reported as follows: Chapter I has presented an introduction and statement of the problem; objectives, sc0pe, and 13 limitations of the study; significance of the study; a definition of the terms; and an anticipated general overview of the study as it is to be reported. Chapter II will present a review of pertinent literature pertaining to Student Affairs Administration with particular emphasis on those areas concerned with training, competency development, and in-service edu- cation programs. Chapter III will outline the methodology and pro- cedures utilized to investigate the training of Student Affairs Administrators in relation to specified compe— tencies. Chapter IV will report an analysis of the findings generated by the questionnaire developed for the purpose of this study. Chapter V will utilize the profile developed from the results of the study to summarize findings, make recommendations, and suggest implications for further ~research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A review of the literature indicated that both individuals and organizations have been concerned with the roles, functions, and education of Student Affairs practitioners. Further research indicated that a few have considered the specific competencies needed to perform the designated functions of these practitioners. Even fewer have examined or recommended sources of train- ing or training models for developing such competencies. For the purpose of this study the writer concluded that it would be necessary to present an overview of the development of Student Affairs work; to examine sources of training available to the Student Affairs practitioner; and to examine specific studies pertaining to competency development. It may or may not be true that Student Affairs work is merely a conglomeration of diverse disciplines (Penney, 1969). However, any attempt to review the literature must be tempered by acknowledging: (1) the continuous appearance of new sources and methods of 14 15 expression, (2) the often differing professional opinions, and (3) the consequent need for sampling among potential sources (Reilley & Cauthen, 1976). As a framework for this chapter, the literature cited by Reilley and Cauthen (1976) in "The Literature of College Student Personnel—- A Sample" was used as an organizational tool. At the most this body of literature, including the additions or dele— tions particular to this study, only "offers a sample or tentative selective listing, rather than a definitive statement" (Reilley & Cauthen, 1976, p. 363). An initial literature search generated 1,647 sources related to training Student Affairs practitioners. Student Affairs functions or services and the roles of chief Student Per- sonnel administrators, rather than the competencies required to perform such roles, were the thrust of this literature. Recent research through dissertation studies, individual efforts, institutional evaluations, and pro— fessional organization committee proceedings also tended toward the same thrust. Many studies provided demographic data regarding the various levels of Student Affairs work at different types of institutions (Hoyt & Tripp, 1967; Ayers, Tripp, & Russel, 1966; Sherburn, 1968; Bess & Lodahl, 1967; Cameron, 1965; Cheatham, 1964; Kaufman, 1964; McBee, 1961). 16 Career development studies indicated that factors such as selection processes and procedures, size, type, and location of the institution, organizational structure and functions at various institutions, titles and assigned roles, and institutional policies varied in importance according to a specific group studied and also suggested that factors might vary according to the perceptions of those involved in any particular selection process (Foy, 1969; Haller, 1967; Hester, 1971; Hulet, 1966; Nygreen, 1968; Rockey, 1972; Sheldon, 1968; Sherburn, 1968). Other studies have noted perceptual differences among faculty, students, and administrators regarding Student Affairs administration (Dutton et al., 1970; Emerson, 1971; Ingraham, 1968; Kiannane, 1966; Feder, 1959; Fitzgerald, 1959; Upcraft, 1967). A number of studies reflected various trends in the roles expected of Student Affairs practitioners. Role expectations were often set as a result of insti— tutional need, monetary considerations, and as a result of varying perceptions of institutional and noninstitu- tional personnel (Davies, 1970; Haller, 1967; Hester, 1971; Nonnamaker, 1959; Reynolds, 1961; Rodgers, 1963; Stead, 1971; Upcraft, 1970; White, 1970; Zimmerman, 1963). A researcher could go on at length discussing studies, articles, books, monographs, and general opinion from the wealth of material pertaining to Student Affairs 17 administration, organizational behavior, and organizational theory important for generating competencies and evaluating the training of Student Affairs practitioners. The remainder of the chapter will briefly present a discussion of the literature which was of outstanding importance to this study. Trends in Student Affairs Administration At the present time there appear to be two, not necessarily opposed, emphases in Student Personnel work which will influence both the competencies needed by the practitioners and the sources of training necessary for the development of these competencies. The Division of Research and Program Development of the National Association of Student Personnel Adminis— trators recently published a manual for practitioners titled, Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation in Student Affairs Programs: A Manual for Administrators (Harpel, 1976). In recent years other literature has also reflected a thrust toward accountability in Student Affairs work. In 1974 a national survey was conducted by the NASPA Research Division which concluded with the following statements regarding the benefits for insti- tutions which had implemented accountability systems: 1) a new sense of direction and purpose had been developed among the Student Affairs staff; 2) evaluation feedback was made available to pro- fessional staff for program development; 18 3) unmet needs of staff and students were identified; 4) more external recognition and visibility of Student Affairs activities were gained; and, 5) in many cases, increased financial support was received. (Harpel, 1976, p. iv) In the introduction to the NASPA manual for admin— istrators (1976) it was pointed out that a management model can often "gloss over the subjective and personal nature of Student Affairs activities" and that "the out- comes of counseling are not easily quantified" (p. iv). Other problem areas included the possibility of prohibitive costs for many institutions and the danger of management procedures becoming the "tail that wags the dog." How- ever, the management skills needed for accountability programming are still essential for the Student Affairs administrator as indicated by Harpel (1976): Student Affairs administrators are particularly vulnerable when it comes to management skills. Student Affairs services have long been justified more on idealistic and humanitarian grounds than on tangible evidence of impact or outcomes. Such arguments, while necessary, are no longer sufficient to justify a large investment of institutional resources. The Student Affairs administrator must become a skilled manager in order to compete for these resources. Added to a sound philosophical rationale for Student Affairs services must be planning skills, budgeting competence and evaluation expertise--a11 notably lacking in the current training of professionals. (p. ii) This point of View represents a managerial emphasis in Student Affairs work. Another recent publication, The Future of Student Affairs sponsored by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA), represents a more philosophical base 19 in describing the current status of Student Affairs work (Miller & Prince, 1976). This book is based on the results of the Tomorrow's Higher Education Project also sponsored by ACPA. The primary emphasis focuses on the concept of student development defined as: "the application of human development concepts in postsecondary settings so that everyone involved can master increasingly complex develop- mental tasks, achieve self direction, and become indepen— dent" (p. 3). Nomenclature in Student Affairs work has often caused some confusion. Miller and Prince have utilized Crookston's (1976) definitions as follows: Student Personnel Work--"past services and activities which focused on controlling the lives of students out- side the classroom, laboratory, and library"; Student Affairs—~"a major administrative subdivision, like academic affairs and business affairs"; the Student Affairs Practitioner-~"a staff member who carries out the responsibilities of the subdivision, including such functions as counseling, career planning and placement, housing and coordinating student activities"; and finally, the Student Development Educator——"a faculty member, Student Affairs professional, or any other person who purposefully works to bring about the growth of all engaged in higher education" (Miller & Prince, 1976, P- 3). 20 Historically speaking this emphasis in Student Affairs work is not philosophically new. Wren (1968) suggests that Student Personnel work has come of age during this present century. He points to the years between 1925 and 1940 as a period during which attempts were made to develop a philosophy for Student Personnel work and to distinguish among services, functions, and job descriptions. During the next fifteen-year period rapid population growth and technological change coupled with federal legislation required a reassessment of functions, services, and philosophy. Jones and Smith (1954) emphasized "deeper teaching" involving leadership, group dynamics, and human relations skills. The McConnel and Heist studies (1957) at the Center for Research and Development were stimulated by the vast changes produced by the scientific revolution, i.e., occupational trends, status of women, and ever-increasing enrollments in . higher education. Two significant texts appeared in 1961, Mueller (1961) emphasized the application of the social sciences in Student Personnel work and suggested that psychology and sociology be the roots from which all functions, philosophy, and practices should be originated. During the same period, Williamson (1961) published a book which emphasized the process of Student Affairs administration and the management of services for the student clientele. In 1966 Berdie emphasized humanizing 21 education by helping students respond to the pressures of their own culture and those of society. He encouraged administrators and students to formulate principles which would serve as guides to the questions of how to relate and how to act (Berdie, 1966). Wren (1967) discussed the "art of administration" as different from administration based on ego needs or charismatic personalities. He suggested that Student Personnel work should be an out; growth of educational philosophy and institutional pur- pose. He stressed that the degree of integration of any Student Personnel program into the total academic and administrative program determined the effectiveness of that program. Also during the late sixties Dr. Harold Grant again presented Mueller's concept of developing the stu- dent as a "whole person." This time student development was looked at as a process in itself. Student Personnel workers were to be concerned with the process instead of just focusing on providing administrative services for students. This point of view was reflected at first in the article "Higher Education in Student Personnel Work in the Year 2000" in the Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors in which Grant (1968) concludes: We can assess a student's behavioral development, determine what behavior he is attempting to develop, and explore the resources that we have to facilitate his growth. . . . We can look 22 forward to performing a unique function central to the educational process of facilitating behavioral development rather than providing a peripheral or complementary service. . . . Much of this will be carried out on a consulting basis with faculty 'members and staff, whose roles will also change considerably. But to do these things we must become Student Development specialists. (p. 141) Spin-offs of this point of view have been heavily reflected in the literature of the seventies. Valuable surveys of the literature are presented in two sources: (1) by Reilley and Cauthen (1976) in "The Literature of College Student Personne1-—A Sample" published by the Journal of College Student Personnel and (2) by Margaret Berry (1976) in "The State of Student Affairs: A Review of the Literature" in the Journal of the National Associ— ation of Student Personnel Administrators. Two samples of this literature are presented to exemplify the dominance of the Student Development point of view generated by Grant. They read as follows: First, "Proposals for role change in College Student Personnel are many and range from the emergent student development concept to insti- tutional renewal and humanistic education (Schmidt, 1975; Williamson, 1975; Crookston, 1975; Chandler, 1974; Shaffer, 1973; Pyron, 1974; Clemens, 1973; Tollefson, 1975; Abel, 1973; Sedlacek & Horowitz, 1974; Holland & Kleinberg, 1974; Lewis, 1973)" (Berry, 1976, p. 2). Secondly, The Tomorrow's Higher Education Project (THE) of the American College Personnel Association (1974) is an attempt to reconceptualize student affairs work emphasizing mastery with personal development of cultural awareness, value systems, self awareness, 23 interpersonal skills and community responsibility. . . . Instead of waiting for students to come to them, the student affairs staff moves out in a proactive, collaborative role. . . . Strategies for change include instruction, consultation, and milieu management (Chandler, 1974). (Berry, 1976, P- 2) Burns Crookston was one of the most prolific writers espousing the Student Development concepts and the means of its implementation (Crookston, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976; Crookston & Atkyns, 1974; Crookston & Blaesser, 1962). Thus, Miller and Prince (1976) proceed to question: "Does student development as defined here differ from what faculty members have been doing in the classroom and what student affairs workers have been providing for years?" (p. 3). And they respond: "The answer is that the phil— osophy has been with us for some time but has seldom been fully realized in practice" (p. 3). The model for Student Development is just that-~a model. To become an effective tool of Student Affairs Administration much attention will have to be given to the training of practitioners who will implement the model. .Before the training can begin the specific skills and areas of competence necessary for working within the model will have to be determined. This is proposed in the concluding statements of Miller and Prince (1976): Until there are professionally educated individuals to undertake the specific tasks and strategies called for, full . . . implementation will be impossible. The future requires a concerted effort to find prac- tical preparation methods and materials. (p. 188) IIIIIIIIIll-.__________________ 24 The Western Interstate Commission for Higher Edu- cation (WICHE) has developed an ecosystem model as "an attempt to assess (map) and construct (design) environ- ments to produce the most compatible transactions between students and their melieu" (WICHE, 1972, p. 7). Aulepp and Delworth (1976) have recently published a training manual for practitioners interested in ecosystem model development. Whether a student development model or an ecosystem model is selected to serve as a framework for campus environmental and program development, critical administrative or management functions will still be essential to the necessary decision—making process. Thomas B. Dutton (1973) has pointed out that "too often, the key administrative jobs do not go to student affairs people because they seem to lack the necessary perspective and skill" (p. 11). Dutton has concluded his comments to the participants of the 1973 NASPA Conference by emphasiz- ing a "greater understanding of administrative and man— agement theory as well as learning theory" along with "becoming experts in human development--becoming educators Whose special insights, knowledge and skills permit unique contributions to the development of learning situations" (p. 12). He also indicated that practitioners need to be sufficiently skilled to articulate learning require— ments at various planning levels; to be able to execute 25 plans of action with expertise; and to competently maintain essential contact with the learning environment (Dutton, Training Opportunities for Student Affairs Practitioners A review of the literature pertaining to studies which examine training provided for the Student Affairs practitioner suggests a need for more thorough evaluation. Gladstein (1968) analyzed doctoral research in college student personnel work and found it to be of questionable quality and limited in scope. Research generally reflected questions involving the roles of the practitioner and the trainer, the functions performed by specific Student Affairs division, services to be included in any partic- ular program, and the roles performed by chief Student Affairs Administrators (Reynolds, 1961; Barry & Wolf, 1963; Rogers, 1963; Upcraft, 1967; Foy, 1969; Rhatigan & Hoyt, 1970). Some studies have thoroughly evaluated the master and doctoral training programs (Wright, 1958; Keller, 1962; Hester, 1971; Montgomery, 1971; Rockey, 1972). Barry and Wolf (1963) indicated that student per- sonnel training focused on the whims of a particular trainer and that at best it was a "hodgepodge" of opinion. They also emphasized the lack of examination of required competencies for various student personnel positions. 26 In a study conducted by Upcraft (1967) pertaining to the role expectations for chief student personnel administrators, less than half of the practitioners had been formally trained. Over 80 percent of the respondents in Foy's (1969) survey of the 1,320 members of NASPA (indicated that formal preparation was very important for newcomers in the field of Student Affairs Administration. According to Rhatigan and Hoyt (1970), faculty trainers considered professional preparation more important than on-the-job training while the administrators rated on- the-job education more beneficial. Three implications were derived from the Rhatigan and Hoyt study: (1) aca- demic background would not be ranked over personal char- acteristics or over the amount and quality of experience in a job search for a tOp administrator; (2) the importance of on-the-job training suggested more practicum and internship experiences for the development of particular skills; and (3) the "doctoral degree will not produce the 'complete' administrator" (p. 162). Theoretical bases for the functions of chief student personnel officers were examined by COSPA—-Council of Student Personnel Administrators, 1964; Tripp, 1970; and Hershenson, 1970. Only three doctoral dissertations studied the chief student personnel officer's role spe- cifically. Three national studies examined the role of the chief student personnel official (Dutton, 1968; 27 O'Banion, 1970; Ayers, et al., 1966). One national study by Lilley (1974) suggested that the traditional personnel services model had achieved the status necessary to function well on a campus. In reference to the newer "developmental" model he concluded: "It will be the task of each chief student personnel officer to reevaluate and cast aside those functions or operational procedures at his institution that do not fulfill the principles of the proposed developmental model" (p. 10). While the literature may be scarce in relation to competency development and specific evaluations of in— service training programs, there has been considerable interest by student personnel educators in the profes— sional preparation of Student Affairs practitioners (Nygreen, 1968; Greenleaf, 1968; O'Banion, 1969; Rhati- gan & Hoyt, 1970). Various recommendations have been made as to the theoretical foundations for student personnel work—-art, history, religion, philosophy, social science (Jones, 1968); counseling psychology (Dressel, 1957); counseling, decision-making, and specialty skills (Parker, 1966); psychology, social psychology, and sociology (Chickering, 1967); and the behavioral sciences leading to the behavioral artist (Grant, 1968). Robinson's (1966) analysis of professional associations training documents (COSPA, APGA, ACPA) concluded that the training programs 28 must have a base in the behavioral sciences with addi- ,tional emphasis in sociology and psychology. A few educators have alluded to more specialized training areas such as research skills, group work, sensitivity perception, group dynamics, human relations, administrative decision-making, consensus taking, communi— cations, record keeping, budget-making, and individual counseling techniques (Useem, 1964; Crane, 1965; Parker, 1966; Trueblood, 1966; Haller, 1967; Schreck & Shaffer, 1968; Penney, 1969; Hester, 1971; Rockey, 1972). Great emphasis has been placed on practical training experiences in the preparation programs (Pierson, 1967; Houtz, 1967; Wallenfeldt & Bigelow, 1970; Hester, 1971; Rockey, 1972). In addition to the various course description listings of present training programs across the country, Nygreen (1968) speculated that there was basic agreement about the content of training programs even though there were differences of opinion regarding various aspects of the programs. Houtz (1967) specifically pointed out that there were discrepancies between the activities suggested by the programs she studied and the actual offerings available in the programs. Various model designs for college student personnel preparation programs have been suggested by Crosby (1965), Trueblood (1966), Miller and Prince (1976), O'Banion (1969), APGA (1969), and Rockey (1972). 29 Not until 1970 did two studies appear that dealt with specifying specific competencies related to the work of Student Affairs Administration. Even then they focused only indirectly on the student personnel practitioner. Lynam (1970) examined the administrative competencies needed by the Academic Dean in Community Colleges and Davies (1970) proposed competencies for members of the Junior College Presidential Cabinet. During the seventies both Student Affairs prac— titioners and trainers became caught up in various account— ability techniques and methodologies. Just as Student Affairs personnel were beginning to identify and acknowledge the need for specific skills and competencies, techniques such as management by objectives encouraged a more general verbalization of priorities and functions in terms of goals. Trainers and practitioners are now attempting to become more specific about what specifics should be taught and what competencies practitioners should be able to demonstrate in various positions (Miller, 1976). Clues identifying the reality of Student Affairs work should be evident through daily practices and in- service training programs. However, the literature reflects little in the way of identifying competencies used by those coordinating or employed in such programs. In-service training connotes different things to different people. For Student Affairs Administrators 30 in higher education in-service training or staff develop- ment programs generally refer to opportunities of upgrad- ing specific areas of knowledge or learning new skills and competencies. Berdie (1954) and Williamson (1950) have urged the systematizing of structured in-service experiences. Gross (1963) summarized this point of view in the follow- ing: "Not to promote professional competence through COOperative, objective-centered education might be to deprive individuals and their staffs as a whole of realizing their full potential" (p. 9). Truitt (1961) pointed out that persons do not reach their full potential and effectiveness until they have been employed for a period of time. The President's Commission on Higher Education (1947) stressed that there are basic principles necessary to improvement programs: (1) they must be p1anned--not left to chance; (2) patterns of in—service education will necessarily vary according to the institution; and (3) successful improvement programs are characterized by a variety of techniques and activities. Gross (1963) pointed out that the most comprehensive source including the history, need, roles of program participants, examples, organization, and evaluation of in-service training was the fifty-sixth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. 