.. “24:46?" ' ‘fip ' uAI «“5“,- 5‘8‘1Ai-“Iv-suw M W133?“ I In ‘,.r'1—I—"-: I 1:! M‘IIU“)N (If. _ .--.\;-:““_ .35 W “93' 1ft“; AW} hi2“ (”b ‘9} t" "H'thHT III :I’jill; ”T‘L II w .-:.I11II IIIII. " H'- III" .1 ' ' ’0 AA I' 'II ' “the. F; ." CI A 1 hailed”: ) ‘S'XI‘ 'IIAfI-I- 233:1 (I; \ c 1:".' IIII. . ‘|- t. In t" ' t -‘ (gt " -".‘I'I-£.4I" {Sfiljfl NIT";- \“)I‘ o 'V I . M‘ .3... . .. III | \IIIIAoIIII: VIII:§‘I“:‘§ III. :2 I: ';: \ .. . , I . A . . " Iv ‘3 ' II A. . \""A I ' u u ‘|"" IAI'I“ i“: " I: 'I III :IIIIA' "7 4‘: H I”. “ Wl)\\ ‘ A '-‘ :%p| (I .' ':' I! I ‘ 3 3. ' .I‘I'S'II ' ' .Eil":‘\ "Mk. 0' III'HJ'II Ilz‘:I\ Infi/ Mb", hl‘ig 3"” 4 " «It; I- A... IIf.., r g?“ A‘I‘Mx M’III L!" I('.' .III‘II:€II1I’/IIII,,' I ’“Hfi/‘r‘ flail“ N) IL‘I‘I’ A' I'III‘ 1%? I III; If“ ‘\ l AWN“) {III [HIJJII‘ V \‘ k? ‘II-II‘ ‘¢:;I ”th 'f n l' ' “3"?“ h t . fi‘u‘k r " f1' ' ”4"":- \- . u I I"":}‘\’: II':'I ':\\'lh‘ {3;“3'; 1‘ [:3 wvg» n... J@I3* :glm‘f "':~ “‘| {L‘ . "u '."' J “'1- «A; ~ III I ' ‘III III II‘IVI‘I.‘ I IIVLII 'ICII‘ éIII'I. ‘IJ/I'léIIIII tgfli.IJ4.'~ I“? $1”. I I1II‘IIII:IHI“A“I'III'nlIlhfl'l“I-(IIE.'I'IIII If} II'u‘fiIII“):I. 'I,’ '\ .I “1*!I, " 1’; M :I 1’" ' ’ r ' "IIQMAL “TIN.“ 'I'HA.‘ r ‘I" ' L“ “W" ' """ ' 1"- ..4? '-".I--‘-l'::1Iw.I \\‘?'A.,A‘.:¢ . ‘ AIAA-I'I III: . :11“ IIII - ‘. III.I;I\- "'.A A ,.., . 'J " Ill 1..., "I‘JI I“.|1'I|,I‘I'.'II . . {J I " “’2 V'u' "7"A*"" 4: 1 "1I'"":["?.1.: SWEAIAq'dr'Q” . 9'3»: II I o 1A. . .1“ “I. . 'IIIu'InII. “-0, I I. IIII'I".IIII“.I.IIIII I "IAIIIJIIII ' RA ‘5‘ '. A?!“ 337-!" EA”2 é““".-:'r'Aei.’:13I' .. “at. «"3"? .4 ITCA'AI‘I'IV /.I'-* MT”: I".5‘~1VJ.A'~A A .1533 . . -- 'h I".-'.I’-:IIrI:vx WI TIN“ '--‘-. I . ’1‘“ 1’" - ""3 5':§TI-?€13'.'1IC-IK.."JI'. '.':Z'I.3.)‘II'I1L"'.§I£:WJIIS‘P ‘ ""':'.(:"' ' 05“” “3 H' I W .‘I'IAf “fl. .I " .J 1“! 2:137 \A IIA. ‘ III‘I‘W .I‘It " 3:.2‘1'1'dfivTIfW’3Z‘ '“A'L' wry? 3-1953? ‘I’I‘ “’6‘" ? V‘I “‘1 .' ”5'". 1:II I 'u‘I‘ 56:31”:ng 'I‘"")\“ 'H -. 'A.VT“‘1::IJ. .- 'I {' Hit; :IL A -'I. C1“ ‘Vlr“vn:"f"‘l‘:'w .{I’tbhilt 1.1%.: ‘Kj E; IL" 12"”? I . A .IIAIM’II’I'A'WL" r II. (VI . 1A.. . v' ' ‘.hLl‘ | .I'u J'I\ E? H II . I I I A "I”; "-Idtjwwfl'vkv'h' IAL‘.:!.II“3: ""I‘I I'III'II': I- :I it?“ .' J""‘J[;{‘3I" cw). .:.1.1'AI.'.-:I..Ig VIII“ I, '. . II I.""' 0" I ..':‘ III . ‘Iv.;I.'A“"}‘L"."I ‘ II-I'H IIIII II.,.‘fry.;IE'n.’,I‘.3ArA;I.3;? . 7% (my 1' ' r“ ""V 1 I’|..I‘\"I"":‘ I':"'M"“'II.)I K11" II. 7 L.\I.‘)I’rl':fli , .11.] I.III.III 1 " .l' ‘. (a I‘ III 1-\'A X's." -. ‘ 3-1)".- 1. I VI 1 III)” -."§-Z§.AY:$’;.A 1. .Hr.’ IAIIIIII “w ‘4.‘-.\.I .‘11 :~I'I'I..‘ {‘I'. , I III ' .l" II .I ' 1,,- ’0‘ ‘. SUM". IS'IIIIO FF” “A‘IIMJ I'l. ', "A III 'HIIIs‘I Q"! ”:1 I‘I I II'II'IIO Ilkk \j' "I' 'I n 1".“ ‘- I'va '1 A 1 7’ I. I’I'I-I' III. 1.: ' 31', z.;.. 111mm“ hf .I . JIIIII'AIII 3111': - .t :, my 91". 11*”,3’" ». " f IN '3." 3"?” V‘vml 1,;- "‘J£13.33?'3'IhI'AII'AQ‘I .3 4. i v. '11 "III' I " ‘ :“l’I'I'IIEII. 1”“qu HHHI‘II I|Ii¢:1:'. {VJILA' .IV‘ IIIIJI: A I.I .,II‘1 ' :1." ' I ‘ W'I'IAI"'I(I I.” ‘1‘{l"'.'flII~"II|‘IV Mug ‘J'W.’ [MIEAEHIW 7‘1'rII’h‘I‘1‘I‘; I'll“ 1'. J. “fly".m‘ I‘ K ' I" ‘ III.IA‘ H W‘ 'p FIII' LunJD'. 'F.i‘ i\|4”im'.’ll IIJIII IIIA'IIII" ”A7"?- II '. ."f' 1"S‘1V'II"I;IIIAI',I‘IM‘I°: (”‘3' (I13; van". m JMU'IhI ' T. 