31 In a report to the American Psychological Associ— ation, Berdie (1954) listed five purposes of in-service education: (1) to introduce new developments in theory and technique; (2) to review previously learned concepts and techniques; (3) to emphasize or reemphasize material or experiences in meaningful situations; (4) to learn specifics not learned in pre-service education, and (5) to review one's profession and personal professional develop- ment. Basic organizational principles for in—service training have been suggested by various educators. They include: (1) create an atmosphere conducive to building mutual respect, support, permissiveness, and creativity; (2) provide access to needed resources; (3) try modifi- cations in reality situations; (4) apply results to ongoing programs and evaluate the results; (5) encourage maximum participation by staff members; (6) determine fixed responsibility for in-service programming within regular administrative organization; and (7) provide adequate time for participation in all programs (Freolich, 1949; Corey, 1957; Gilchrist, 1957; Parker, 1957). In a memorandum to NASPA Commission members titled, "Suggestions for a Continuous In-service Training Program for Student Personnel Workers," Shaffer (1961) suggested the following objectives: 32 1) to stimulate staff members to continued pro- fessional and personal growth; 2) to encourage specialists to break across the bounds of their specialties in interests, concerns, and points of View; 3) to contribute to the developments of flexibility in outlook and method, individuality, initiative and adaptability in meeting problems and new situations; 4) to integrate the efforts of student personnel workers to a greater degree with the primary academic objectives of their institutions; and, 5) to facilitate the mutual sharing and exchange of ideas and information among all staff members. (pp.-1-8) Throughout the years various in—service training activities have been suggested by a variety of profes- sionals. For example, some suggestions would include the following: role playing, case recordings, playbacks with discussion, case studies, continuous testing experiences, identification of maturation processes, staff conferences, research, directed readings, use of consultants for topi- cal concerns, seminars and courses, observational tech— niques, contact with supervisors and professionals in related areas, participation in professional association activities, and inter-institutional seminars (Gordon, 1950; Hardee, 1950; Coleman, 1951; Samler, 1952; Shepard, 1957; Gross, 1963; Passons, 1963; Truitt & Gross, 1966; Haller, 1967; Upcraft, 1967; Hester, 1971; Rockey, 1972; Myerson, 1974; Miller, 1975; Beeler, 1975; Miller & Prince, 1976). Much of the literature regarding specific in- service training programs was concerned with faculty 33 advising (Hardee, 1950; Gordon, 1953). The preponderance of student personnel in-service training has served resi- dence hall staff and counseling service personnel (Ohlson, 1951; Harle & Reid, 1963; Collins, 1947; Hood, 1962). Gross conducted a study in 1963 to examine the in-service education programs for student personnel workers in five institutions. He studied the principles applicable to professional improvement programs. Student Personnel administrators were surveyed to ascertain the nature and extent of in-service education activities for their staff members. He concluded the following: (1) con- tent of the programs was determined by consensus; (2) un- published manuals, professional journals, and books were the most frequently used source; (3) success of programs was based on the interest and desire of the participants; (4) lack of time was the most often cited reason for failure of a program; (5) attendance at professional meetings was usually included as an in-service activity; and (6) 82 percent of the participants indicated that evaluation of in-service training occurred through self- examination (Gross, 1963). A survey was conducted by ACPA (1973-74) in response to the lack of current information and research regarding staff training. From this survey Miller (1975) pointed out that "only one of every five institutions has formalized a policy statement concerning in-service 34 education staff development programming" (n.p.). In addition Beeler (1975) indicated that only one-tenth of the total staff development budget provides for on—campus in-service education. Most financial support has been received for off-campus professional development activi- ties such as national association conventions, conferences, and workshops. For the most part "the concept of staff development has largely been treated as a professional stepchild and there have been a limited number of success- ful and sustained programs" (Beeler, 1975, p. 1). Further examination of the literature indicated that most reference to in-service training for professional staff was reflected in opinion statements, proposals sug- gesting necessary training, or models for developing programs (Truit & Gross, 1966; Stamatakos & Oliaro, 1972; Passons, 1969; Myerson, 1974). Needs for in-service training continue to exist. For example, a depressed job market has affected the mobility patterns of staff within institutions as it appears that staff are remaining in present positions or horizontally moving to newer or different areas of interest (Beeler, 1975). There still remains room for questioning the nature and availability of staff training programs. Need for continual definition and redefinitions of the goals, purposes, and functions of student personnel work has 35 been reflected in the 1972 COSPA Report--"Student Develop— ment Services in Higher Education," Brown's monograph in 1972 on "Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher Edu- cation-~A Return to the Academy," and in professional organization projects such as the present ACPA "Profes- sional Skill and Competencies Identification Project-- 1975-1976." Such continual redefinition needs to occur within a framework which provides a change mechanism. Katz and Kahn (1966) stated that the functional structure of an organization needs to be examined in behavioral science terms. Austin (1970) has suggested that principles of organizational development be more readily applied to the student affairs operations. His data collection on colleges and college students reflects that a change in any point in a system has impact on all parts of that system. He specifically mentions that Student Personnel work must utilize a systems approach to allow for adequate accountability of all its diversity. Goals, enabling objectives, pre-service training, in—service training, on-the-job experience, and other developmental and evalu- ative practices in the field of Student Affairs Adminis- tration provide the framework or organizational structure in which the practitioner functions. Argyris (1962) pointed out that organizational effectiveness is a function of the interpersonal 36 relationships of its members. He further stressed that "the more competent individuals are with interpersonal relationships the more effective the organization will become" (p. 38). To facilitate organizational development in Student Affairs work regardless of the particular approach, the Student Affairs practitioner must be able to demonstrate competency in day—to—day job performance (Kuriloff, 1973). In order to reach goals, accomplish objectives, and deter- mine content of training programs and in-service training activities, the Student Affairs practitioner and trainer will have to identify the skills and appropriate sources of training necessary to the development of such skills in order to be successful (Hanson, 1976). In 1973 Stama- takos presented an address titled, "Facing the Realities of Practice in Training" in which he concluded the following: A review of the most recent ACPA Directory of College Student Personnel Preparation Programs, if reasonably indicative of what actually occurs in our many institutions, would reveal a serious lack of course work, mandatory experiences, and proven competencies necessary for the successful promulgation of . . . the Student Development Point of View. (p. 8) Thus a review of the literature has indicated that the Student Affairs practitioner must be responsive to campus environments by utilizing both student develop- ment strategies and management science techniques. But, as Hester (1971) concluded, there has been a lack of 37 clear and definitive knowledge about what criteria or factors constitute adequate performance and success of the various positions within Student Affairs Adminis- tration. Research Relevant to the Development of Competencies for Student Affairs Administrators As indicated previously, there has been a notice- able 1ack of research in identifying and examining neces— sary competencies for the Student Affairs administrator (Barry & Wolf, 1963; Grant, 1968; Dutton, 1973; Stama- takos, 1973; Harpel, 1976; Miller & Prince, 1976). At the same time there has been concern on the part of Stu- dent Affairs trainers and practitioners for competency development and appropriate training as reflected by McDaniel (1973): Because of an overemphasis on philosophical and descriptive content, the training of student per- sonnel workers has generally ignored the basic principle or organizational behavior, even though administrative functions will take up almost one- third of their total working time. Only a few programs allow student personnel workers to take courses in business management or educational administration. Student personnel workers are trained as though they will all do the same thing, whereas the positions they fill require various proportions of policy-formation, improvisation within existing structures, and the administration of those structures. Policymaking requires charisma and a systems perspective while improvi- sation demands a knowledge of organizational human relation techniques and administration which requires technical competence and fairness. (p. 124) 38 There have been three research projects which were particularly important to this study. Two were doctoral studies conducted in 1970. They focused on competency development, descriptions of behavioral mani— festation, and learning experiences (Davies, 1970; Lynam, 1970). While they did not speak directly to the training needs of Student Affairs administrators, they did provide a foundation for procedures and content. Both projects also recommended field study for further research and verification of their conclusions. Thus, these studies provided a framework and direction for related projects such as this study. An American College Personnel Association project directed by Hanson began in 1974 and is still in progress. The focus of this project was "a move toward competency- based educational training programs" for advocates of the Tomorrow's Higher Education Project (ACPS Professional Skills and Competencies Identification Project Progress Report, 1974, p. 1). The project was important to this study as the results of Phase I generated a "Tentative Taxonomy of Student Development, Staff Skills and Compe- tencies." The definition of competency used in this study was initially generated by Davies (1970) and utilized by Lynam. An administrative competency is: 39 . . . the ability to synthesize and actualize relevant knowledge fer the purposes of (a) facili— tating institutional planning and development, (b) resolving complex problems which interfere with achievement of organizational goals and objec— tives, and (c) evaluating institutional progress toward goal attainment. (Davies, 1970, p. 70) Davies provided an expanded definition of the term "com— petency." For the sake of clarity and understanding, and since this expanded definition was accepted for similar use in this study, the explanation has been included here in its entirety. Thus Davies' presentation of "An Expanded Definition of Competency was stated as follows: In building a definition of administrative competency the underlined words were chosen because of the meanings they denote. The adjective "administrative" was used to modify the word competency because it denotes specific leadership and managerial functions of an educational administrator. Thus, it limits the term competency to a more restricted meaning. Reference to the administrator having "ability" to perform the competency means that he is able to exhibit behavior which is described in the working definitions of synthesize and actualize. . . Being able to "actualize" a synthesis would be to make use of that syntheses in a decision or in the execution of a plan of action which is the result of a synthesis of divergent concepts. For the administrator "relevant knowledge" denotes the cog— nition of principles, facts, concepts, skills, methods and means pertinent to the included purposes stated in the definition. (pp. 70—71) Within the framework of this definition of competency, Davies proposed behavioral competencies for members of the Junior College Presidential Cabinet, and Lynam studied the administrative competencies needed by the Community College Academic Dean and presented a model of their translation into behavioral statements related to admin— istrative training experiences. 40 Both studies generated general sets of competencies and then further described them "through statements of behavioral manifestation" (Lynam, 1979, abstract). Both studies concluded that competencies could be generated deductively, could be field tested, and could suggest specific learning experiences. Administrative competencies . . . may be generated and field tested so that a very accurate picture of these competencies may be acquired. These compe- tencies may be further described in statements of behavioral terminology and behavioral manifestation. These behavioral statements can have implications for learning experiences in . . . leadership train- ing programs. (Lynam, 1970, abstract) At the same time Davies (1970) stated that the following conclusions could be made from his study: 1. In listing statements made by and about . . administrators concerning the general skills, abilities, and knowledge needed in . . . adminis- tration, a natural grouping or clustering exists from which more general statements of competence may be deduced. 2. Through an evaluation of the general competen- cies the expected behavior manifested by the adminis- trator is able to be deduced and stated in behavioral terminology. 3. Learning experiences . . . deducted from the behavioral manifestations . . . organized by varying degrees of complexity . . . to assist the learner in systematically acquiring the expected behavior. (Abstract) Davies generated four areas of competence referred to as: (a) general cabinet competencies, (2) inter— positional competencies, (3) inter-personal competencies, and (4) general, noncabinet competencies. Within the general cabinet competencies he generated nine specific areas of competence as follows: 41 Presidential Cabinet Competency 1. Goal Definition: Initiate or modify goals and objectives of a community college through an understanding of philosophical, historical, sociological, and educational perspectives. 2. Informational Abstracting: Abstract pertinent information from college or community studies; from new developments, procedures and methods in current periodicals or from professional conferences; and from colleagues within his specialized area which may assist other cabinet members in better comprehending a given issue. 3. Long Range Planning: Anticipate future needs and plan appropriate directions for the com- munity college far enough in advance so that adequate funds, facilities, staff, and programs will be available to everyone who seeks admittance to the community college. 4. Problem Analysis: Utilize and recognize a system of rational decision-making to resolve complex problems of the community college. 5. Legislative Analysis: Analyze and synthesize the state laws and legislation pertinent to the community colleges to better determine the present level of state involvement and the effect of such involvement on the determi- nation of community college organization, funding, curriculum, and hiring practice. 6. Due Process: Internalize, synthesize, and actualize the concepts of due process of law so that all concerned are guaranteed this right. 7. Report Analysis: Analyze and evaluate analytical reports which would influence the plans, decisions or evaluations of a presidential cabinet. 8. Leadership Analysis: Analyze administrative problems and suggest solutions based on an understanding of various models and concepts of administrative theory, administrative leadership, and a social systems approach to organizations. 9. Interaction Analysis: Analyze his perceptions of self and his role, his perceptions of the other cabinet members and their roles, and acknowledge their perceptions of him and his role so that he is better able to interact with his fellow cabinet members over cabinet issues rather than over personality differences. In the analysis of the competencies needed by the Academic Dean, Lynam (1970) included the General 42 (Cabinet Competencies of Davis in addition to the follow- ing competency statements: Interpersonal Relationships Competency ~Analyze interaction situations from bases of knowledge in psychodynamic theories of interpersonal behavior, structural theories of interpersonal behavior, normative theories of interpersonal behavior and theories about small group behavior such that the immediate and the successive inter- actions with a party will further mutual inter- personal satisfaction and the goals and purposes of the institution. Communication Systems Competency Analyze the overall structural aspects of the communication networks within the institution, based upon the literature and research on communication in organizations as social systems, in order to: (a) better evaluate the sources and the kinds of information available for the decision-making, problem-solving, processes of the institution, and (b) better utilize the communication networks to convey vital information to the variously, situa- tionally involved groups and individuals throughout the institution. Personnel Management Competency Stimulate the development of, establish, and evaluate the criteria and the processes by which faculty members may be recruited, evaluated, pro— moted, disciplined, and released through due process in order to assure the quality of the faculty and high faculty morale. Instructional Evaluation Competency Evaluate the effectiveness of courses and cur- riculums in the academic division in realizing the goals and objectives of the institution based upon research concerning student achievement, student difficulties after transfer, student attrition, and student academic placement. Curriculum Development Competency StimuIate the development of, establish, and evaluate processes and activities which are designed to enhance faculty, administrator, student, and com- munity participation and involvement in the critical appraisal of institutional objectives, curriculum 43 objectives, and course objectives in light of the needs and desires of the students and of our society such that the curriculum will be dynamic and viable in maintenance as well as in improvement. Leadership Development Competency Evaluate the status and activities of department chairmen as regards their effectiveness in resolving complex departmental problems which determine work- group cohesiveness and worker morale in order to assist them in developing behaviors consistent with the effective leadership behaviors described in administration and organization theory associated with organizational goal achievement. Professional Development Competency Establish, stimulate, and evaluate activities, processes, programs, and financing for the pro— fessional development, improvement, and growth of new and tenured faculty, and staff. Budget Management Competency Analyze the budget needs and requests of the dif- ferent segments of the academic division and coordi- nate such needs and requests with the overall budget of the institution such that faculty salaries, costs of instruction, expenses for program experimentation, costs for professional development activities, and costs for new courses may be adequately planned for and as equitably allotted as possible in order to maintain high faculty morale, quality instruction, and a high quality institution. Presidential Cabinet Competency Recognize, utilize and develop the several special administrative competencies necessary to fulfilling a leadership function at this decision making level, with the other members of the cabinet, in order to assure the welfare and quality develop— ment of the total institution. Administrator Interrelationship Competency Establish a relationship of mutual consider- ation, cooperation, and support with the other central administrators based upon a knowledge and understanding of their responsibilities and concerns, as well as perceptions regarding any personal con- flict they might be experiencing in interaction with their administrative roles. (Davies, p. 128) 44 Davies and Lynam used essentially the same pro- cedures for deductively generating the competencies. Lynam also utilized an interview process among ten Michigan community college deans "in order to reality test the competencies and their statements" (Abstract). He ques— tioned the importance of the competencies, the adequacy of each of the statements of competency, and the inclu- siveness of the competencies on the list as related to the dean's function. It is important that the method— ology for generating these competencies be understood as they served as the base for competency generation in this study. Thus, an illustration of the method used by Davies in the development of each competency is pre- sented here rather than in the appendix. He stated: The first step in the development of the com- petencies was to record all of the specific state- ments, inferences, crucial issues, challenges, problems, hopes, dreams, and anything else that seemed to relate to the functioning of a junior college administrator as he would interact with his colleagues in the presidential cabinet. This omitted, therefore, all reference to the abilities needed in his specific area of responsibility such as student personnel or academic dean. Over 200 such statements were recorded in this manner and a sampling of these statements is listed below:* 1. articulate the philosophy of the junior college as it relates to the community 2. know the philosophy and history of the community college 3. evaluate the college's performance to determine if the philosophy is being implemented through the achievement of the objectives and the goals stated 4. capable of predicting the society's needs and expectations 5. organization and administration of the junior college 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 45 aware of the human dignity of man understand the college as a change agent experience with describing the role and function of the community college to others communication skills ability to listen believes in and adheres to the open door ability to conduct research on community college problems articulate clear definition of institutional mission and role familiar with federal, state, and foundation programs of possible value to the college share information with other cabinet members know the legal base of authority for the junior college at the state and local level knowledge and understanding of the community college philOSOphy be a strong leader commitment to both occupational and general studies and counseling services must have far reaching educational vision * While these statements are representative of the total list, they have not been footnoted since they are found so readily in the professional literature listed in the bibliography and the benefit of the documentation at this point is questionable. From the total list, as will be found in this representative list, certain grouping patterns become evident. For continued illustration the following statements taken from the representative list form such a grouping: l. 2. 3. ll. 13. articulate the philosophy of the junior college as it relates to the community know the philosophy and history of the community college evaluate the college's performance to deter— mine if the philosophy is being implemented through the achievement of the objectives and the goals stated aware of the human dignity of man experience with describing the role and function of the community college to others believes in and adheres to the open door concept articulate clear definition of institutional mission and role 46 19. commitment to both occupational and general studies and counseling services 20. must have far reaching educational vision These statements were grouped together because they dealt, in some way, with the institution's com— mitment as expressed in its philosophy and stated goals. After studying the listed statements, various terms were noticed either to appear or to be implied more frequently than others. Such terms as philosophy, education, history, goals, objectives, mission, role, and function seemed to be key to this particular group. The struggle became one of developing a general cabinet competency which would incorporate the wording and the spirit of the majority of the statements. The stated competency for the representative group used in this illustration became: Initiated or modify goals and objectives of a community college through an understanding of philosophical, historical, sociological, and educational perspectives. Actually the above competency represents six dif- ferent attempts to word it as comprehensively as pos— sible. It was during the final stages of each com— petency that the conversations with colleagues and committee members served to facilitate clearer think— ing. The last step in the development of the com- petency was to develop a reference without awkwardly rephrasing it or repeating it in its entirety. Thus, the competency generated in this illustration will be referred to from now on as the goal definition com- petency. (Davies, 1976, p. 60) The competencies generated by Davis were not sta- tistically validated as he concluded that "in 1970 there is not natural agreement on job titles or on the organi- zation of junior college administration"--thus a deduc- tive attempt to describe the expected behavior of members of the Presidential Cabinet (p. 69). The competencies generated by Lynam were field tested through structured interviews. However, they were not statistically evaluated and were researched only in terms of the chief administrative officers 47 rather than including personnel from various administra- tive position levels. Lynam suggested that "the general competencies need to be reality tested in order to deter- mine their actual relationship to the different levels of competency attainment of various Deans" (Abstract). He also suggested the development of an evaluative instrument for assessing one's status in relation to a given compe- tency. In addition, he points to the implications for competency-based pre-service and in-service training (Lynam, 1970). As stated previously, the third project used as a base for competency development in this study was the ACPA Professional Skills and Competencies Identification Project. A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken between October 1974 and April 1975. It was determined that competencies could be identified from the literature. A three-stage Delphi technique was used to generate competencies in the general areas of goal setting, assessment, consultation, instruction, milieu management, and evaluation. The first stage was given to ACPA Com- mission Chairpersons and Executive Council members. A 100 percent return rate was generated from the Commission leaders, while 34 percent of the Executive Council mem- bers responded. The open—ended responses of the first- stage survey were summarized and the "Tentative Taxonomy of Student Development Staff Skills and Competencies" 48 was developed. According to Hanson (1976) a second-stage instrument was to be developed which asked practitioners "whether or not each tentative competency can be trained or developed in an educational training program and whether or not it should be included as a skill or competency worth developing in student development staff" (p. 2). The third stage was to achieve a priority ranking regard- ing the importance and worth of each skill and competency. The Taxonomy generated 195 statements in six competency categories. The complete Taxonomy listing is included in Appendix C. With the completion of the second and third stages of the project the basic student development training model would include four parts: (1) Tentative competency identification, (2) Focused training for the competencies, (3) Assessment of degree of mastery of the competencies, and (4) Validation of competencies against student outcomes. It is noted that this ACPA Project (1974) preceded the Miller and Prince (1976) summary of the student development point of view as stated in the T.H.E. Project. The same categories of competence have been stressed in both but have not yet been identified as a total package of philosophy and skill for the Student Affairs practitioner. The Skills and Competencies Identification Project has utilized limited field testing in the generation and validation of competencies. The terms 49 “skills" and "competencies" appear to have been loosely interpreted as compared to the studies of Davies and Lynam. However, the activities generated by the ACPA Project coupled with the specific administrative com- petency sets determined by both Davies and Lynam provide a blend of student development concepts and management- oriented strategies. This chapter has emphasized an overview of the trends in Student Affairs; has provided an examination of the training of the Student Affairs practitioner as identified by research and discussed in the literature; and has presented research projects focusing on competency development for the Student Affairs administrator. These three areas and the specific reviews within each were selected on the basis of their particular importance to this study. Chapter III will outline the specific pro- cedures used in the study while Chapters IV and V will examine the results and present recommendations for further study. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The major purpose of this study was to describe the training of Student Affairs practitioners in relation to specified competency tasks. An instrument and other procedures were developed to facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the study as stated in Chapter I. This chapter will outline the procedures used for (1) developing the specified competency tasks, (2) gener- ating an appropriate instrument, (3) utilization of the instrument for collecting the data, and (4) examining the data and expressing the limitations resulting from the methodology Generation of the Administrative Competency Tasks An extensive review of the literature and two particular studies (Davies, 1970; Lynam, 1970) indicated that competencies and specific tasks could be generated accurately and representatively from the literature. This was the procedure used for developing eight admin- istrative competency sets including fifty—eight competency 50 51 tasks. However, in addition, the designed questionnaire also included items which suggested further validation of the inclusiveness and usefulness of the generated competency tasks. The term "administrative competency" was defined in Chapter I. The accepted specific procedures for the development of this definition are included in Appendix A. For clarification, Lynam's (1970) definition states that "an administrative competency is a capacity to synthesize and actualize relevant knowledge for the purposes of: (a) facilitating institutional planning; (b) resolving problems which interfere with the achievement of organi- zational goals and objectives; and (c) evaluating insti- tutional progress toward goal achievement" (p. 9). A competency task was defined as those tasks specifically related to a particular administrative competency. For the sake of continuity, this study utilized the procedures for generating competency tasks established by Davies (1970) and Lynam (1970). In addition, the competencies generated by both the Davies study, "Proposed Behavioral Competencies for Members of the Junior College Presidential Cabinet" and the Lynam study, "A Study of the Administrative Competencies Needed by the Community College Academic Dean and A Model of Their Translation into Behavioral Statements Related to Administrative 52 Training Experiences" provided a base for developing competency tasks utilized by Student Affairs practitioners. In this study the competency tasks were generated by extensively listing statements, challenges, issues, inferences, problems, definitions, functions, descrip- tions, predictions, and anything else that seemed important to Student Affairs practitioners. Primary sources included journals, dissertations, conference reports, monographs, job descriptions, and curricula content from Student Per- sonnel and Business Administration training programs. Grouping patterns were designated for similar concepts and practices. Terms which were keys to particular groups were identified. Competency tasks were developed by incorporating the spirit and wording of the majority of the statements. A reference tag was specified as a descriptor for each group of tasks. Tag descriptors were used to identify the eight specific competency sets and their inclusive competency tasks. Finally, much discussion ensued with colleagues, educators, adminis- trators, other students, and friends for final wording, clarity of thought, and completeness of ideas. As a result, eight administrative competency sets with a total of fifty-eight competency tasks were generated as stated in the following: A. Budget Management l. Analyze and interpret financial reports. 2. Analyze and interpret needs and requests. 7. 8. 53 Implement a cost—effectiveness analysis study. Identify and utilize available sources of financial support. Recognize and utilize appropriate budget base alternatives for your area of responsibility. Articulate alternatives for funding, staffing, facility utilization, and programming activities within specified goals and constraints. Write and interpret funding proposals. Anticipate future projections and priorities. B. Cooperative Relationships 9. Assess behavior modification needs and determine appropriate consultation within the limits of your experience and training. 10. Establish cohesive work groups. 11. Establish and utilize cooperative alliances. 12. Develop and maintain a work environment based on mutual understanding, trust, and competence. l3. Recognize, analyze, and resolve role conflict, management style, communications, philosophical difference, and personality difference problems. 14. Implement human relations training skills in daily interactions. Communication 15. Analyze and utilize the communication networks within the institution. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 54 Obtain and disseminate cognitive and behavioral data. Determine and utilize office management procedures, i.e., secretarial services, business machine operation, print and nonprint media systems. Analyze, write, and disseminate memos, reports, articles, and speeches. Utilize knowledge of modeling and feedback processes. Perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and needs of yourself and others. Recognize and define confidentiality practices and procedures. D. Leadership 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. Accept and delegate appropriate authority and responsibility. Implement a model of decision-making for conduct- ing daily operations within established goals and objectives. Define and reinforce limits of behavior. Design and implement instructional techniques and strategies. Provide in—service training programs or oppor— tunities. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 55 Generate and articulate an ethical base for all procedures and interactions. Maintain a working knowledge of institutional practices, procedures, and requirements. Generate, facilitate, and evaluate planning, programming, assessment, and redefinition pro- cesses. Identify, interpret, and articulate the letter and spirit of goal and policy statements. Analyze, synthesize, and interpret cognitive and affective behavioral data. Initiate, modify, articulate, and implement goals based on philosophical, historical, behavioral, and educational perspectives. Anticipate the unexpected. Synthesize and operationalize appropriate theoretical models as reference determinants for procedures and interactions. E. Personnel Management 35. 36. 37. Develop and implement recruitment, performance evaluation, promotion, discipline, and release criteria and procedures for professional and non- professional staff. Actualize the concepts of due process. Analyze and implement federal and state legis- lation pertinent to personnel policy. 38. 39. 56 Develop and maintain job descriptions stated in terms of behavioral expectations. Recognize and define alternatives for personnel policy development. F. Professional Development G. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Define and assess personal and professional developmental tasks. Maintain a scholarly academic background in appr0priate disciplines. Determine and establish a balance between personal needs and professional expectations. Recognize and utilize the expertise of others. Anticipate and deal with the consequences of personal and professional behaviors. Define and participate in appropriate self-renewal and in-service training programs or activities. Research and Evaluations 46. 47. 48. 49. Design and modify testing and assessment instru- ments. Select, administer, score, and interpret standard- ized instruments. Generate a rationale and procedures for descrip- tive, historical, investigatory, experimental, and survey studies. Identify and utilize appropriate statistical techniques and procedures. H. 50. 51. 57 Maintain a working knowledge of computer utili- zation methods and requirements. Implement comprehensive and ethical data collec- tion and dissemination procedures. Student Contact 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. Develop academic assistance programs. Develop a framework for disciplinary procedures and interactions. DevelOp in—service training programs for student groups. Provide channels for cooperative policy making. Implement procedures, programs, and services for individual and group psychological concerns. Utilize concepts from human development theory, learning theory, adolescent/post adolescent psy— chology and other related areas in creating a learning environment. Provide program alternatives to enhance social, emotional, physical, intellectual, and vocational growth. While an attempt was made to be inclusive of the administrative competency tasks of Student Affairs prac- titioners, it was recognized that the final list was not exhaustive of the total number of tasks which would in reality delineate a competency set. The attempt to be inclusive was limited by new developments, focuses, 58 practices, and experiences in the day-to-day situations faced by Student Affairs practitioners in an ever-changing and evolving higher education community. The significance of initially generating competency tasks was based on a commitment to continually encourage evaluation of tasks which will be used by Student Affairs practitioners. Thus, training needs and other concerns may be assessed and provided for adequately. An attempt was also made to state each competency task thoroughly but concisely to present a common under— standing of what was meant by each item. Dictionary definitions or common usage terms were used consistently in preparation of the task statements. It was recognized that communication for the specific meaning of a task could have been altered by the perception of the respon- dent. To compensate, opportunity for respondents to comment was provided for in the questionnaire. Summary information and data from these comments are included within the analysis as presented in Chapter IV. Development of the Instrument A questionnaire was designed for this study. It included a means for Student Affairs practitioners to evaluate the fifty-eight competency tasks which were initially generated from the literature. Four questions were designed to produce an evaluation of the following: (1) the use of each competency task in a respondent's 59 present position within Student Affairs Administration; (2) the sources of training a respondent had for each competency task; (3) an appraisal of whether additional training for each competency task would be beneficial to a respondent's present position; and (4) if desired, what sources of additional training would be appropriate for each competency task. In addition, three open—ended questions were included to provide respondents an oppor— tunity for the following: (1) to comment on the repre- sentativeness of the eight administrative competency sets to Student Affairs Administration in Higher Education; (2) to evaluate the inclusiveness of both the adminis- trative competency sets and the stated competency tasks within each set as related to meeting performance expec— tations of a Student Affairs Administrator in one's present position; and (3) to make any additional comments in regard to this research project (see Appendix D for the questionnaire). Demographic information requested from each respondent provided a means for categorizing all respondents into three position levels—-executive, middle management, and entrance. The delineation of these three levels was drawn exclusively from Sherburn's (1968) study, "Conceptual Model of Student Personnel Organizational Structure." A complete definition of each level including position description, educational 60 and professional requirements, and qualifying questions pertaining to each level are included in Appendix B. In addition demographic information also provided data regarding special characteristics of the respondents, i.e., number of staff directly supervised, last edu- cational degree completed, degree in progress, present institution, present position, and length of time in the present position. In all the questionnaire was able to generate data regarding eight administrative competency sets including fifty-eight competency tasks in relation to four questions with forty-two responses as compared by three position levels, degree completed, degree in progress, institution, and total number of respondents. For the purpose of this study only the data as related to the three position level categories were examined. Chapter V includes suggestions for further evaluation or use of additional data possibly generated by the questionnaire. It may have been possible to generate similar data by means of other instrumentation, i.e., structured interview, etc. However, even though the response rate was difficult to anticipate as compared to such techniques as the structured interview, three considerations qualified the use of a questionnaire: (1) the extensiveness of the information to be gathered and the consequent data analy- sis; (2) financial and time consumption constraints; and 61 (3) the need to avoid the possible bias and subjectivity on the part of both the researcher and respondents which typically has been stated as a limitation of the structured interview technique (Borg, 1963; Hillway, 1969; Macoby & Macoby, 1954). Thus, the development and use of the questionnaire was determined the most feasible technique for the purpose of this study. This procedure assumed (though possibly not always accurately) honesty on the part of the respondent; understanding of the intent of each question; responses which reflected the intent of the respondent; and, correct interpretation of the responses by the researcher. Collection of the Data The scope of this study was limited to Student Affairs administrators (excluding physical education, medical and housing personnel) in Michigan universities. The following institutions were initially included: Andrews University, Central Michigan University, University of Detroit, Eastern Michigan University, Michigan Techno— logical University, University of Michigan including the Dearborn and Flint campuses, Northern Michigan University, Oakland University, Wayne State University, and Western Michigan University. Michigan State University was not included in the study due to fear of bias as many of the 62 potential respondents would have been the same personnel utilized in developing and refining the competency tasks and the questionnaire. The office of the Chief Student Affairs Adminis- trator in each institution was initially contacted by telephone to explain the purpose of the study and to request support from each office in establishing a con— tact person for distribution of the questionnaire. The contact person was essential for providing the number of potential respondents and for coordinating questionnaire distribution. (See Appendix E for Questionnaire Dis- tribution Contacts.) While the first page of the questionnaire briefly outlined its purpose, a cover letter for each respondent was also included. The letter indicated that the study was under the supervision of Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, Vice President for Student Affairs at Michigan State University. It also included a more comprehensive statement of purpose and request for individual and institutional participation in the study. The letter also indicated the date (two weeks later) the questionnaire was to be returned. An addressed envelope (stamped) was included with each questionnaire and indicated the instruments be returned directly to the researcher. (See Appendix F for the complete text of the cover letter.) 63 After two weeks a telephone call was made to each contact person. At that time it was determined that the University of Detroit and the University of Michigan would not be included in the study. Department or Division Heads at the eight institutions were encouraged by each contact person to return all ques- tionnaires within two weeks. A thank you note was sent at the same time to the contact persons indicating the up-to-date return rate from each institution and that the results from the total study and results pertaining to each institution would be available upon request. Eighty-four questionnaires were initially returned. Seventy-five instruments were deemed usable. Thus, from 180 potential respondents in eight institutions, seventy— five total or 42 percent of the questionnaires were included in the final analysis. Treatment of the Data The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program utilizing the Model #6500 computer at Michigan State University was the primary tool used for analyzing the data. The Chi-Square and Fisher Exact statistics were used for tests of independence between the position level and training of Student Affairs respondents in relation to the fifty-eight competency tasks. 64 Initially the competency tasks and the forty-two response alternatives were coded. The results of the questionnaire were incorporated into the coding system for computer analysis and punched onto IBM cards. In addition to the statistical tests for independence, frequency counts and percentages were used when appropriate in order to analyze the data. The data were analyzed to determine the presence or lack of a relationship for each competency task in relation to the questionnaire response alternatives as indicated by respondents categorized into their position levels--entrance, managerial, executive. To simplify understanding, tables and summary statements were generated for illustrating the results. Of particular importance was the acceptance or rejection of the null hypotheses for each competency task. (There is no significant difference between the position level of Student Affairs Administrators and their training for specified competency tasks.) Results of each hypothesis test are provided in Table 1 and will be discussed in Chapter IV. In addition, results attained for each question in relation to competency task and position level are provided in Tables 2-7 and will be discussed in Chapter IV. Due to the volume of information generated by this study, only the data pertinent to the null hypothesis 65 were analyzed in detail. Reference will be made to other aspects of the data only if appropriate for clarification or suggested recommendations. The results obtained from the data were interpreted as descriptive of the partici- pating respondents. The conclusions from this study were limited by the number of usable responses. In many aspects this study may have been better identified as a pilot project to a nationwide study which would more extensively examine the training of Student Affairs practitioners for specified competency tasks. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The data collected through the use of a question- naire developed specifically for this study are presented and analyzed in this chapter. The data were gathered from Student Affairs administrators in eight Michigan universities. The analysis will be presented as generated from each question in the questionnaire. Summary statements will be made when appropriate. In addition, analysis will not be limited to each question exclusively if results in other areas are pertinent to a particular observation or conclusion. Overview The data were analyzed in terms of the percentage of respondents who selected each alternative. The data also indicated the percentage of respondents in each position level (entrance, managerial, executive) for each alternative. Statistical analysis (chi square and Fisher Exact test) indicated whether there was a 66 67 significant difference among the position levels for the alternatives. In some cases it was possible to make inference as to where the significant difference occurred. There was a total of seventy-five respondents for all questions. Of the respondents, 61.3 percent held executive level positions, 28 percent managerial level, and 10.7 percent entrance level. Because of this uneven distribution of respondents in the position levels, care was taken in analyzing the data by p051tion level. The results were analyzed in terms of the overall significant differences among the position levels. Inferences were made about when the difference may have occurred only in terms of percentage responses. Concluding statements were tempered accordingly. The raw data generated by the questionnaire were very extensive. Thus, only significant information and possible conclusions will be presented in this chapter. For the sake of convenience and understanding, summary statements of the data will appear throughout the dis— cussion and in the appendices. Analysis: Question 1 How Important Is Each Competency Task to Your Present Position? Question 1 asked the respondents to assess the importance of each competency task according to the fre- quency of using it in each of their present positions. The respondents could select from the following 68 alternatives: (a) not applicable, (b) used infrequently, (c) used frequently, and (d) essential to routine func- tioning. It was possible to select more than one response if appropriate. Table 1 shows the level of statistical significance for each competency task within each of the eight areas of competency for all four questions. Table 1 also lists those tasks for which there was statistical significance at the .01, .05, and .10 levels for the four questions. For example, within the Budget Management competency it was determined that for question 1 (How important is each competency task to your present position?) there was a significant difference among the three position levels (executive, managerial, entrance) for four competency tasks at the .01 level of significance: (#1) Analyze and interpret financial reports, (#2) Analyze and inter- pret needs and requests, (#6) Articulate alternatives for funding, staffing, facility utilization, and programming activities within specified goals and restraints, and (#8) Anticipate future projections and priorities. One task within the Budget Management Competency was signifi- cant at the .05 level (#5 Recognize and utilize appro- priate budget base alternative for your area of responsi- bility) and one task was significant at the .10 level (#4 Identify and utilize available sources of financial support). Thus, as indicated in Table 1, there were 69 TABLE 1 RESULTS OF THE HYPOTHESIS TEST ACCORDING TO COMPETENCY TASK Questions Questions Accept HO: Reject HO: competency Tasks (No difference) (Difference) #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4 A. Budget Manage- ment 1. .78 .01 .10 .05 2. .14 .01 .01 .10 3. .26 .32 .05 .01 4. .61 .10 .01 .01 5. .25 .05 .01 .01 6. .27 .01 .01 .01 7. .23 .68 .01 .01 8. .01 .05 .10 .01 8 tasks total .11+ 2 - 7 - - - — Levels: '01 ‘ " ' 4 5 1 6 .05 - - - 1 2 - 1 .10 - - - 1 1 - 1 Sub Total A: 2 0 7 6 8 1 8 70 TABLE l--Continued —— 7‘ Questions Questions Accept Ho: Reject HO: Competency Tasks (No difference) (Difference) #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4 B. Cooperative Relationships 9. .01 .05 .10 .05 10. .86 .01 .10 .10 ll. .47 .01 .01 .Ol 12. .97 .01 .10 .01 13. .61 .01 .01 .Ol 14. .50 .01 .10 .01 6 tasks total .11+ 0 - 5 - - - - - Levels: '01 - - - - 6 2 - 4 .05 - - - - - 1 - 1 .10 - - - — - 3 _ 1 Sub total B: 0 0 5 0 - 6 1 6 C. Communication 15. .26 .01 .10 .01 16. .54 .34 .10 .01 17. .34 .01 .01 .01 18. .16 .28 .01 .01 H I I I 71 TABLE l—-Continued II i Questions Questions Accept HO: Reject H : Competency Tasks O (No difference) (Difference) #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4 19. .62 .01 .05 .05 20. .67 .01 .10 .05 21. .26 .01 .05 .01 7 tasks total .11+ 0 2 7 - - — — — Levels: '01 - - - - 6 l - 5 .05 - - - - - - - - .10 - - - - l 2 - - Sub Total C: 0 2 7 - 7 5 0 7 D. Leadership 22. .43 .01 .01 .05 23. .47 .01 .01 .05 24. .50 .47 .05 .01 25. .12 .23 .22 .01 26. .18 .39 .05 .01 27. .38 .01 .10 .01 28. .62 .01 .01 .01 29. .59 .05 .05 .01 30. .34 .01 .01 .01 72 TABLE l--Continued Questions Questions Accept HO: Reject Ho: Competency Tasks (No difference) (Difference) #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4 31. .48 .51 .01 .01 32. .15 .76 .01 .01 33. .26 .01 .01 .Ol 34. .26 .44 .10 .01 13 tasks total .11+ 3 4 l3 0 - - — - Levels: ’01 - _ - — 8 5 - ll .05 — - - - 2 2 - 2 .10 - - - - - 2 - — Sub Total D: 3 4 13 0 10 9 0 13 E. Personnel Management 35. .34 .10 .01 .01 36. .05 .05 .10 .01 37. .11 .01 .10 .01 38. .13 .11 .67 .01 39. .05 .05 .10 .10 5 tasks total .11+ 2 l 2 - — - - - Levels: .01 - - - - - 2 - 4 73 TABLE l--Continued Questions Questions Accept HO: Reject HO: Competency Tasks (No difference) (Difference) #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4 .05 - - — - 2 2 — - Levels: .10 2 l 2 0 3 4 3 5 F. Professional Development 40. .14 .47 .05 .01 41. .33 .67 .01 .10 42. .26 .01 .05 .05 43. .01 .01 .10 .05 44. .55 .01 .01 .01 45. .01 .01 .10 .01 6 tasks total .11+ 0 2 4 0 - - - - Levels: '01 - - - - 5 3 — 3 .05 - — - - l l - 2 .10 - - — - - - 2 1 Sub Total P: 0 2 4 0 6 4 2 6 G. Research and Evaluation 46. .22 .87 .21 .05 47. .54 .05 .01 .01 Competency Tasks 74 TABLE l—-Continued. ‘- Questions Questions Accept Ho: Reject Ho: (No difference) (Difference) #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4 48. 49. 50. 51. .48 .29 .01 .01 .26 .87 .05 .10 .34 .22 .54 .10 .16 .14 .47 .43 6 tasks total .11+ 3 6 3 3 - - - - Levels: ’01 - - - - 1 - l 2 .05 - - - - 2 - - l .10 - - - - - - 2 - Sub Total G: 3 6 3 3 3 - 3 3 H. Student Contact 52. .20 .52 .05 .10 53. .23 .18 .10 .10 54. .21 .10 .10 .10 55. .13 .32 .54 .01 56. .31 .47 .01 .01 57. .30 .51 .71 .10 58. .57 .05 .01 .01 75 TABLE l--Continued Questions Questions Accept Ho: Reject HO: Competency Tasks (No difference) (Difference) #1 #2 #3 #4 #1 #2 #3 #4 7 tasks total .11+ 5 2 4 3 - - - - Levels: '01 - - - - - 3 — 2 .05 - - - - 1 1 - - .10 - - - - l l 3 2 Sub Total H: 5 2 4 3 2 5 3 4 TOTAL of 58: 15 17 45 6 43 41 13 52 76 two tasks within the Budget Management Competency in which there was no significant difference among position levels for question 1 at at least the .10 level of sig- nificance (#3 Implement a cost-effectiveness analysis Istudy and #7 Write and interpret funding proposals). The table also indicates the level at which these two tasks would statistically be significant. Thus, in looking at Table l comprehensively we see that in relation to question 1 there was a difference among position levels significant at at least the .01 level for all of the Cooperative Relationship competency tasks, and at at least the .10 level of significance for the Communication competency tasks (all but one were signifi- cant at the .01 level). Within the Leadership Competency group, eight tasks were significant at the .01 level and two were significant at the .05 level. There was no dif— ference among position levels regarding the use of three Leadership tasks at at least the .10 level of signifi- cance (#25 Design and implement instructional techniques and strategies, #26 Provide in-service training programs or opportunities, #34 Synthesize and operationalize appr0priate theoretical models as reference determinants for procedures and interactions). While 75 percent of the respondents said they at least used task #26 in their present positions, and while 76 percent said they at least used task #34, there were not statistically 77 significant differences among the respondents according to the level of their position (executive, managerial, entrance) in the use of these competency tasks. A detailed discussion regarding the use of the competency tasks by the total population is presented later in this chapter. At this point it is important to note the levels of significance for the remainder of the competency tasks regarding differences among the position levels. The actual levels of significance are indicated in Table 1. For the Personnel Management, competency tasks in relation to question 1 there were no significant differences among position levels for tasks #37 (Analyze and implement federal and state legislation pertinent to personnel policy) and #38 (Develop and maintain job descriptions stated in terms of behavioral expectations) at at least the .10 level of significance. This is true also for tasks #46, #50, and #51 in the Research and Evaluation competency group, and for tasks #52, #53, #54, #55, and #56 in the Student Contact competency group. There were significant differences among position levels at at least the .05 levels for all the tasks within the Professional Development competency group. Thus, for question 1, "How important is each com- petency task to your present position?" there were no significant differences among position levels (executive, managerial, entrance) for fifteen of the specified 78 competency tasks. There were significant differences among the position levels for forty-three of the com- petency tasks--four at the .10 level, nine at the .05 level, and thirty at the .01 level. Analysis: Question 2 Indicate the Source(s) of Training You Have Had for Each Competency TaSk Question 2 asked the respondents to indicate the source or sources of training they had for each of the competency tasks. The respondents could select from the following alternatives: (a) formal education degree, (b) formal in-service training, (c) on-the-job experience, (d) your own professional activities, and (e) none. It was possible to select more than one response if appro- priate. Again Table 1 summarizes the data according to levels of statistical significance for each of the com- petency tasks as related to differences among the position categories (executive, managerial, entrance) of the respondents. In looking at Table 1 comprehensively in regard to question 2, it is evident that there were no significant differences among position levels regarding sources of training for seventeen of the competency tasks. Thus, there were significant differences among the three position levels for forty-one of the competency tasks at at least the .10 level of significance. 79 A more careful examination of Table 1 shows that there were no significant differences at the .10 level among the three position levels for any of the competency tasks in either the Budget Management or the Cooperative Relationships competency groups. Overall there were nine competency tasks that indicated a significant difference among position categories only at the .10 level. Eleven were significant only at the .05 level and twenty-one tasks indicated a significant difference at the .01 level. Also, there were significant differences at the .05 level among position categories with regard to the sources of training respondents had for all the tasks in the Professional Development and Personnel Management competency groups. In addition, there were no significant differences at at least the .10 level of significance among the position categories for all six of the competency tasks in the Research and Evaluation competency group. Analysis: Question 3 If Available, Would Additional Training Be Beneficial to Your Present Position? Specify the TaSks To Be Included Question 3 asked the respondents to specify the competency tasks for which they thought additional train- ing would be beneficial to their present position. They responded either yes or no for each of the fifty-eight competency tasks. The data were analyzed to ascertain 80 whether there were significant differences among the three position categories for each task in relation to a need for additional training. As shown in Table 1, there were no significant differences for fifty-seven of the fifty-eight competency tasks among position categories in relation to whether additional training would be beneficial or not at the .05 level of significance. There were significant differences among the three position categories at the .01 level of significance for only one competency task--number forty- seven in the Research and Evaluation competency group (#47 Select, administer, score, and interpret standardized instruments). Analysis: Question_4 What Would Be the Appropriate Source(s) of AdditionaI'Training fer Each Competency Task? Question 4 asked the respondents to specify appropriate sources of additional training for each com- petency task. They were able to select from the follow- ing alternatives: (a) in-service training programs, (b) on-the-job experience, (c) your own professional activities, (d) specialized activities provided outside the Student Affairs division, and (e) none. The data were analyzed to determine if there were significant differences among the three position categories of the respondents in relation to appropriate sources of addi- tional training for each competency task. 81 There were no significant differences among the three position categories of respondents for any of the tasks in six of-the eight competency groups. There were significant differences at the .05 level for task #46, and at the .01 level for tasks #47, #48, #56, and #58. In addition, there were significant differences at the .10 level for tasks #53 and #54. As indicated in Table l, the groups in which there were no significant differences included Budget Management, Communication, Cooperative Relationships, Leadership, Personnel Management, and Professional Development. There were differences among the positions categories for three tasks in the Research and Evaluation competency group (#46 Design and modify testing and assessment instruments; #47 Select, administer, score, and interpret standardized instruments; and #48 Generate a rationale and procedures for descriptive, historical, investigatory, experimental, and survey studies). There were differences among the position categories for four tasks in the Student Contact com- petency group (#53 Develop a framework for disciplinary procedures and interactions; #54 Develop in-service training programs for student groups; #56 Implement procedures, programs, and services for individual and group psychological concerns; and #58 Provide program alternatives to enhance social, emotional, physical, intellectual, and vocational growth). 82 Analysis Summary In summary, the data have indicated that the respondents generally rejected the null hypothesis, there are no significant differences among position levels (executive, managerial, entrance) of Student Affairs Administrators in relation to their training for specified competency tasks, for questions 1 (How important is each competency task to your present position), 2 (Indicate the source(s) of training you have had for each competency task), and 4 (What would be the appropriate sources of additional training for each competency task). However, the respondents generally did not reject the null hypothesis for question 3--If available, would additional training for each task be beneficial to your present position. In other words, respondents by position level did not significantly agree on the applicability and frequency of using the tasks in their present positions. They also did not agree according to their position levels on the sources of training they had for each of the tasks. Nor did they agree by position level on the appropriate sources of additional training for the competency tasks. And yet, there was general agreement that additional training for the competency tasks would be beneficial to them in their present positions. As indicated in the analysis of each question, there were exceptions to each 83 of these four generalizations which would have to be identified before making specific conclusions about each particular competency task. Introduction to the Total Population Responses At this point it is appropriate to examine the data in terms of the total population percentage responses for all alternatives to each of the four questions. The data are summarized by question in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5. So as not to misrepresent the data in any concluding remarks, only extreme observations will be pointed out. For example, if either 100 percent or 0 percent of all respondents in a position category (executive, management, entrance) selected a particular response to a question, it would be pointed out. Population Response-rQuestion l Question 1 asked the respondents how important each competency task was to their present position. Table 2 delineates the percentage of population response for each task according to the response(s) selected in answer to the first question (see Table 2--Percentage of Population Response, Question 1). It was possible to select more than one response. Logically, however, if a respondent selected "not applicable," an additional response was not also selected. Thus, the total in the "used" column and the "not applicable" column for each 84 TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RESPONSE QUESTION 1 Competency S. Used Frquintly Essen- Apgiic- Level Tasks Level Essential tial able 0% Budget Management 1. .01 .68 .48 .29 .32 2. .01 .80 .67 .32* .20 8* 3. - .57 .25* .10* .43 8* 4. .10 .75 .49* .19* .25 8* 5. .05 .69 .49 .25 .31 6. .01 .85 .59 .28 .15 7. - .63 .23 .11 .37 8. .01 .84 .72 .41 .16 Cooperative Relation- ships 9. .01 .84 .56 .21* .16 B* 10. .01 .89 .69 .40 .11 § 11. .01 .94 .81 .39** .06* Ex ;M* "‘E**’ 12. .01 .92 .89 .55** .08* Ex* 13. .01 .89 .80 .39 .11 14. .01 .90 .76 .39 .10 Communi- cation 15. .01 .87 .81 .45 .13 16. .10 .81 .54 .21* .19 8* 85 TABLE 2--Continued Frequently _ Not C°m$:::2°y .2... used .. Eiiii Applic- Lzzel Essential able 17. .01 .89 .77 .45* .11 8* 18. .01 .93 .87 .56 .07 19. .01 .88 .72 .31* .12 8* 20. .01 .93 .84 .59 .07 21. .01 .93 .84 .58 .07* m* Leadership 22. .01 .86 .82 .63 .14 23. .01 .85 .70 .50 .15 24. .05 .83 .65 .31 .17 25. - .75 .48 .19 .25 26. - .79 .55 .23 .21 E** 27. .01 .85 .67 .35** .15* m* 28. .01 .92 .91 .59 .08* m* 29. .05 .83 .77 .41 .17 30. .01 .91 .77 .46 .09 31. .01 .85 .59 .36* .15 8* “8*"' 32. .01 .89 .73 .39* .11** M** 33. .01 .91 .80 .59 .09* M* 34. - .76 .52 .20* 24 8* Personnel Management 35. .10 .61 .50 .30 .39 86 TABLE 2--Continued Frequently Essen- Competency S. . Level Used or . Applic- Tasks Level Essential tial able 0% 36. .05 .63 .38 .15* .37 8* 37. — .61 .36 .16* .39 8* 38. - .73 .56 35* .27 8* 39. .05 .64 .39 .15* .36 8* 40. .05 .80 .63 .21* .20 8* 41. .01 .80 .51 .21* .20 8* 42. .01 .91 .81 .48 .09* m* 43. .01 .92 .88 .57 .08* m* 44. .01 .93 .91 .52 .07* m*;8x* 45. .01 .89 .57 .31 .11* m* Research and Evaluatién 46. - .45 .22 .10* .55 8* 47. .05 .60 .26 .16* .40 8* 48. .01 .68* .28* .12* .32 8* 49. .05 .69 .29* .13* .31 8* 50. - .65 .28* .16* .35 8* 51. - .73 .38* .22* .27 8* Student Contact 52. - .64 .42 .20 .36 53. - .53 .26 .13 .47 87 TABLE 2--Continued C°m8:::2cy .:;.1 used Freq35*tly Eiii?’ Apfiiic- Lszel Essential able 54. - .77 .54 .16 .23 55. — .79 .60 .27* .21 8* 56. - .68 .50 .28 .32 57. .10 .76 .60 .37 .24 58. .05 .80 .70 .44 .20 Note. Position Categories: E = Entrance level administrators; M = Middle management staff; Ex = Executive level. 88 competency task adds up to 100 percent. In almost all cases, there was overlap among the "used," "used fre- quently," and "essential to routine functioning" responses. Respondents who selected the "used" or "used frequently" responses often indicated that the task was also essential to routine functioning. Thus, while a task may have been used only occasionally, it also may have been essential to job when it was used. For the sake of discussion, Table 2 also includes a column where percentage responses to "used frequently" and "essential to functioning" have been summed together. A column which indicates the level of significance for differences among the position cate- gories (executive, management, and entrance) is also provided in Table 2. It was interesting to note that 45 percent of all respondents indicated that they at least used 99 percent of the competency tasks in their present positions. Further, 86 percent of the tasks were used by two-thirds of the respondents in their present positions. Taking it one step further, 73 percent of the tasks were used by three-fourths or 75 percent of the respondents. Thus, it appears that it is possible to accurately generate competency tasks used by Student Affairs Administrators from the literature. There also appeared to be general agreement over the population sampled regarding competency tasks Student Affairs Administrators identify with and 89 perform. At the same time, there were significant dif- ferences among the entrance level, middle management level, and executive level respondents in the use of each competency task in their present positions. From this study, it was possible to determine some of the differences particular to Student Affairs Administrators as identified by position level. As a Chief Student Affairs Administrator or holding an execu- tive level position, 100 percent of the respondents indi- cated they used the following competency tasks, i.e., none of the respondents said the following tasks were not applicable to their present positions: Cooperative Relationships--#ll, establish and utilize cooperative alliances,--#12, develop and maintain a work environment based on mutual understanding, trust, and competence, and Professional Development--#44, anticipate and deal with the consequences of personal and professional behaviors. One hundred percent of the Student Affairs Admin- istrators identified as middle management staff indicated that they at least used the following competency tasks: Cooperative Relationships--#ll, establish and utilize cooperative alliances; Communication--#21, recognize and define confidentiality practices and procedures; Leadership--§27, generate and articulate an ethical base for all procedures and interactions,--#28, maintain 90 'a working knowledge of institutional practices, procedures, and requirements--#32, initiate, modify, articulate, and implement goals based on philosophical, historical, behavioral, and educational perspectives; and Professional Development--#42, determine and establish a balance between personal needs and professional expectations,-- #43, recognize and utilize the expertise of others,-- #44, anticipate and deal with the consequences of personal and professional behaviors, and--#45, define and partici- pate in appropriate self-renewal and in-service training programs or activities. Note that all respondents in both the executive level and middle management staff positions used two of the competency tasks--Cooperative Relationships, #11, establish and utilize cooperative alliances, and Pro- fessional Development, #44, anticipate and deal with the consequences of personal and professional behaviors. In addition, 100 percent of all respondents in both executive level or middle management staff positions identified the following six competency tasks as ones used frequently or essential to routine functioning: Budget Management--#3, implement a cost-effectiveness analysis study,--#4, identify and utilize available sources of financial support, and Research and Evaluation-- #48, generate a rationale and procedures for descriptive, historical, investigatory, experimental, and survey 91 studies,--#49, identify and utilize appropriate statisti- cal techniques and procedures,--#50, maintain a working knowledge of computer utilization methods and requirements, and,--#51, implement comprehensive and ethical data col- lection and dissemination procedures. It is interesting to note that while 100 percent of the executive and management level respondents con- sidered #48 in the Research and Evaluation competency group essential to routine functioning or used frequently in their present positions, 100 percent of the entrance level respondents indicated that #48 was not applicable to their present positions. There did not appear to be agreement among the entrance level respondents for tasks that were essential to routine functioning in their present positions. How- ever, the entrance level respondents were in agreement regarding the use of twenty competency tasks. One hundred percent of the entrance level respondents indicated that they either used or frequently used the following com- petency tasks in their present positions: Budget Manage- ment--#2, analyze and interpret needs and requests; Cooperative Relationships--#9, assess behavior modifi- cation needs and determine appropriate consultation within the limits of your experience and training,--#ll, estab— lish and utilize cooperative alliances,--#12, develop and maintain a work environment based on mutual understanding, 92 trust, and competence; Communication--#16, obtain and disseminate cognitive and behavioral data,--#l7, determine and utilize office management procedures, i.e., secre- tarial services, business machine operation, print and nonprint media systems,--#l9, utilize knowledge of model- ing and feedback processes; Leadership--#27, design and implement instructional techniques and strategies,--#3l, analyze, synthesize, and interpret cognitive and affective behavioral data,--#32, initiate, modify, articulate, and implement goals based on philosophical, historical, behavioral, and educational perspectives,--#34, synthe- size and operationalize appropriate theoretical models as reference determinants for procedures and interactions; Personnel Management--#36, actualize the concepts of due process,--#37, analyze and implement federal and state legislation pertinent to personnel policy,--#38, develop and maintain job descriptions stated in terms of behavioral expectations,--#39, recognize and define alternatives for personnel policy development; Profes- sional Development--#40, define and assess personal and professional developmental tasks,--#4l, maintain a scholarly academic background in appropriate disciplines; Research and Evaluation--#46, design and modify testing and assessment instruments,--#47, select, administer, score, and interpret standardized instruments; and Student Conduct--#55, provide channels for cooperative policymaking. 93 Thus, there was agreement among all respondents for one competency task. One hundred percent of all respondents from the three position categories indicated that they used task #11 in the Cooperative Relationship competency group. Both the entrance level and executive respondents also used task #12 in the Cooperative Relation- ship group. One hundred percent of the respondents from the entrance level and the middle management staff used two competency tasks, #27 and #32 from the Leadership competency group. And as indicated previously 100 percent of the respondents in the executive and middle management categories used task #41 in the Professional Development competency group. Population Response--Question 2 Question 2 asked the respondents to indicate the sources of training they had for each of the competency tasks. Table 3 delineates the percentage of the total population response for each of the tasks according to the responses selected in answer to the second question (see Table 3, Percentage of Population Response, Question 2). It was possible to select more than one response as appropriate. However, if the respondents selected the "none" response, they did not also select one of the other alternatives--formal educational degree (ED), formal in-service training (IS), on-the-job exper- ience (OJ), or your own professional activities (PA). 