'NIII‘ H II‘IIIIfI IIIII A I “u l l , kaIII‘I‘I .. I.:;1..:1I‘-," '. ’ NF . III.II 'II. IIIIIIIIJ |;I:I“13.I" IIIW-I1IIIIIII‘I‘II I I r I". I ‘IU’A-"WIII‘ J‘rn" 3'3:in I‘M’T ‘ J ’3‘. l""' Inlu (I'll). M’r ii r‘l‘l 3» ‘;~' ‘:-' IIIIEII” . N .. I11I1I;.IIII,V~ I .‘. u . {1 ,II ‘1." 1 VI I I; II}; “I .", TIM-II I I1. a W", \IIIIIII‘I ILQ'fizI.‘ 1 ‘II. . .1" . (III? "'A ' - II VI‘ “1’12. WI" 13-. 't‘ 1,3i'-I‘.~'I‘A'f>1 ‘ -I'1‘Ir{gI1--I.‘7; 29.1 ‘H.’ ‘I‘gI’W 'HI I’ 'IAI'HI VI". ' I I Av-fl' ' VM. .NIIHIA U": ”3‘ z; 97%;: 3."; M” I L" ("'04, ‘1';ng 131': . 'L:;;f>*';{u*'1“°fa 1“: MIMI-Jim} ‘I‘h'fl S". $tz’31"'~'l‘-’T' "'A' 'I‘ .A 'I I. Inn". <.I‘\.If1. I."]| ”‘1“.‘3‘3 I]. m" I ”M .'. I :\I_ ‘ H y 3....‘"L "‘ ""1’ -%l m "NIL-“4 Aging ‘}‘l‘m“‘.>§ ”V‘ihvt‘n‘ ’“MI‘I‘ I}? :2IA1‘3I'Iflhu'Id ("L I :TI (A \II’Hu'IIIrI "la" ’ "” 11 c J1? 'IDV .' IIIII: IAIAIII I. ; I 1“,“ "(My "'1‘ I-II EII‘IIII {.1 II 'I.-.:. III :I . I.IIII)II . I“ f‘ " If’.” ‘ ': l ' v_.I.III'l"'. “IA 3:151“ ’ ' “ I"I III ,‘ml IA l-lI7.{£“A1]fi\u§ ‘3." [6- III"”"..I_ -, {“35 ”If; 41131.3.m‘iwfn 1.3; 1.2;? w, 36H ”4'. m l")I I‘I‘II: 131%")??‘1 IIIIIJIIII’I IIII‘IIIII IMII I. h is 'II, 'I IIéIIIAIq-II . I‘IIWAIh-IIIII' .I '1'I";A"‘-"‘I1~z>' «g. . ‘Iith‘ccm ‘, '0‘ fl}? “1"“?qu sssss illllillllHItlzlllillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllfllillllllili ”MM“! 293 104443 3324 ’~' " "‘ “Y Lg: Q! 433% as” &? :iL L? 1.3222 Ufafaamfiy This is to certify that the thesis entitled A PROJECTION OF CRITICAL COMPETENCY AREAS FOR CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS IN COMMUNITY-JUNIOR COLLEGES IN THE 19805 presented by Richard James Robertson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Administration and Higher Education degree in Major professor Date ?/Q%/8/ 0-7639 - r": “m an .--- . RETt&NINU “ATCRIHLS. if. A 0 ’..~ .3. ‘. ‘ , Psaee :n t~~x are to J IJBRARJES remove this one All-(yliln. your record. f be charged if book is returned after tne date . . n r 1': n ‘31.“ h ‘- J \‘UI‘IP‘J‘H :J q A PROJECTION OF CRITICAL COMPETENCY AREAS FOR CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS IN COMMUNITY-JUNIOR COLLEGES IN THE 19805 By Richard James Robertson 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 1981 ABSTRACT A PROJECTION OF CRITICAL COMPETENCY AREAS FOR CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS ADMINISTRATORS IN COMMUNITY-JUNIOR COLLEGES IN THE 19805 By Richard James Robertson The problem of this study was to survey a group of outstanding educational leaders and a group of community-junior college chief student affairs administrators for the purpose of identifying those critical competencies necessary for community-junior college chief student affairs administrators in the 19805. It was the purpose of this study to identify the rank order critical competency areas for community-junior college chief student affairs administrators and to compare competency perceptions of lead- ers and practitioners; urban, rural, and suburban practitioners; and male and female respondents. Twelve prominent student affairs leaders and 89 current or former chief student affairs officers at community-junior colleges, whom the leaders nominated for participation in the study, were asked to rank l2 competency areas according to perceived importance for the next decade. Group rank means for competencies were compared for the 12 leaders and the 72 practitioners who responded to the survey. The 12 competencies included in the study were: Budget/Material, Richard