94 TABLE 3 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE POPULATION, TASKS, AND SOURCES OF TRAINING QUESTION 2 Alternatives Percentages ED IS OJ PA None .75 - - 2 .67 2 - 10 .50 16 - 41 .34 33 l 52 7 2 .25 42 3 58 19 10 .10 58 29 58 53 29 <.lO - (29) (58) - (58) (5) (58) (29) Number of Competency Tasks Note. ED = Formal Education Degree; IS = Formal In-service Training; OJ = On-the-Job Experience; PA = Your Own Professional Activities. 95 It is obvious from Table 3 that there was much overlap among the responses selected. From Table 3 it is possible to determine the most likely source(s) of training a Student Affairs Adminis— trator had for each competency task. It is also possible to examine a total competency group in terms of training received by Student Affairs Administrators. In all but two instances the percentage of respondents selecting either formal in-service training (IS) or own professional activities (PA) was lower than the percentage of respon- dents selecting either formal educational degree (ED) or formal on-the-job training (OJ). The two exceptions included Professional Development #41, maintain a scholarly academic background in appropriate disciplines, and #45, define and participate in appropriate self- renewal and in-service training programs or activities. For competency task #41, formal educational degree was selected by 64 percent of the respondents and own pro- fessional activities was selected by 38 percent; with on-the-job training and in-service training selected by 26 percent and 18 percent of the respondents respectively. For task #45, 48 percent of the respondents selected (PA) with 40 percent selecting (OJ), 25 percent selecting (ED), and 21 percent selecting (IS). It is interesting to note that the responses of the administrators for the competency pertaining to participation and definition of in-service 96 training programs indicated that formal in-service train- ing was the least often selected alternative regarding the kinds of training they had had for the task. It is also important to note that on-the-job experience was selected by the highest percentage of respondents for forty-eight of the fifty-eight competency tasks. Of the ten tasks for which other training was indicated, six of the tasks were in the Research and Evaluation competency group (this was 100 percent of the group). For all ten tasks, formal education degree was selected by the highest percentage of respondents as the source of training. The ten competency tasks included: Cooperative Relationships--#9, assess behavior modification needs and determine appropriate consultation within the limits of your experience and training; Leadershipé-#31, analyze, synthesize, and interpret cognitive and affective behavioral data,--#34, synthesize and operationalize apprOpriate theoretical models as references for pro- cedures and interactions; Professional Development--#4l, maintain a scholarly academic background in appropriate disciplines; and Research and Evaluation--#46, design and modify testing and assessment instruments,--#47, select, administer, score, and interpret standardized instru- ments,--#48, generate a rationale and procedures for descriptive, historical, investigatory, experimental, and survey studies,--#49, identify and utilize appropriate 97 statistical techniques and procedures,--#50, maintain a working knowledge of computer utilization methods and requirements, and,--#Sl, implement comprehensive and ethical data collection and dissemination procedures. Table 4 has been included to point out the per- centage of respondents who selected each alternative to question 2 for a specific number of competencies. For example, from the table it is possible to see that 75 per- cent of the respondents selected on-the-job experiences as a source of training for two of the competency tasks. No more than 50 percent of the respondents selected formal educational degree for sixteen of the tasks, while 50 per- cent of the respondents selected on-the-job experience for forty-one of the tasks. For all fifty-eight compe- tency tasks, 10 percent of the respondents indicated they had formal education degree training; less than 10 percent indicated they had had formal in-service training or had depended on their own professional activities as sources of training. At the same time, 25 percent indicated on- the-job experience as a source of training for all of the competencies and one-third of the respondents indicated they had on-the-job experience for fifty-two of the fifty— eight competency tasks. One-third of the respondents also indicated they had formal educational training for at least 50 percent of the competency tasks. Thirty-four percent of the respondents indicated they had no training 98 TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RESPONSE QUESTION 2 Task 5 * ED IS OJ PA N A. Budget Management 1. .10 .24 .09 .56 .12 .17 2. .01 .19 .08 .64 .08 .13 3. .05 .14 .01 .41 .09 .39 4. .01 .13 .09 .64 .17 .09 5. .01 .12 .08 .56 .08 .24 6. .01 .23 .06 .61 .09 .12 7. .01 .13 .08 .37 .18 .32 8. .05 .20 .06 .65 .26 .08 B. Cooperative RelationShips 9. .05 .55 .21 .47 .15 .08 10. .10 .39 .22 .66 .26 .04 ll. .01 .29 .18 .73 .25 .07 12. .10 .32 .16 .71 .28 .04 13. .01 .37 .12 .63 .35 .08 14. .10 .46 .18 .45 .38 .08 C. Communication 15. .10 .41 .18 .75 .ll .01 16. - .57 .09 .58 .22 .01 17. .01 .19 .08 .73 .14 .03 18. - .34 .09 .69 .26 .01 TABLE 4--Continued 99 Task S ED IS OJ PA N 19. .05 .49 .16 .53 .26 .09 20. .10 .61 .23 .66 .35 .01 21. .05 .40 .25 .67 .22 .03 D. Leadership 22. .01 .38 .36 .48 .16 .08 23. .01 .34 .24 .53 .20 .11 24. - .22 .09 .59 .l6 .08 25. - .50 .09 .44 .17 .16 26. .05 .34 .23 .52 .13 .14 27. .10 .48 .09 .52 .29 .08 28. .01 .21 .15 .76 .12 .03 29. .05 .36 .16 .64 .30 .08 30. .01 ..24 .11 .61 .21 .05 31. - .56 .22 .46 .27 .ll 32. - .55 .08 .58 .16 .07 33. .01 .28 .07 .75 .27 .07 34. .10 .51 .08 .34 .22 .07 E. Personnel Management 35. .01 .24 .ll .65 .17 .19 36. .05 .18 .13 .51 .14 .25 37. .01 .14 .14 .51 .10 .29 38. - .26 .01 .58 .17 .13 39. .05 .19 .05 .56 .10 .36 100 TABLE 4--Continued Task S ED IS OJ PA N F. Professional Development 40. - .47 .22 .50 .41 .08 41. - .64 .18 .26 .38 .10 42. .05 .27 .08 .68 .27 .07 43. .01 .30 .25 .71 .34 .05 44. .01 .26 .10 .74 .24 .04 45. .01 .25 .21 .40 .48 .11 G. Research and Evaluation 46. - .55 .01 .33 .14 .20 47. .01 .58 .09 .35 .13 .18 48. - .58 .06 .30 .09 .19 49. .10 .61 .05 .32 .12 .15 50. .10 .67 .09 .25 .23 .28 51. - .58 .04 .50 .18 .26 H. Student Contact 52. .05 .47 .08 .51 .23 .27 53. - .43 .11 .62 .16 .29 S4. .10 .44 .15 .63 .23 .15 55. .Ol .38 .09 .72 .22 .08 56. .01 .64 .13 .34 .21 .26 57. - .73 .09 .33 .16 .19 58. .01 .46 .11 .60 .22 .19 Note. ED = Formal Education Degree; IS = Formal In-service Training; OJ = On-the-Job Experience; PA = Your Own Professional Activities. *8 = Significance Level 101 for two of the tasks. Twenty-five percent had no training for ten tasks, and 10 percent said they had no training for twenty-nine or one-half of the tasks, while at least 9 percent of all respondents indicated they had no train- ing for all of the tasks. But there was at least one time for every competency task that a Student Affairs Adminis- trator selected "none" as the source of training for a particular task. Thus, no matter how obvious it might seem that training was inevitable for a particular task, this was not the case. In other words, among 9 percent or among seven administrators, at least one of them selected "none" as they evaluated their training for each competency task. In addition, according to Table 2, 100 percent of the respondents indicated they had no training for at least one of the competency tasks. Population Response--Question 3 Question 3 asked the Student Affairs Administrators if additional training for each of the competency tasks would be beneficial to their present positions. Table 5 delineates the percentage of the total population response for each task according to the responses selected in answer to the third question (see Table 5, Percentage of Population Response, Question 3). From Table 5, it is possible to determine the percentage of the total population that indicated 102 TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RESPONSE QUESTION 3 Task 3* Yes NO Task S Yes No A. Budget Management C. Communication 1. 59a 41 15. 52a 48 2. 57a 43 16. 51a 49 3. 73b 27 17. 53a 47 4. 59a 41 18. 47 53 5. 63a 37 19. 69b 31 6. 61a 39 20. 61a 39 7. 61a 39 21. 48 52 8. .10 65a 35 D. Leadership B. Cooperative Relation- 22. 53a 47 ships b b 23. 68 31 9. .10 70 30 a 24. 51 49 10. 67b 33 b 25. 65a 35 11. 76 24 b 26. 7o 30 12. 65a 35 b 27. 52a 45 13. 73 27 b 28. 59a 41 14. 68 32 29. 65a 35 30. 56a 44 31. 59a 41 32 65a 35 33. 49 51 34. 72b 28 Task S TABLE 5—-Continued Yes NO 103 Task Yes No E. Personnel Management G. Research and Evaluation 35. 60a 40 46. 55a 45 36. .10 51a 49 47. .01 63a 37 37. .10 60a 40 48. 67b 33 38. 61a 39 49. .10 67b 33 39. 53a 47 50. .10 69b 31 F. Professional Development 51. 68b 32 40. 64a 36 H. Student Contact 41. 62a 38 52. .10 49 51 42. 41 59 53. .10 44 56 43. .10 55a 45 54. .10 67b 33 44. 60a 40 55. 60a 40 45. .10 75c 25 56. 64a 36 57. 71b 29 58. 72b 28 a50 percent + = 52 tasks b67 percent + = 18 tasks c75 percent + = l task * 8 level of significance 104 additional training would or would not be beneficial for each competency task in their present position. A majority of the respondents said that additional training for fifty-two of the competency tasks would be beneficial to their present positions. The six tasks for which at least 50 percent of the administrators did not indicate that additional training would be necessary included: Communication--#18, analyze, write, and dis- seminate memos, reports, articles, and speeches,--#21, recognize and define confidentiality practices and pro- cedures; Leadership--#33, anticipate the unexpected; Professional Development--#42, determine and establish a balance between personal needs and professional expec- tations; and Student Contact--#52, develop academic assis- tance programs, and,--#53, develop a framework for disci- plinary procedures and interactions. It is important to point out that even at least 41 percentof the total population indicated a need for additional training for these Six competency tasks. It is also interesting to note that for all of the competency tasks, with one exception, there were no significant differences among respondents as categorized by position level (executive, management, entrance) at the .01 level of significance. In fact, differences were found only at the .10 level or above. Only competency task #47 in the Research and Evaluation group ("select, administer, score, and interpret 105 standardized instruments") generated significant differ- ences among the respondents by their position level cate- gories at the .01 level of significance. In examining the raw data, the following percentages were obtained for each of the position categories as they responded "yes" or "no" for additional training: executive level--yes (50%), no (50%); middle management staff-~yes (76%), no (24%); and entrance level--yes (100%), no (0%). For eighteen of the competency tasks, at least 67 percent or two-thirds of all respondents indicated a need for additional training. In addition, 75 percent of all respondents indicated a need of additional training for task #45 in the Professional Development competency group——define and participate in appropriate self-renewal and in-service training programs and activities. This was also the task within the question 2 analysis whereby the respondents indicated they received training primarily from their own professional activities. In addition, the fewest number of respondents indicated they had received formal in-service training for defining and participating in self-renewal and in-service training programs or activities. As pointed out in that analysis, training primarily came from on-the-job training situations or as a result of a formal education degree program. Less than 10 percent of the respondents indicated that training for all competency tasks had come from their own 106 professional activities or from formal in-service edu- cation programs. And yet, here it has been determined that the greatest percentage of respondents, 75 percent, has indicated a need for additional training for this competency task. Population Response-~Question 4 .Question 4 asked Student Affairs Administrators, "what would be appropriate source(s) of additional training for each of the competency tasks?" Table 6 delineates the percentage of the total population response for each of the tasks according to the responses selected in answer to the fourth question (see Table 6, Percentage of Popu- lation Response, question 4). It was possible to select more than one response as appropriate. However, if the respondents selected the "none" response, they did not also select one of the other alternatives--in-service training programs (IS), on-the-job experience (OJ), your own professional activities (PA), or specialized activi- ties provided outside the Student Affairs Division (SAOD). It is obvious from Table 6 that there was much overlap among the responses selected. From Table 6 it is possible to determine the most preferable source of additional training for each compe- tency task. In addition, it is also possible to examine a total competency group regarding the preferred source(s) 107 TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION RESPONSE QUESTION 4 Task 8 IS OJ PA SAOD None A. Budget Management 1. .05 .46 .27 .19 .31 .23 2. .10 .48 .37 .21 .24 .16 3. .01 .51 .25 .23 .30 .11 4. .01 .42 .29 .20 .34 .16 5. .01 .53 .26 .17 .29 .15 6. .01 .40 .27 .25 .29 .17 7. .01 .44 .17 .22 .44 .18 8. .01 .46 .33 .32 .26 .13 B. Cooperative Relationships 9. .05 .60 .28 .32 .42 .11 10. .10 .54 .42 .36 .30 .05 ll. .01 .46 .42 .46 .34 .05 12. .01 .47 .44 .36 .35 .10 13. .01 .55 .31 .40 .41 .07 14. .01 .51 .39 .31 .40 .08 C. Communications 15. .01 .63 .31 .17 .25 .12 16. .01 .39 .26 .23 .33 .19 17. .01 .46 .30 .15 .25 .21 18. .01 .39 .28 .24 .31 .20 TABLE 6--Continued 108 Task S IS OJ PA SAOD None 19. .05 .48 .29 .34 .34 .20 20. .05 .48 .31 .40 .29 .11 21. .01 .55 .29 .35 .24 .15 D. Leadership 22. .05 .47 .31 .25 .25 .19 23. .05 .54 .21 .23 .30 .17 24. .01 .46 .20 .28 .18 .25 25. .01 .45 .20 .23 .35 .16 26. .01 .38 .23 .30 .30 .17 27. .01 .47 .21 .36 .22 .20 28. .01 .50 .37 .25 .14 .16 29. .01 .54 .28 .27 .22 .13 30. .01 .50 .28 .28 .20 .19 31. .01 .29 .24 .28 .29 .24 32. .01 .46 .30 .33 .21 .23 33. .01 .37 .38 .22 .21 .25 34. .01 .48 .22 .35 .29 .19 E. Personnel Management 35. .01 .37 .32 .27 .41 .19 36. .01 .41 .19 .22 .25 .29 37. .01 .48 .26 .20 .40 .21 38. .01 .50 .22 .24 .31 .15 39. .10 .40 .21 .24 .38 .28 109 TABLE 6--Continued Task S IS OJ PA SAOD None F. Professional Development 40. .01 .52 .28 .35 .37 .13 41. .10 .33 .14 .14 .38 .20 42. .05 .32 .31 .31 .26 .27 43. .05 .41 .39 .31 .27 .19 44. .01 .38 .36 .28 .33 .20 45. .Ol .50 .16 .44 .42 .15 G. Research and Development 46. .05 .40 .20 .17 .43 .24 47. .01 .42 .25 .36 .35 .21 48. .01 .37 .26 .28 .39 .17 49. - .39 .18 .18 .48 .19 50. - .46 .20 .21 .53 .23 51. - .49 .20 .21 .47 .22 H. Student Contact 52. - .51 .20 .22 .36 .31 53. .10 .51 .21 .24 .31 .36 54. .10 .44 .22 .57 .25 .16 55. - .55 .24 .24 .33 .25 56. .01 .39 .15 .65 .27 .14 57. - .56 .27 .21 .30 .26 58. .01 .64 .19 .27 .25 .26 Note. S = Level of Significance; IS = Formal In- service Training; OJ = On-the-Job Experience; PA = Own Professional Activities; SAOD = Specialized Activities Outside the Division. 110 of additional training as determined by the Student Affairs Administrators. For all but six competency tasks, in-service training was specified as the most desired source of additional training. Respondents selected specialized activities outside the Student Affairs Division for additional training for four competency tasks: Personnel Management--#35, develOp and implement recruitment, per— formance evaluation, promotion, discipline, and release criteria and procedures for professional and nonprofes- sional staff; and Research and Development--#46, design and modify testing and assessment instruments,--#49, identify and utilize appropriate statistical techniques and procedures, and,--#50, maintain a working knowledge of computer utilization methods and requirements. For the other two tasks the administrators selected their own professional activities as sources of additional training: Student Contact--#S4, develop in-service training programs for student groups, and,--#56, implement procedures, programs, and services for individual and group psycho- logical concerns. Table 7 has been included to point out the per- centage of respondents who selected each alternative to question 4 for a specific number of competencies. For example, from the table it is possible to see that for all of the competency tasks, less than 10 percent of the 111 TABLE 7 RELATIONSHIPS AMONG THE POPULATION, TASKS, AND SOURCES OF TRAINING QUESTION 4 Alternatives Percentages IS OJ PA SAOD None .50 19 0 o 1 0 .34 55 7 14 18 l .25 58 41 30 49 10 .10 58 58 58 58 54 <.10 0 0 0 0 58 (4) Number of Competency Tasks Note. IS = Formal In-service Training; OJ = On- the-Job Experience; PA = Own Professional Activities; SAOD = Specialized Activities Outside the Division. 112 total respondents indicated that "none" or no additional training was necessary. At the same time, 34 percent of the administrators Said no additional training was neces- sary for at least one of the fifty-eight competency tasks. From Table 7 it is also possible to see that the greatest percentage of respondents selected formal in- service training for the greatest number of competency tasks. For example, while 34 percent of the respondents selected on-the-job experience for seven tasks, their own professional activities for fourteen of the tasks, and specialized activities outside Student Affairs for eighteen of the tasks, they selected formal in-service training as the most appropriate source of additional training for fifty-five or 97 percent of the total number of competency tasks. In addition, 50 percent of the respondents selected in-service training as the most appropriate source of training for nineteen or 33 percent of the total number of competency tasks. For one task, 50 percent of the respondents selected specialized activi- ties outside the Student Affairs Division. On-the-job experience and their own professional activities were not selected by at least 50 percent of the administrators for any of the competency tasks. Thus, in summary, it is important to note that according to Table 2, which summarized the sources of training Student Affairs Administrators had for the 113 fifty-eight competency tasks, that the following order of training sources was generally indicated: first, on- the-job experience; second, formal education degree; third, their own professional activities; and fourth, formal in-service training. However, at the same time, Student Affairs Administrators generally preferenced the following order of sources for additional training of competency tasks: first, in-service training programs; second, specialized activities provided outside the Student Affairs Division; third, their own professional activities; and fourth, on-the-job experience. The cate- gory indicating "none" was the least often selected in both instances. It would be important to note that there would be some differences in the specific tasks referred to in the particular responses of questions 2 and 4. How- ever, 50 percent of the respondents selected on-the-job training as the source of training they had for 70 percent of the fifty-eight tasks, while 50 percent of the respon- dents also indicated a preference for in-service training programs as the most appropriate source of additional training for 33 percent of the competency tasks. Or even more vividly, 34 percent of all respondents selected on-the-job training as the source of training for fifty- two of the fifty-eight competency tasks (90%), while 34 percent of all respondents also indicated a preference for in-service training programs as the most appropriate 114 source of additional training for fifty-five of the fifty-eight competency tasks (97%). Thus, it is possible to suggest that training for competency tasks used by Student Affairs Administrators is provided through on- the-job experiences in a practitioner's particular position. At the same time, Student Affairs Adminis- trators indicate that formal in-service education programs would be the most appropriate source of additional train- ing competency tasks in eight competency areas: Budget Management, Communications, Cooperative Relationships, Leadership, Personnel Management, Professional Develop- ment, Research and Evaluation, and Student Contact. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS A Summary of the Development of the Study An overview of this study will be presented for two reasons: (1) in order to summarize the development of the study and (2) to present the resulting conclusions and recommendations for further research in an orderly fashion. Chapter I There were six objectives for this study pertain- ing to examining the training of Student Affairs Adminis- trators for specified competency tasks. It was the intent of this researcher to: (1) Review pertinent literature pertaining to Student Affairs Administration with particular emphasis on those areas relating to training, competency develOpment, and staff in-service education programs; 115 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 116 Generate competency tasks utilized by Student Affairs Administrators; Develop a questionnaire instrument which would survey the training needs among the various positions levels of Student Affairs Administrators in relation to specified tasks; Indicate, on the basis of the survey, specific competency tasks performed at the various position levels of Student Affairs Administration; Indicate, on the basis of the survey, appropriate sources of training for specified competency tasks; and Recommend, on the basis of the survey, a model for the in-service training of Student Affairs Administrators. In total, Chapter I presented an introduction and statement of the problem; objectives, scope, and limi- tations of the study; significance of the study; a defi- nition of terms used within the study; and an anticipated overview of the study as it was to be reported. Chapter II In this chapter a review of the literature was provided pertaining to Student Affairs Administration. Particular emphasis was placed on competency development, training of Student Affairs Administrators, and in-service 117 education programs. It was determined that both indi- viduals and groups have been concerned with the roles, functions, and education of Student Affairs Administrators. Further research indicated that a few individuals and groups had considered the specific competencies needed to perform designated tasks. Even fewer had examined the most appropriate sources of training for developing specified competency tasks. Thus, this study was prompted by an absence of previous research examining the training of Student Affairs Administrators for specified competency tasks. The chapter included three sections for reviewing the literature: (1) Trends in Student Affairs Adminis- tration, (2) Training Opportunities for Student Affairs Practitioners, and (3) Research Relevant to the Develop- ment of Competencies for Student Affairs Administrators. Chapter III The purpose of this chapter was to present the methodology and procedures used to investigate the train- ing of Student Affairs Administrators in relation to specified competency tasks. The methodological design was a deductive-inductive approach for the development of specified competency tasks and examining the training of Student Affairs Administrators for these tasks. Eight competency groups and the specific competency tasks within 118 each group (fifty-eight total) were developed according to the following procedures: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) List statements, issues, inferences, challenges, problems, hopes, dreams, and anything else that seems important to the Student Affairs Adminis- trator position. Source--any form of communication media; Develop grouping patterns; Identify terms which are key to particular groups; Develop competency tasks incorporating the wording and spirit of the majority of the state- ments 3 Develop a reference tag for each group of tasks. Each tag name will be referred to as a specific competency; Talk with colleagues, committee members, and friends for final wording, clarity of thought, and completeness of ideas. The competency tasks according to group were deductively specified as the following: A. Budget Management 1. 2. 3. Analyze and interpret financial reports. Analyze and interpret needs and requests. Implement a cost-effectiveness analysis study. 7. 8. 119 Identify and utilize available sources of financial support. Recognize and utilize appropriate budget base alternatives for your area of responsibility. Articulate alternatives for funding, staffing, facility utilization, and programming activities within specified goals and constraints. Write and interpret funding proposals. Anticipate future projections and priorities. Cooperative Relationships 9. Assess behavior modification needs and determine appropriate consultation within the limits of your experience and training. 10. Establish cohesive work groups. 11. Establish and utilize cooperative alliances. 12. Develop and maintain a work environment based on mutual understanding, trust, and competence. 13. Recognize, analyze, and resolve role Conflict, management style, communications, philosophiCal difference, and personality difference problems. 14. Implement human relations training skills in daily interactions. Communication 15. Analyze and utilize the communication networks within the institution. 16. Obtain and disseminate cognitive and behavioral data. 120 Determine and utilize office management procedures, 17. i.e., secretarial services, business machine operation, print and nonprint media systems. 18. Analyze, write, and disseminate memos, reports, articles, and speeches. l9. Utilize knowledge of modeling and feedback pro- cesses. ‘20. Perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and needs of yourself and others. 21. Recognize and define confidentiality practices I and procedures. Loadership 22. Accept and delegate appropriate authority and responsibility. 23. Implement a model of decision-making for conduct- ing daily operations within established goals and objectives. 24. Define and reinforce limits of behavior. 25. Design and implement instructional techniques and strategies. 26. Provide in-service training program or oppor- tunities. 27. Generate and articulate an ethical base for all procedures and interactions. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 121 Maintain a working knowledge of institutional practices, procedures, and requirements. Generate, facilitate, and evaluate planning, programming, assessment, and redefinition pro- cesses. Identify, interpret, and articulate the letter and spirit of goal and policy statements. Analyze, synthesize, and interpret cognitive and affective behavioral data. Initiate, modify, articulate, and implement goals based on philosophical, historical, behavioral, and educational perspectives. Anticipate the unexpected. Synthesize and operationalize appropriate theoretical models as reference determinants for procedures and interactions. Personnel Management 35. 36. 37. 38. Develop and implement recruitment, performance evaluation, promotion, discipline, and release criteria and procedures for professional and nonprofessional staff. Actualize the concepts of due process. Analyze and implement federal and state legis- lation pertinent to personnel policy. Develop and maintain job descriptions stated in terms of behavioral expectations. 39. 122 Recognize and define alternatives for personnel policy development. Professional Development 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Define and assess personal and professional developmental tasks. Maintain a scholarly academic background in appropriate disciplines. Determine and establish a balance between per- sonal needs and professional expectations. Recognize and utilize the expertise of others. Anticipate and deal with the consequences of personal and professional behaviors. Define and participate in appropriate self— renewal and in—service training programs or activities. Research and Evaluations 46. 47. 48. 49. Design and modify testing and assessment instru- ments. Select, administer, score, and interpret stan- dardized instruments. Generate a rationale and procedures for descrip— tive, historical, investigatory, experimental, and survey studies. Identify and utilize appropriate statistical techniques and procedures. 123 50. Maintain a working knowledge of computer utili- zation methods and requirements. 51. Implement comprehensive and ethical data col- lection and dissemination procedures. H. Student Contact 52. Develop academic assistance programs. 53. Develop a framework for disciplinary procedures and interactions. 54. Develop in-service training programs for student groups. 55. Provide channels for cooperative policy-making. 56. Implement procedures, programs, and services for individual and group psychological concerns. 57. Utilize concepts from human development theory, learning theory, adolescent/post adolescent psy— chology and other related areas in creating a learning environment. 58. Provide program alternatives to enhance social, emotional, physical, intellectual, and vocational growth. A questionnaire was designed to inductively pro- duce data regarding training of Student Affairs Adminis- trators for the fifty-eight competency tasks. Four questions were asked about each competency task: 1. "How important is each competency task to your present position?" 124 "Indicate the source(s) of training you have had for each competency task." "If available, would additional training be bene- ficial to your present position? Specify the tasks to be included." "What would be the appropriate source(s) of addi— tional training for each competency task?" In addition, three open-ended questions were asked of all respondents: 1. "Are there additional administrative competencies or competency tasks which should have been included to meet the performance expectations of a Student Affairs Administrator in your present position? (Exclude tasks only related to a specific Student Personnel Service, i.e., Financial Aid--interpret student loan applications.) Please list." "Do you think this set of eight administrative competencies is representative of Student Affairs Administration in Higher Education? Please explain." "Please make any additional comments you think would be appropriate about this research projecto" Participants in the study included Student Affairs Adminf' istrators from eight Michigan universities. For the 125 purpose of analysis, the participants were categorized into one of three position levels--executive level, middle management staff, or entrance level. Eighty-four questionnaires were initially returned. Seventy-five instruments were deemed usable. Thus, from 180 potential respondents in eight institutions, seventy— five total or 42 percent of the questionnaires were included in the final analysis. The Chi-Square and Fisher Exact statistics were used for tests of independence between the position level and training of Student Affairs Administrators in relation to the fifty-eight competency tasks. To simplify understanding, tables and summary statements were generated for illustrating the results. Of particular importance was the rejection or the inability to reject the null hypothesis for each competency task (There are no significant differences between the position levels of Student Affairs Administrators and their train- ing for specified competency tasks). The percentage responses to all questions in relation to each competency task were also provided. Chapter IV The purpose of this chapter was to present an analysis of the data as generated by the questionnaire (Student Affairs Administrator Training Questionnaire) developed for the purposes of the study. All questions were analyzed in terms of each competency task in relation 126 to the null hypothesis. In addition, tables were pre- sented to delineate the percentage of the total population response for each task according to the responses selected in answer to each of the four questions. It was possible to determine the amount of use of each competency task in the administrators' present positions; the sources of training they had for each task; whether additional train- ing would be beneficial for each task; and what the appropriate source(s) of additional training would be for each task. Chapter V This Chapter presents the summaries, conclusions, and recommendations for further research as a result of the development of this study. Conclusions The findings and conclusions of this study are presented in two sections, with one section dealing with the null hypothesis as applied to each competency task and the other with the total population response for each of the tasks according to the alternatives selected in answer to the four main questions. The findings based on responses to each of the four questions as related to the null hypothesis resulted in the following conclusions: 127 A. For Question 1, how important is each compe- tency task to your present position, there were significant differences among the executive, middle management, and entrance level positions held by Student Affairs Adminis- trators for forty-three of the competency tasks-~thirty at the .01 level of significance, thirty-nine at the .05 level, and forty—three at the .10 level. Thus, for the first question there were no significant differences among the position categories for fifteen of the compe- tency tasks. Position category differences at the .01 level included tasks 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 10, ll, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 48. Position category differences at the .05 level included tasks 5, 24, 29, 36, 40, 47, 49, and 58. At the .10 level of significance the following tasks were included--4, 16, 35, and 57. There were no position category differences pertaining to the use of the follow- ing tasks: 3, 7, 25, 26, 34, 37, 38, 46, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, and 56. B. For the second question, indicate the source(s) of training you have had for each competency task, there were no significant differences among position categories (executive, management, entrance) regarding sources of training (formal education degree, formal in-service training, on—the-job experience, your own professional 128 activities, and none) for seventeen of the competency tasks. Thus, there were Significant differences among the position categories for forty-one of the competency tasks at the .10 level of significance. The tasks included at the .01 level were--2, 4, 5, 6, 7, ll, l3, 17, 22, 23, 28, 30, 33, 35, 37, 43, 44, 45, 55, 56, and 58. At the .05 level--3, 8, 9, 19, 21, 26, 29, 36, 39, 42, and 52. And at the .10 level-~l, 10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 27, 34, and 57. Tasks for which there were no significant differences among position categories included 16, 18, 24, 25, 31, 32, 38, 40, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, and 57. C. For the third question, would additional training be beneficial to your present position, there were no significant differences for fifty-seven of the fifty-eight competency tasks among position categories at the .05 level of significance. There were significant differences at the .01 level of competency task number 47 in the Research and Evaluation competency group (#47-- select, administer, score, and interpret standardized instruments). D. For the fourth question, what would be the appropriate source(s) of additional training for each competency task, there were significant differences among the three position categories all of the tasks in six of the eight competency groups at the .10 level——Budget 129 Management, Communication, Cooperative Relationships, Leadership, Personnel Management, and Professional Develop- mgpp. There were no significant differences for tasks 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, and 57. There were significant differences regarding appropriate sources of training among position categories at the .01 level for tasks 47, 48, 56, and 58; at the .05 level for task number 46; and at the .10 level for tasks 53 and 54. The findings based on answers to each of the four questions as related to the total population response resulted in the following conclusions: A. Since 45 percent of the respondents said they used 99 percent of the competency tasks in their present positions and since no task was ever singled out as not being used by any of the respondents, it is possible to conclude that competency tasks used by Student Affairs Administrators may be generated from the literature. B. Since 73 percent of the competency tasks were at least used by three-fourths of the administrators and since 86 percent of the tasks were at least used by two- thirds of the administrators, it is possible to conclude that the competency tasks generated from the literature were consistent with tasks utilized in the day—to-day functions of Student Affairs Administrators in a uni- versity setting. 130 C. Some of the competency tasks were identified as being used by 100 percent of the Student Affairs Administrators at a particular position level (executive, middle management, entrance). 1. One hundred percent of the executive level admin- istrators used three tasks: Cooperative Relation- ships--#ll, establish and utilize cooperative alliances; #12, develop and maintain a work environment based on mutual understanding, trust, and competence; Professional Development--#44, anticipate and deal with the consequences of personal and professional behaviors. One hundred percent of the middle management staff used nine competency tasks: Cooperative Relation- ships--#ll; Communication--#21; Leadershiph-#27, #28, #32; and Professional Development--#42, #43, #44, and #45. One hundred percent of the entrance level admin— istrators said they either "used" or "used fre- quently" twenty competency tasks: Budget Manage- ment--#2; Cooperative Relationships--#9, #ll, #12; Communication--#16, #17, #19; Leadership--#27, #31, #32, #34; Personnel Management--#36, #37, #38, #39; Professional Development--#40, #41; Research and Evaluation--#46, #47; and Student Contact--#55. 131 One hundred percent of the respondents in all three position categories (executive, management, entrance) indicated they used competency task #11—- establish and utilize cooperative alliances in the Cooperative Relationship competency group. One hundred percent of the executive and entrance level administrators used #12--develop and maintain a work environment based on mutual understanding, trust, and competence in the Cooperative Relation- ships competency group. One hundred percent of the middle management staff and entrance level respondents used two competency tasks: Leadership--#27, generate and articulate an ethical base for all procedures and inter- actions; and,--#32, initiate, modify, articulate, and implement goals based on philosophical, his- torical, behavioral, and educational perspectives. One hundred percent of the executive and middle management administrators said that one compe- tency task was used frequently or was essential to routine functioning in their present positions: Research and Evaluation--#48, generate a rationale and procedures for descriptive historical, investi- gatory, experimental, and survey studies. One hundred percent of the entrance level respon- dents said there was one competency task that was 132 not applicable to any of their positions: Research and Evaluation--#48, which is the same task the executive and management level administrators said was used frequently or essential to routine functioning. D. Even though administrators indicated they used the competency tasks in their present positions, all of the administrators also indicated that there was at least one of the tasks for which they had no training. Ten per- cent said they had no training for twenty-nine or one-half of the competency tasks. E. On-the-job experience was selected by the highest percentage of respondents for forty-eight of the fifty-eight competency tasks. Formal education degree was selected by the highest percentage of respondents for all six of the Research and Evaluation competency tasks, and also for Leadershipr-#3l, #34; Professional Develops ment--#4l; and Cooperative Relationships--#9. F. The Student Affairs Administrators indicated the following order for the source(s) of training received for the competency tasks: first, on-the-job experience; second, their own professional activities; third, formal education degree; and last, formal in-service training. G. A majority of the administrators indicated that additional training for 90 percent of the competency tasks would be beneficial to their present position. 133 Forty-one percent of the administrators indicated a need of additional training for every competency task. H. There were no significant differences among position levels in relation to the need for additional training for fifty-seven of the fifty-eight competency tasks. I. Seventy-five percent of the Student Affairs Administrators indicated a need of additional training for one competency task in particular: Professional Development--#45, define and participate in appropriate self—renewal and in-service training programs and activities. J. It was possible to determine the source(s) of training administrators had for each competency task; whether or not additional training for every task would be necessary to their present position; and the most appropriate source(s) of additional training for each competency task. K. It was determined that in—service training was selected as the most appropriate source of additional training for 90 percent of the competency tasks. On-the- job experience and their own professional activities were not selected by even 50 percent of the administrators for any of the competency tasks. L. Student Affairs Administrators indicated the following order for the appropriate source(s) of additional 134 training for the specified competency tasks: first, in- service training programs; second, specialized activities provided outside the Student Affairs Division; third, their own professional activities; and fourth, on-the-job experience. Notice that in relation to the source(s) of training administrators had for the competency tasks, on— the-job experience was first and in-service training was last. However, the reverse was true when asked what the appropriate source(s) of additional training should be. M. Thus, it can be concluded that training for competency tasks used by Student Affairs Administrators in a university setting was most often provided through on—the-job experiences in a practitioner's particular position. At the same time, it can be concluded that in-service training programs would be the appropriate source of additional training for competency tasks in eight competency areas as defined by this study: Budget Management, Communication, Cooperative Relationships, Leadership, Personnel Management, Professional Develop- ment, Research and Evaluation, and Student Contact. Discussion No comparison between the findings of this study and others can be made since there have been no similar in-depth studies. However, several findings of this investigation are related to the literature reviewed in Chapter II. 135 The literature reflected two trends in Student Affairs work--student development (Miller & Prince, 1976) and administration (Harpel, 1976). Since the competency tasks were generated from the literature, they too reflected this dual emphasis. Importantly, this study confirmed these competency tasks as being those used by Student Affairs Administrators in their present positions. In addition, a need of additional training, preferably through in-service training programs, for these tasks Was also established. Regarding training, Barry and Wolf (1963) empha— sized a lack of examination of competencies required for various student personnel positions. They indicated that the focus of a particular training program might well have been based on the whims of the trainer. Nine years later, Rockey (1972) indicated that doctoral programs consisted of a mixture of courses from various disciplines. Foy (1969) indicated that formal preparation was very important for newcomers in the field of student personnel work. Rhatigan and Hoyt concluded that administrators considered on-the-job experience more important than formal professional preparation, while the Student Affairs trainers reflected just the opposite opinion. This study confirms the Barry and Wolf and Rockey studies since the competencies for which formal training was received come from various disciplines. Thus, while 136 Student Personnel preparation programs may utilize subject matter from various disciplines, the positions held by Student Affairs Administrators utilize the competencies from these areas. Administrators also indicated that the primary source of their training for the competency tasks used in their present positions was on-the-job experience. In addition, the formal education degree was selected more frequently than either in-service training or their own professional activities. At the same time there were significant differences among the executive level, middle management staff, and entrance level admin- istrators regarding the sources of training they had for the competency tasks. No one of the three groups selected a particular source of training exclusively. This may reflect the differences among training programs. The level of degree may have had an effect on the sources of training received for a particular competency task, though 79 percent of the respondents had received no more than a master's degree. This study strongly indicated that additional training would be appropriate for the competency tasks used by the Student Affairs Administrators in their present positions. Suggestions have come from various sources indicating that Student Affairs Administrators should consider quality control for the professional preparation programs and for job performance as members 137 of a profession. Others suggested a need for a more sophisticated classification system of the competencies needed and for the training provided for such competencies. Through the development of this study, it has become evi- dent that it is possible to generate the competencies used by Student Affairs Administrators; that professional preparation programs must be further examined as to their role in preparing administrators for specified competen— cies; that on-the-job experiences be evaluated in terms of quality, availability, how they fit into the educational role of any Student Affairs Division (instead of just happening in a random fashion); and what the role of formal training programs and professional organizations should be in relation to such experience. In addition, a need for well-developed in-service training programs was most observable. The review of the literature reflected general principles which were considered applicable to the organization and functioning of any in-service training program. Thus, a model for in-service training programs should include the following organizational guidelines: 1. Development and success of an in-service training program is primarily dependent upon the leadership of the chief Student Affairs Administrator. 2. It should be planned, initiated, and perpetuated on the basis of staff needs. 10. 11. 12. 138 It should be based on objectives determined by the participants. Voluntary participation should be generated through a professional climate and attitude established by the chief Student Affairs Admin- istrator. This positive attitude should acknowledge and be reciprocated by all members of the staff. A program should be continuously evaluated and reorganized to meet the needs of the participants. There should be maximum participation in planning the in-service training activities. All activities should be geared to the level of professional readiness of the individual partici- pants. Topics should range from areas of generalized knowledge to current concerns. The knowledge and skills of the participants should be tapped whenever possible. A variety of resources should be used. New knowledge should be incorporated into the present work environment. All activities should be conducted within the regular working day. 13. 14. 15. 16. 139 Adequate budget and facilities should be readily available. Program evaluation should be made by all partici— pants. Job descriptions should be utilized as guides for program content and evaluation. Instruments should be designed and utilized for measuring the success, failure, and needed improvements of each activity and of the total program. Recommendations In summary, this research project satisfied the questions posed in the first chapter. However, additional knowledge has generated not only satisfaction, but also additional questions. Such questions lead to recommen- dations for further research as suggested in the following. A. Further validate the competencies identified in this study in a nationwide survey including all types of educational institutions. Examine the purposes and quality of Student Affairs training programs in relation to specified com- petencies. 