James Robertson Consultation, Counseling, Curriculum, Government Articulation, Leader- ship, Minority Affairs, Outreach, Personnel Management, Professional Growth, Research and Planning, and Student Development. Each compe- tency was amplified by indicating the observable behaviors that char- acterize it. The major findings resulting from group rank mean comparisons in the study were: 1. Leader panel members and chief student affairs adminis- trators agreed that the Leadership competency was the most critical competency for the 19805 and that Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Management competencies were all among the five most criti- cal competencies for the 19805. 2. Rural, urban, and suburban community-junior college chief student affairs officers also selected Leadership as the most critical competency for the 19805, and they included Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Management competencies among the five most critical competencies for the 19805. 3. Female respondents ranked Personnel Management as the most critical competency, whereas male respondents selected Leadership. However, both groups included the Leadership, Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Management competencies among the five most critical for the 19805. It was concluded that regardless of how respondents were sub- grouped, Leadership, Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Manage- ment were the competencies most consistently identified as critical for the T9805. Copyright by RICHARD JAMES ROBERTSON 1981 This study is dedicated to the person who provided continuous support, motivation, and encouragement: my wife, Patricia Sloan Robertson. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am indebted to the educational leaders and community-junior college chief student affairs officers whose participation made this study possible. The patience and guidance of the dissertation chairman, Dr. Max Raines, enabled the study to be completed. The constructive criticism, dedication to excellence, and encouragement of committee members Dr. Gwen Norrell, Dr. Louis Stamatakos, and Dr. Keith Groty are gratefully acknowledged. Special appreciation is extended to Virginia Niseman of the Michigan State University College of Education Graduate Office, who spent so much time explaining procedure and process and did so with uncommon graciousness. Dr. Thomas Ten Hoeve, President of Butler County Community College, encouraged my efforts to continue my education. My secre- taries, Alice Christy and Teresa Antoszyk, devoted hours of their own time to type numerous drafts of the dissertation. I am grateful to my colleagues, Dr. William Groft and Dr. Charlotte Mastellar, who provided invaluable assistance and support. Dr. William Taylor of Slippery Rock State College and Mr. Charles Campbell of Butler County Community College graciously gave of their time to help with the statistical analyses necessary for interpreta- tion of the data. I am particularly grateful to my professional mentor, Dr. Laurine Fitzgerald of the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, who challenged me, shared her wisdom with me, and guided my professional development. Finally, I thank my parents, Dr. and Mrs. Wallace Robertson, and my wife's parents, Colonel and Mrs. Donald Sloan, for lovingly and patiently encouraging me to complete this study. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ......................... Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ................ Statement of the Problem ............... Purpose of the Study ................. Procedures ...................... Underlying Assumptions ................ Delimitations of the Study .............. Limitations of the Study ............... Definition of Terms .................. Significance of the Study ............... Organization of the Study ............... II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................. Introduction ..................... The Development of the Community-Junior College in the United States .................. Summary ....................... The Role of the Chief Student Affairs Officer in Post-Secondary Education .............. Swmmw. ... ... ... ... .J ........ The Concept of Competency as It Relates to the Professional Preparation of Student Affairs Workers . Summary ....................... Identification of Competencies for Community-Junior College Chief Student Affairs Officers ....... Summary ....................... Chapter Summary .................... III. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY ........... Design of the Study .................. Selection of Study Participants ............ Development of the Survey Instrument ......... Collection and Treatment of Information ........ Summary ........................ Page IV. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA ......... 55 Description of the Problem .............. 55 Interpretation of Demographic Data .......... 57 Age of Respondents ................. 57 Highest Academic Degree Attained .......... 57 Gender of Respondents ................ 58 Years in Present Position .............. 59 Student Enrollment at Respondent Institutions . . . . 60 Reporting Relationship ............... 61 Demographic Data Summary .............. 61 Interpretation of Data With Reference to Study Questions ...................... 62 Introduction .................... 62 Study Question 1 .................. 64 Study Question 2 .................. 69 Study Question 3 .................. 73 Summary of Study Question Analyses ......... 77 Reliability of the Survey Instrument ......... 78 Summary ........................ 81 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 83 Summary ........................ 83 Presentation of Findings ............... 84 Conclusions ...................... 85 Implications for Graduate Programs .......... 88 Implications for Staff Development and Continuing Education Programs for Community-Junior College Student Affairs Administrators ........... 90 Recommendations .................... 91 General Recommendations ............... 91 Research Recommendations .............. 91 APPENDICES ........................... 93 A. CORRESPONDENCE ..................... 94 B. QUESTIONNAIRE ...................... 100 C. THE 48 COMPETENCY BEHAVIORS AND THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO PERCEIVED THEM TO BE CRITICAL ..... 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................... 