140 C. Examine the role(s) of related professional organizations for providing standards, programs, and services for Student Affairs Administrators. D. Design competency-based textbooks for Student Affairs preparation programs. E. Develop competency-based job descriptions and training manuals for in-service training programs within Student Affairs divisions. F. Examine the nature and preparation for on-the-job work experiences provided for all members of a staff in particular departments, divisions, and organizations. G. Examine or develop instruments designed for evalu- ation of theperformance of Student Affairs Administrators. H. Examine the accreditation standards, procedures, and programs of other professional groups and determine the consequences and effectiveness of such programs when applied to Student Affairs Administration. And, in conclusion, allow Student Affairs Admin- istration and Student Development Programming to merge, not compromise for each other, so that the best of both will be incorporated as a total approach to student life. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY APPENDIX A DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY Administrative Competency.--Administrative compe- tency is the capacity to synthesize and actualize relevant knowledge for the purposes of: (a) facilitating insti- tutional planning, (b) resolving complex problems which interfere with the achievement of organizational goals and objectives, and (c) evaluating institutional progress toward goal achievement. The word capacipy in the defi- nition_denotes the behaviorally demonstrated ability to synthesize and actualize relevant knowledge. To synthe- size as a behavior is to combine and to organize often diverse conceptions into a coherent whole. To actualize denotes two behaviors: one is that of stating the impli- cations of the relevant knowledge to a particular issue being confronted; the second is defining and listing strategies, techniques, and activities which could be initiated to resolve the particular issue being confronted. Relevant knowledgo_denotes the concepts, principles, facts, skills, and means pertinent to the included pur— poses stated in the definition. 141 142 Facilitating Institutional Planning and Develop- ment, Resolving Complex Problems Which Interfere with the Achievement of Organizational Goals and Objectives, and Evaluating Institutional Progress Toward Goal Achievement.-- These three purposes of administrative behavior were chosen for the definition because they are central to and inclusive of the primary functions of administration as indicated both from junior college and from administrative theory litera- ture. At this time, some brief statements further explain- ing the meaning of the purposes seem sufficient. Institu- tional planning and development is well explained by this statement of Urwick. "Planning, that is working out in broad outline the things that need to be done and the methods for doing them to accomplish the purpose set for the enterprise" (42:42). Resolving complex problems which interfere with the achievement of organizational goals and objectives incorporates decision-making processes and their importance for organizations which includes the responsi- bility for the organization as a viable social system and for maintaining the organization "in dynamic equilibrium through developing, integration of task-achievement and needs satisfaction" (61:142). Urwick provides an expla- nation of evaluating institutional progress toward goal attainment. "Reporting, that is keeping those to whom the executive is responsible informed as to what is going on, which includes keeping himself and his subordinates 143 informed through records, research, and inspection" (42:4). (Taken from: W. J. Lynam, "A Study of Administrative Competencies Needed by the Community College Academic Dean" [Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970].) APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF STUDENT PERSONNEL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE APPENDIX B CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF STUDENT PERSONNEL ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Executive Level Position Description The Chief Student Personnel Officer and his imme- diate subordinates who direct, control, or supervise the student personnel program or staff. Educational and Professional Requirements Persons who have had extensive experience in academic or personnel administration, who generally hold an advanced graduate degree, and who have had considerable experience as a student personnel administrator or equiva- lent experience in a related field. Qualifying Questions 1. Do these people have an overall responsibility for the total student personnel program? 2. Can the immediate subordinates act in the absence of the Chief Student Personnel Officer? Managerial Level Position Description The staff who are responsible for the direction, control, or supervision of the WELFARE (testing, counsel- ing, health service, financial aids, housing, placement), CONTROL (records, admissions, discipline), ACTIVITIES (co- curricular and extra-curricular programs, student govern- ment, student publications, student union and cultural 144 145 programs), and other special informational educational services in residence halls and elsewhere in the college community}. functions and staff. Educational and Professional Requirements Persons who are knowledgeable in the welfare, control, activities, and teaching functions and who are competent in administering a program of student services. These persons will generally hold a graduate degree or will be currently enrolled as a candidate for an advanced degree. Qualifying Questions 1. Are these people responsible for a part or parts of the total student personnel program? 2. Do these persons generally have a staff of pro- fessionals and/or professionals-in-training to assist them in the administration of their student personnel service? Entrance Level Position Description The staff who assist in carrying out the welfare, control, activities, and teaching functions. Educational and Professional Requirements Persons who are somewhat limited in their exper- ience as a student personnel administrator or specialist and who are currently considered to be gaining this experience. Others at this level may be held there due to limited educational or other professional qualifi- cations. Generally a person entering the profession for the first time from a program of professional preparation or from a position in a related field will be assigned a position at this level before being given management responsibilities as described above. These persons will generally be completing a graduate program and will be thought of (for the most part) as noncareer personnel. Most graduate assistants or part—time staff, as well as full-time junior staff members, will be considered at this level. 146 Qualifying Questions 1. 2. Are these positions generally thought of as noncareer positions? Are these positions generally filled, when vacancies occur, through the employment of recent master's degree recipients or experienced public school personnel? Would most persons with little or no experience in student personnel at the college level tend to enter your student personnel organization at this level? APPENDIX C A.C.P.A. SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES IDENTIFICATION PROJECT APPENDIX C A.C.P.A. SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES IDENTIFICATION PROJECT TENTATIVE TAXONOMY OF STUDENT DEVELOPMENT, STAFF SKILLS, AND COMPETENCIES I. GOAL SETTING COMPETENCIES Assess student needs Write behavioral goals and objectives Assist students to formulate realistic and attainable personal goals and objectives Identify the students level or position in the developmental process Make appropriate referrals Identify and articulate institution's goals and policies to students Assist students to identify specific behaviors that are desired or should be changed Define acceptable levels of outcome behavior to determine whether goals are met State the conditions under which student behavior related to goals and objects should occur Provide feedback to students regarding their progress towards accomplishing their goals Help students collect relevant data as input to the goal setting process Identify student development progress points, plateaus, achievements, and successes Maintain a scholarly, academic background in student development theory Relate various campus and community activities to students' goals Teach students to deal with the consequences of their behavior Articulate limitations of students' written goals and objectives Reinforce appropriate student behavior in responsible ways Delineate goal setting styles and strategies to students Negotiate or arbitrate between students, faculty, and institutional staff 147 148 Teach students to take responsibility for their decisions Recognize student background characteristics which may potentially influence the attainment of goals and objectives Develop a sense of empathy for students' needs Identify specific student behaviors which can be used as criteria Confront destructive, unhealthy, or counterproduc- tive behavior Help students establish a commitment to achieving goals Be able to evaluate the attainment of student goals and objectives Demonstrate and instruct students in the process and strategies of decision—making Know the literature related to the psychology of adolescents Communicate and establish rapport with students Accept and be open—minded about student-defined goals and objectives II. ASSESSMENT COMPETENCIES Select, administer, and interpret standardized ability tests ' Interpret cognitive and behavioral data Provide interpretation of overt student behavior to academic departments Assess and interpret the academic system to students Analyze data related to a student's academic develop- ment Develop baseline and normative data for student behavior for the institution Understand and know departmental curricular require— ments Interpret academic department evaluation instruments Construct and develop assessment instruments Communicate the meaning of test scores to students recognizing geographical, racial, sexual, and other differences Analyze student achievement record Use and interpret probabilities of academic success to students Assess cultural and environmental influences on students previous experiences Diagnose student learning skills Design and develop a comprehensive assessment program Conduct a student needs assessment Define limitations and potentials of any student data Help students define that which needs to be assessed 149 Understand the rationale for assessment and communi- cate it to students Develop a computerized information base of student characteristics Administer, score, and interpret sociometric tests and instruments Select, administer, and interpret standardized personality instruments Systematically observe individual student behavior and compare it with normative information for that institution Define and assess personal/social developmental tasks Be knowledgeable in all aspects of human behavior Listen to students' perceptions of feelings Communicate effectively on a one-to-one basis Identify and collect data to understand various stu- dent subgroups on campus Evaluate the technical characteristics (e.g., relia- bility, validity, etc.) of assessment instruments Have basic knowledge of ethics of data collection Operate nonprint media (videotape, audio recordings, etc.) in order to collect student data Use available institutional resources to obtain data Design student programs on the basis of student data Select, develop, and administer survey instruments Handle student resistance to data collection and data interpretation Develop computerized data collection techniques Maintain student confidentiality Provide students feedback to clarify understanding of assessment results Develop rapport with students prior to data inter- pretation Provide opportunities for students to conduct self- assessment of developmental skills and compare it with others Provide emotional support for students during the assessment process III. CONSULTATION COMPETENCIES Obtain the respect of academicians as a legitimate educator Understand the institutional structure Recognize and use expertise of others Develop one-to-one counseling skills Develop group counseling skills Use effective communication skills Develop personal relationships with the academic community Serve on faculty committees Know available resources 150 Facilitate group problem solving and group decision- making Evaluate programs to determine effectiveness Motivate others to do things for you Assume leadership capacity Explain theoretical and practical implications of student develOpment needs Collect, organize, and write research findings Translate assessment results into a program of action Be willing to confront faculty and challenge present procedures Know research design, data collection, and evaluation strategies and techniques Understand theory of various evaluation strategies Help faculty individualize instruction Initiate contact with appropriate resource people Present data concerning students to administrative decision-makers Understand organizational behavior Ability to rethink the learning process and design programs accordingly Have knowledge of modeling and feedback process Interpret the power structure of the institution Take risks, allow others to make decisions and take the credit Facilitate staff development through in—service training Develop positive public relations Be able to plan, organize, and conduct workshops Communicate student development goals to academic staff Be able to gain commitment from top decision-makers Train faculty as advisers Know how to initiate, maintain, and terminate a consulting process IV. INSTRUCTIONAL COMPETENCIES The ability to determine learner's needs from among broad educational goals Specify and select related and appropriate instructional goals Design suitable instructional strategies based on pre-specified outcomes, sound learning theory, and learner characteristics Evaluate learner progress Evaluate instructional effectiveness and efficiency Develop "programmed" materials Develop group process exercises Develop contract grading system Use simulation techniques Do effective role playing Lead group discussion of content 151 Make effective use of media aids Plan and organize lecture materials Provide students the opportunity to exhibit and practice learning skills Make instructional content relevant to student needs Make effective decisions Provide role model Establish objectives common to new curricula require- ments Defend theoretical base for student development theory Teach academic faculty the concepts of student development Have input into curricula decision-making Organize and supervise a learning experience that meets the students' needs Explain study skills strategies to students Objectively evaluate student performance Teach human relations courses Teach psychology of learning courses Teach child and adolescent development and growth courses Teach decision-making skills Teach group leadership skills Teach human sexuality courses Teach value—clarification skills Teach career development courses Teach counselor education courses Teach educational administration, supervision, and management Teach assertiveness training courses Teach group process skills Teach interpersonal communication skills Provide constructive feedback regarding student performance Explain to faculty how teaching behavior influences students V. MILIEU MANAGEMENT Plan and administer financial budgets Plan activities and programs Organize resources (people, material, etc.) to carry out program activities Coordinate individuals to work toward common goals Provide in-service training and staff development programs Collaborate with other faculty and staff Sell a program to institutional decision-makers Use effective communication skills Select and train department staff Be able to communicate program goals to larger academic community 152 Understand institutional objectives, expectations, etc. Know effective decision-making strategies Assess the role top-level administrators make in evaluating your proposals Ability to see relationships between individual growth and environment ' Establish rapport with administrative staff Be able to bridge the gap between theory and practice in managing programs Generate enthusiasm for a new approach or program Write effective proposals for funding Assigning tasks to staff and initiating follow—up Evaluate staff performance Conduct research on program effectiveness Develop positive public relations with institution and community Promote effective team work Redirect staff efforts in a positive direction Delegate responsibility to others Anticipate unexpected problems Establish priorities IV. EVALUATION COMPETENCIES Know the various evaluation theories Ability to make realistic conclusions and recommen- dations Relate new data collected to existing information Design and implement appropriate research method- ologies Select apprOpriate statistical techniques Define criteria for measuring outcomes Define conditions of evaluation Synthesize input from the lay public into a research design Interpret data in light of objectives of a program Develop measurement instruments to assess the pro- gram process Develop a system for recording and reporting evalu- ation data Make value judgments regarding the results of an evaluation study Write reports in nontechnical language Publish results in professional journals Distinguish between failure of program and failure of theory Recognize limitations of behavioral science approach Know various measurement techniques and types of instruments Write clear, concise memos Present program results to professional audiences 153 Communicate results of evaluation to student audience Knowledge of key areas and people who should be aware of the results Conduct cost-effectiveness studies Budget personnel and staff time to accomplish the objectives of a program Revise programs on the basis of evaluation data APPENDIX D STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX D STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATOR TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose of this questionnaire is to examine the training of Student Affairs Administrators in relation to specific competency tasks. A STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINIS- TRATOR is an educator employed in Higher Education who performs tasks related to provision of services for stu— dents which complement and supplement the academic mission of Higher Education institutions. For the purpose of this study, eight ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCIES have been identi- fied: Budget Management, Cpmmunication, Cooperative Relationships, Leadership, Personnel Management, Profes- sionalDevelopment, Researcn and Evaluation, and Student Contact. A COMPETENCY TASK refers to those tasks'specif‘- cally related to a particular Administrative Competency. The questions designed for this research project have a dual focus: (1) to identify the importance of each competency task to your present position; and (2) to identify the sources of training for each task—-past, present, and future. The results should have implications for both Student Affairs Administrators and for the development of their in-service training. The study is limited to Student Affairs Administrators in ten Michigan Universities. Thus, your participation is extremely important and will be greatly appreciated. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 1. Title of Present Position: 2. Length of Time in Present Position: 3. Position Category: (Select the closest description of your position) a. Chief Student Affairs Administrator b. Executive Level, i.e., Director of Activities c. Middle Management Staff d. Entrance Level Staff 154 155 4. Number of Staff who Directly Report to You: 5. Last Educational Degree Completed: 6. Degree in Progress: (if any) GENERAL DIRECTIONS This questionnaire includes a set of eight Admin- istrative Competencies. Each Administrative Competency is defined by a number of specified tasks. Each Compe- tency Task is identified by a Code Number, i.e., l, 2, 3, etc. There are Four Questions regarding Training which are to be answered for each Competency Task. As you turn each page, you will note that an Administrative Competency and its corresponding Tasks are stated on the Left-hand side of the instrument and that the Questions and their Response Alternatives are on the Right-hand side. In addition, there are three General Questions at the end of the instrument for your consideratIOn. 156 Competency: University: DIRECTIONS: Read the Competency Tasks listed on the pre- ceding page. Note that each Task is identified by a Code Number. Read each Question and its Response Alternatives. CIRCLE THE CODE NUMBER OR NUMBERS OF THE TASKS WHICH ARE APPROPRIATE-TO EACH RESPONSE ALTERNATIVE. Select at least one of the Response Alternatives from each Question for every Task listed. I. HOW IMPORTANT IS EACH COMPETENCY TASK TO YOUR PRESENT POSITION? A. Not Applicable: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 B. Used Infrequently: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 C. Used Frequently: l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 D. Essential to Routine Functioning: l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 II. INDICATE THE SOURCE(S) OF TRAINING YOU HAVE HAD FOR EACH COMPETENCY TASK: A. Formal Educational Degree: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B. Formal In-service Training: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 C. On-the-Job Experience: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 D. Your Own Professional Activ- ities: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 E. None: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 III. IF AVAILABLE, WOULD ADDITIONAL TRAINING BE BENEFICIAL TO YOUR PRESENT POSITION? SPECIFY THE TASKS TO BE INCLUDED. A. Yes: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 B. NO: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IV. WHAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE SOURCE(S) OF ADDITIONAL TRAINING FOR EACH COMPETENCY TASK? A. In-service Training Programs: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 B. On-the-Job Experience: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 157 C. Your Own Professional Activities: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 D. Specialized Activities Provided Outside the Student Affairs Division: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 E. None: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GENERAL QUESTIONS 1. Are there additional Administrative Competencies or Competency Tasks which should have been included to meet the performance expectations of a Student Affairs Administrator in your present position? (Exclude tasks only related to a specific Student Personnel Service, i.e., Financial Aid--Interpret Student Loan Applications.) Please list. 2. Do you think this set of eight Administrative Competencies are representative of Student Affairs Admin- istration in Higher Education? Please explain. 3. Please make any additional comments you think would be appropriate about this research project. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION! PLEASE RETURN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO: Patricia E. Domeier — P.O. Box 1745 - E. Lansing, Michigan 158 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY: B U D G E T M A N A G E M E N T Task Code Numbers Competency Tasks Analyze and interpret financial reports. Analyze and interpret needs and requests. Implement a cost - effectiveness analysis study. Identify and utilize available sources of financial support. Recognize and utilize appropriate budget base alternatives for your area of responsibility. Articulate alternatives for funding, staffing, facility utilization, and programming activities within specified goals and constraints. Write and interpret funding proposals. Anticipate future projections and priorities. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY : Task Code Numbers 1 . 159 I O O P E R A V E L A T I O H Hus T I N S P S Competency Tasks Assess behavior modification needs and determine appropriate consultation within the limits of your experience and train- ing. Establish cohesive work groups. Establish and utilize cooperative alliances. Develop and maintain a work environment based on mutual understanding, trust, and competence. Recognize, analyze, and resolve role conflict, management style, communi- cations, philosophical difference, and personality difference problems. Implement human relations training skills in daily interactions. 160 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY: C O M M U N I C A T I O N Task Code Numbers 1 . . . Competency Tasks Analyze and utilize the communication networks within the institution. Obtain and disseminate cognitive and behavioral data. Determine and utilize office management procedures, i.e., secretarial services, business machine operation, print and nonprint media systems. Analyze, write, and disseminate memos, reports, articles, and speeches. Utilize knowledge of modeling and feed- back processes. Perceive and accurately interpret attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, and needs of yourself and others. Recognize and define confidentiality practices and procedures. 161 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY: L E A D E R S H I P Task Code Numbers l O 10 . 11 . 12 . 13 . Competency Tasks Accept and delegate appropriate authority and responsibility. Implement a model of decision-making for conducting daily operations within established goals and objectives. Define and reinforce limits of behavior. Design and implement instructional techniques and strategies. Provide in-service training program or opportunities. Generate and articulate an ethical base for all prdcedures and interactions. Maintain a working knowledge of insti— tutional practices, procedures, and requirements. Generate, facilitate, and evaluate planning, programming, assessment, and redefinition processes. Identify, interpret, and articulate the letter and spirit of goal and policy statements. Analyze, synthesize, and interpret cognitive and affective behavioral data. Initiate, modify, articulate and imple— ment goals based on philosophical, historical, behavioral, and educational perspectives. Anticipate the unexpected. Synthesize and operationalize appro- priate theoretical models as reference determinants for procedures and inter- actions. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY: Task Code Numbers 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . 4 O O O 5 . . . 162 OLN G P E R S E L M A N A E E N T Competency Tasks Develop and implement recruitment, per- formance evaluation, promotion, disci- pline and release criteria and procedures for professional and nonprofessional staff. Actualize the concepts of due process. Analyze and implement federal and state legislation pertinent to personnel policy. Develop and maintain job descriptions stated in terms of behavioral expec- tations. Recognize and define alternatives for personnel policy development. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY: Task Code Numbers 1 O O O 2 O O O 3 O O O 4 . . . 5 0 O O 6 O O O 163 P R O F E S S I O N A L D E V E L O P M E N T Competency Tasks Define and assess personal and profes- sional developmental tasks. Maintain a scholarly academic background in appropriate disciplines. Determine and establish a balance between personal needs and professional expectations. Recognize and utilize the expertise of others. Anticipate and deal with the conse- quences of personal and professional behaviors. Define and participate in appropriate self-renewal and in-service training programs or activities. ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY: R E Task Code Numbers 1 164 Competency Tasks Design and modify testing and assessment instruments. Select, administer, score, and interpret standardized instruments. Generate a rationale and procedures for descriptive, historical, investigatory, experimental, and survey studies. Identify and utilize appropriate sta— tistical techniques and procedures. Maintain a working knowledge of computer utilization methods and requirements. Implement comprehensive and ethical data collection and dissemination procedures. 165 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPETENCY: S T U D E N T C O N T A C T Task Code Numbers 1 . 2 O Competency Tasks Develop academic assistance programs. Develop a framework for disciplinary procedures and interactions. Develop in-service training programs for student groups. Provide channels for cooperative policy- making. Implement procedures, programs, and services for individual and group psychological concerns. Utilize concepts from human development theory, learning theory, adolescent/ post adolescent psychology and other related areas in creating a learning environment. Provide program alternatives to enhance social, emotional, physical, intel- lectual, and vocational growth. APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION CONTACTS APPENDIX E QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTION CONTACTS REQUEST INSTITUTION 22 25 8 33 38 5 25 29 20 22 227 Central Michigan University of Detroit Andrews University Northern Michigan Eastern Michigan Michigan Tech Oakland Wayne State Western Michigan University of Michigan 166 CONTACT PERSON Secretary, Jan Secretaryto Fr. Judy Secretary, Melody Secretary, Connie Secretary, Diane Dean Harold Muse Secretary, Mrs. Geroux Dr. Frackelton, V.P. Secretary, Pat Secretary, Doris APPENDIX F COVER LETTER FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX F COVER LETTER FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN 48823 OFFICE Ol' THE DEAN OF STUDENTS ' STUDENT SERVICES BUILDING April 12, 1976 Dear Student Personnel Administrator: I wish to enlist your c00peration in my doctoral research thesis conducted under the supervision of Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, Vice President for Student Affairs at Michigan State University. With present day financial constraints we need to be able to examine our -personal professional marketability in addition to projecting the value and need of Student Affairs contributions to higher education. To this point I have attempted to define competency tasks performed by Student Affairs practitioners in routine administrative duties. I am now trying to provide an Opportunity for an assessment of the competencies by the practitioner in the field. Questions pertaining to the need for and sources of our training in relation to specific job performance tasks are raised in this study. The results should be pertinant to each individual as a self assessment and to each institution in determining a particular training emphasis. In addition, the overall results should provide a more clearly defined portrayal of Student Affairs Administration in a university setting. I ask that you take the time to assist with this project by completing and returning this questionnaire as soon as possible. I would greatly appreciate receiving all returns by Tuesday April 20. The results will be available for your consideration. Thank you. Sincerely, Patricia E. Domeier Hall Director - M.S.U. 167 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Abel, J. "Moving Toward the '803 in Student Personnel." Journal of_}he National Association of Women Deans and Counselors TSUmmer 1973). A.C.P.A. Directory of Preparation Programs in College Student Pgrsonnel 1970-1i. Washington, D.C.: American PersonneI and Guidance Association, 1971. . "Professional Skills and Competencies Identifi- cation Projects Progress Report." Manuscript, edited by Gary Hanson, 1975. . "Guidelines for Graduate Programs in the Prepar- ation of Student Personnel WOrkers in Higher Edu- cation." Personnel and Guidance Journal 47 (January 1969): 493-98. Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: J6hn Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964. . Interpersonai_Competence and Organizational Effectiveness. Illinois: Irwin-Dorsey Publish- ihg Company, 1962. Austin, A. "The Methodology of Research on College Impact, Part I." Sociology of Education, 1970. Aulepp and Delworth. "Training Manual for Ecosystem DevelOpment." Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1976. Ayers, Archie A.; Tripp, Philip A.; and Russel, John A. Student Services Administration in Hi her Edu- cation. Wa§hington, D.C.: Office of Education, BuIIetin No. 16, 1966. 168 169 Barry, Ruth, and Wolf, Beverly. Modern Issues in Guidance-- Personnel Work. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963. Beeler, Kent. "Mini V." Paper, Eastern Michigan University. Division of Student Affairs, 1975. Berdie, Ralph F. "In-Service Training in Counseling and Counselor Evaluation." In Counseling and the Col- le e Pro ram, chapter 2, pp. 11-18. Edited by Ralph E. Berdie. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota Studies in Student Personnel Work, No. 6, 1954. Berry, Margaret. "The State of Student Affairs: A Review of the Literature." N.A.S.P.A. Journal 13 (Winter 1976). Bess, James J., and Lodahl, Thomas M. "Career Patterns and Satisfactions in University Middle Management." A preliminary report, Cornell University, 1967. Borg, Walter. Educational Research: An Introduction. _i New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1926. Brown, Robert D. Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher Education--A Return to the Academy. Student Per- sonnel Series No. 16. Washington: A.C.P.A., 1972. (Monograph) Cameron, Alexander Robert. "An Analysis of the Interests, Educational Preparation, and Vocational Background of Student Personnel Deans." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1965. Dissertation Abstracts, Part 2, 1967, 28, pp. 1226A-27A. Chandler, E. M. "Student Development Through a Learning Assistance Support System." M.S.U. Orient 9 (1974). Cheatham, Anne Loring Smith. "Student Personnel Work as a Career: A Study of Members of the American Col- lege Personnel Association in Terms of Selected Demographic Data, Background Factors and Per- ceptions of the Field." Ed.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1964. Chickering, Arthur W. Education and Identity. San Fran- cisco: Josey-Bass, 1969. 170 Chickering, Arthur W. "The Young Adult, a New and Needed Course for College Personnel Administrators." Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Administrators and—Counselors (1967). Clemens, B. T. "The Dean in Transition: On Making Com- mitments." N.A.S.P.A. Journal 10 (1973). Coleman, W. "Motivating Factors in In-Service Training of Faculty Counselors." Educational and Psycho- logical Measurement, 1951. Collins, Duane. "An In-ServiCe Training Program for Residence Counselors." Educational and Psycho- logical Measurement, Spring, 1947. Corey, Stephen M. "Introduction" in National Society for the Study of Education. In—Service Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Cosby, Betty. "Professional Preparation for Student Per- sonnel Work in Higher Education." Journal of Ehe National Asgociation of Women Deans and CounseIors 29 (Fall 1965): 14—18. C.O.S.P.A. "A Proposal for Professional Preparation in College Student Personnel WOrk." November, 1964. . Student Development Services in Higher Edu- cation. Commission on Professional Development, 1972. Crane, Robert M. "The Raison d' Etre of a Student Per- sonnel Administrator." Improvin College and UniversityTeachingil3 (Winter l865): 19-25. Crookston, B. B. "An Organizational Model for Student Development." N.A.S.P.A. Journal 10 (1972). . Education for Human Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973. . "Student Personnel-—All Hail and Farewell!" Manuscript, 1975. Crookston, B. B., and Atkyns, G. C. "A Study of Student Affairs: The Principal Student Affairs Officer, the Functions. The Organization at American Colleges and Universities 1967-72." N.A.S.P.A. Technical Report No. 3, 1974. 171 Davies, Timothy G. "Proposed Behavioral Competencies for Members of the Junior College Presidential Cab- inet." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1970. Dutton, Thomas B. "Dutton's Dialogue." N.A.S.P.A. News, February, 1973. . "Critical Functions and Behaviors of the Stu- dent Affairs Administrator." N.A.S.P.A. Monograph No. 4, 1973. Dutton, Thomas B.; Appleton, James R.; and Birch, Edward E. "Assumptions and Beliefs of Selected Members of the Academic Community." A special report of the National Association of Student Personnel Admin- istrators, Division of Research and Program Development, Monograph No. 3, April 1970. Dressel, P. L. "Editorial Comment." Journal of Counseling Psychology4 (1957): 182. Emerson, William P. "Faculty, Student and Student Person— nel Worker Perceptions of Selected Student Person- nel Services in the Community Colleges of North Carolina." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Feder, Daniel D. "The Emerging Role of the Professional Personnel Worker," Chapter VIII. Personnel Ser- vices in Education, 58th Yearbook of the National SCciety for the Study of Education, Part II. Chicago,Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1959, pp. 181-209. Fitzgerald, Laurine Elisabeth. "A Study of Faculty Per- ceptions of Student Personnel Services." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959. Foy, James Edgar V. "Career Patterns of Student Personnel Administrators." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Froelich, Clifford P. "In-Service Training Programs that Succeed." Clearing House, January 1949, pp. 259- 62. Gilchrist, Robert S., et al. "Organization of Programs of In-Service Education." In National Society for the Study of Education, In-Service Education, Chapter 12, pp. 285-310. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. 172 Gladstein, Gerald A. "Doctoral Research in College Stu- dent Personnel Work." Journal of College Student Personnel 9 (January 1968): 24-31. Gordon, I. J. "The Creation of an Effective Faculty Adviser Training Program through Group Procedures." Educational and Psychological Measurement, Spring 1950, pp. 505-12. Grant, W. Harold. "Higher Education and Student Personnel Work in the Year 2000." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors 31 (Spring 1968): 140-41. Greenleaf, Elizabeth. "Who Should Educate the College Student Personnel Worker and to What End?" Journal of the Association of Deans and Adminis- trators of Student Affairs 6 (JuIy 1968): 29-32. Griffiths, Daniel E., ed. The Sixty-Third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of’EducationiPart II, Behavioral Science and Educational Adminis- tration. ChiCago: *The University of Chicago Press, 1964. Gross, R. A. "A Study of In-Service Education Programs for Student Personnel Workers in Selected Col- leges and Universities in the United States." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Haller, Lola M. "The Future Role of the Highest Ranking WOman Student Personnel Administrator in the Col- lege or University and a Suggested Training Program." Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Hanson, Gary. "Tentative Taxonomy of Student Development, Staff Skills and Competencies." Manuscript, A.C.P.A., 1976. ‘ Hardee, Melvene D. "A Program of In—Service Training for Teacher-Counselors." Junior College Journal (April 1950): 453-59. Harpel, R. L. "Planning, Budgeting, and Evaluation in Student Affairs Programs: A Manual for Adminis- trators." N.A.S.P.A. Journal 14 (Summer 1976). Hershenson, D. B. "A Functional Organization of College Personnel Services." N.A.S.P.A. Journal 8 (1970). 173 Hester, Linda A. "Differential Perceptions of Factors Important in the Selection of Student Personnel Administrators in Mid-Western Universities." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Hillway, Tyrus. Handbook of Educational Research. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1969. Holland, E. E., and Kleinberg, R. K. "Student Affairs Personnel." Improving College and University Teaching, Spring, 1974. Hood, Albert B. "An Experiment Utilizing Residence Coun- selors to Teach Educational Skills." Journal of College Student Personnel 4 (October 1962): 35-40. Horle, Reid F., and Gazda, George M. "Qualifications, Training, and Duties of Directors and Staff of Men's Residence Halls." Journal of College Student Personnel 4 (June : - . Hoyt, Donald P., and Tripp, Philip A. "Characteristics of A.C.P.A. Members." Journal of College Student Personnel 8 (January 1967): 32-39. Houtz, Patricia. "Internships in Student Personnel Pro- grams." Journal of College Student Personnel 8 (Septemberl967): 322-26. Hulet, Richard E. "Perils of a Placement Office." Journal of tho Association of Deans and Admin- istrators of Student Affairs 3 (April 1966): I3-l4. Ingraham, Mark H. Tpe Mirror of Brass: The Compensation and Working Conditions of College and University AdmihiStrators. Madison, Wisconsin: The Uni- versity Of Wisconsin Press, 1968. Katy, D., and Kahn, R. The Social Psychology of Organi- zations. New Yorh: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Kauffman, Joseph F. "Student Personnel Administration." Educational Record 45 (Summer 1964): 291-98. Keller, Leonard I. "Evaluation of a Student Personnel Training Program Through the Opinions of Its Trainees.” Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana Uni- versity, 1962. 174 Kinnane, M. "The Undergraduate's Perception of the Dean' of WCmen." Journal_of the Nationai_Association of WOmen Deans andCCounselors 29 (Springl966). Kuriloff, P. J. "The Counselor as Psychoecologist." The Personnel and Guidance Journal (1973): 321-27. Lilley. "Functions of Student Personnel WCrkers." Journal oflthe National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (Winter 1974). Lewis, C. L. "College Student Personnel: A Current Estimate." Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (January 1973). Lloyd-Jones, Esther. "How To Prepare for the Unknown." The Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of Student Affairs 6 (JuIy I968): 32:73. Lloyd-Jones, Esther M., and Smith, Margaret. Student Personpgl Work as Deeper Teaching. New York: Harper Bros.,l954, pp. 361. Lynam, William J. "A Study of the Administrative Compe- tencies Needed by the Community College Academic Dean and a Model of Their Translation into Behavioral Statements Related to Administrative Training Experiences." 'Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Macoby, Eleanor F., and Macoby, Nathan. "The Interview: A Tool of Social Science." Part III. In Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 449-84. Vol. 1. Edited by Gardner Lindzey. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-wesley Publishing Company, 1954. McBee, Mary Louise. "The Role of the Dean of Women in Selected Institutions of Higher Learning." Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961. McConnell, T. R., and Heist, P. "Do Students Make the College?” Colleges and Universities, 1957. McDaniel, R. R. "Organizational Theory and the Prepar- ation of Student Personnel Workers." Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (OctOber I972). Miller, T. K. ”Staff Development Activities in Student Affairs Programs." Journal of College Student Personnel 16 (1975). 175 Miller, T. K., and Prince, J. ‘The Future of Student Affairs. Washington: Jossey-Bass PubliShers, Mueller, Kate Hevner. Student Persopnel Work in Higher Egucation. Boston, Mass.: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1961. Meyerson, E. "Mini-University Provides Staff Training, for a Big University," College and Universipy Business 56 (February 1974). Newton, Fred B., and Hellenga, Glenn. "Assessment of Learning and Process Objectives in a Student Personnel Training Program." Journal of Colle e Student Personnel 15 (November 1975): 492-97. Nonnamaker, Eldon R. ”The Role of the Enrollment Officer at Michigan State University." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959. Nygreen, Glen T. "Professional Status for Student Person- nel Administrators." Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of Student Affairs 5 TJanuary1968): 283-91. O'Banion, Terry. "Program Proposal for Preparing College Students Personnel Workers." Journal of College Student Personnel 10 (July 1969). . "Functions of College and University Student Personnel Work.” College and University Bulletin 4S (1970). Ohlsen, Merle M. "In-Service Training Program for Dormi— tory Counselors." Occupations, April 1951, pp. 531-34. Parker, Cecil J. "Guidelines for In-Service Education." National Society for the Study of Education, In- Service Education. Chicago: University 0 Chicago Press, I957. Parker, Clyde A. ”The Place of Counseling in the Prepar- ation of Student Personnel Workers." Personnel and Guidance Journal 45 (November 1966): 254-61. . "Institutional Self-Renewal in Higher Edu- cation." Journal of College Student Personnel 12 (1971). 176 Passons, W. R. "In-Service Training for Student Personnel Staff: A Pilot Project." Journal of N.A.W.D.A.C. 33 (Fall 1967): 34-38. Penney, J. F. "Student Personnel Work: A Profession Stillborn." Personnel and Guidance Journal 47 (June 1969): 958-62. Pierson, George A. "The Art and Science of Counseling and Student Personnel WOrk." Counselor Education and Supervision 6 (Spring 1967): 248-54. Pyron, T. "The Consultant Role as an Organizational Activity of Student Personnel WCrkers." Journal of College Student Personnel 15 (July 1974). Reilley, R., and Couthen. "The Literature of College Student Personnel--A Sample." Journal of College Student Personnel 17 (September 1976): 363. Reynolds, William MC. "The Role of the Chief Student Personnel Officer in the Small Liberal Arts College." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Rhatigan, James J., and Hoyt, Donald P. "Student Person- nel Administration: Faculty-Trainer Perceptions and the Reality of Practice." Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators df’ Student Affairs 7 TJanuaryl970): 156-63. Robinson, 0. C. "Minority Orientation Programming." N.A.S.P.A. Journal 16 (Winter 1966). Rockey, Marybelle C. "Doctoral Preparation Programs in Selected Universities in the United States." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. Rodgers, Allan W. "The Investigation of the Critical Aspects of the Function of the Student Personnel Dean as Seen by His Professional Peers Using the Critical Incident Technique." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. Samler, Joseph. "Professional Training: End Goal or Kick-Off Point?" Personnel and Guidance Journal (October 1952): 15-19. Schmidt, M. R. "Two Alternatives for the Future." N.A.S.P.A. Journal 16 (1975). 177 Schreck, Thomas C., and Shaffer, Robert H. "Implications of the Campus Organization Power Structure for Student Personnel Administrators." The Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of Student Affairs 5*(April 1968): 331-35. Sedlack, W. B., and Horowitz, J. L. "Changing Percep- tions." N.A.S.P.A. Journal (Spring 1974). Shaffer, Robert H. "Suggestions for a Continuous In- Service Training Program for Student Personnel Workers." Personal memo to members of Commission III, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Bloomington, 1961, 8 pp. (Mimeographed.) . "An Emergency Rule Contributing to Organiza- tional Effectiveness." Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (September 1973). Shelden, Miriam A. "Contemporary Challenge to Traditional Concepts." Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of7Student AffairsI6TJu1y I968): 3-9. Shepard, Eugene L. "Three-Level In-Service Training Program for Advisers." Personnel and Guidance Journal (September 1957): 48-55. Sherburn, Paul. "Conceptual Model of Student Personnel Organizational Structure." Paper, Michigan State University, 1968. Stamatakos, L. C. "Facing the Realities of Practice in Training." Paper, Michigan State University, November 30, 1973. Stamatakos, L. C., and Oliaro, P. M. "In-Service Edu- cation: A Function of Student Personnel." Journal of the National Association of Student PersonneIfiAdministrators 9 11972): 269-73. Stead, Ronald S. "An Analysis of the University Goal Perceptions and Preference of Students, Faculty, Administrators and Trustees at Michigan State University.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Tollefson, A. L. New Approachesgo College§tudent Development. New York: Behavibral Pfiblil catIOns, 1975. 178 Tripp, P. "Organization for Student Personnel Adminis- tration." In Handbook of Colleges and University Administration. Editedby Knowles, I970. Trueblood, Dennis L. "The Educational Preparation of the College Student Personnel Leader of the Future." Chapter X. In College Student Personnel Work in the Years Ahead, pp. 77-84. Edited by Gordon KIOpf. Washington, D.C.: A.C.P.A. Monograph No. 7, 1966. Truitt, John W. "In-Service Training Programs for Student Personnel Workers." Paper presented at the American College Personnel Association annual meeting, Denver, Colorado, April, 1961, 14 pp. (Mimeographed.) Truitt, J. W., and Gross, R. A. "In-Service Education for College Student Personnel." NASPA Bulletin, Upcraft, M. Lee. "Role Expectations for Chief Personnel Administrators in Large Universities." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Useem, Ruth Hill. "Professionalizing an Academic Occu- pation: The Case of Student Personnel Work." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors 27 (Winter I964): 94-101. Wallenfeldt, E. C. "Evaluation of the Chief Administra- tor." NASPA Journal 13 (Winter 1976). Wanyek, R. P., and Canon, H. "Professional Growth in Student Affairs." Journa1_of College Student Personnel 16 (September 1975). Webster, Noah. Websteris New Twenpieth Centurprictionary of the English Language. Co11ins world, 1975. White, Bette C. ”The Perceptions of Campus Resource Personnel Held by Undergraduate Women at Three Private Colleges." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. W.I.C.H.E. The Ecosystem Model: Designing Campus Environments. (Colorado) 1972. . "Outputs of Higher Education: Their Identifi- cation, Measurement and Evaluation." Papers from 1970 seminar sponsored by WICHE, ACE and crdhe (Berkeley), Colorado, 1970. 179 Williamson, E. G., and Biggs, D. A. Student Personnel Work A Program of Developmental Relationships. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1975. Williamson, Edmund G., Chairman. Future Needs in Student Personnel Work. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1950. . Student Personnel Services in Colleges and gniversities. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1961. Wren, C. Gilbert. "The Development of Student Personnel Work in the United States and Some Guidelines for the Future." In The Student and the System, pp. 101-18. Edited by M. John Minter. CoIOrado: Wiche, 1968. Wright, Willis L. "An Analysis of Doctoral Programs in Guidance and Personnel Work in Colleges and Uni- versities of the North Central Association." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958. Zimmerman, Elwyn E. "Student Perceptions of Student Per- sonnel Services at M.S.U." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII1III2IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII7IIIIIIII