111 vi 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Geographic Distribution of Study Participants ..... Ages of Leader Panel Compared to Ages of Combined Leader and Practitioner Sample ........... Highest Academic Degree Attained by Respondents . . . . Sex of Respondents .................. Number of Years Respondents Have Been in Present Position ...................... Enrollment at Institutions Where Respondents Are Employed ...................... Reporting Relationship for Respondents to Their Institution Presidents ............... Competency Mean Scores by Location .......... Competency Rankings by Location ............ Tabulation of First Rankings of Competencies by Location ...................... Group Competency Means for Leaders and Practitioners Leader and Practitioner Competency Rankings ...... Tabulation of Leader and Practitioner First Rankings Male and Female Competency Mean Scores ........ Female and Male Competency Rankings .......... Tabulation of First Rankings of Competencies by Men and Women .................... Grouped Means and Competency Ranks for Resurveyed Practitioners .................... vii Page 46 58 58 59 6O 61 62 65 66 67 70 71 72 75 76 77 79 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY As the higher education community begins the 19805, terms such as accountability, retrenchment, and enrollment decline are increasingly referred to on the nation's college campuses. Burgeoning growth in the form of physical plants and swelling student enrollments is a pleasant memory. In its place is spiraling tuition and, at many institutions, a paralyzing paucity of students. Community-junior colleges, which offer lower tuition rates than their four-year counterparts, are enrolling an increasing share of both traditional and nontraditional college students. As early as 1967, an American Association of Junior Colleges report predicted that in the foreseeable future nearly all citizens would benefit from post- secondary education and that literally millions of these young and not-so-young people would enroll in public and private junior colleges (Collins, 1967, p. 2). Earlier, in 1965, a Carnegie Commission report appraising student personnel functions within junior colleges high- lighted the concern that graduate schools were not preparing enough qualified student personnel professionals to meet the demands of a growing market (Collins, 1967, p. 18). The forecast of expansion proved to be accurate. Indeed, the demand for qualified student per- sonnel professionals grew and peaked in the early 19705. However, qualifications and demonstrated competence of community-junior college student affairs administrators continue to be challenged. If community-junior colleges are to continue to serve larger and more diverse groups of students, their administrators and faculty must develop new competencies to confront new challenges with confi- dence. The record, since the early 19605, has not been impressive. Giles predicted, in 1961, that it would be increasingly diffi- cult to find people of highest ability to fill administrative posi- tions at community-junior colleges (p. 321). By 1965, the Chairman of the National Advisory Committee for the Carnegie Commission study had pronounced that, "when measured against criteria of scope and effectiveness, student personnel programs in community-junior colleges are woefully inadequate" (McConnell, 1965, p. 1). In 1972, O'Banion concluded that, with very few exceptions, preservice programs for the preparation of community-junior college staff were grossly inadequate (p. 56). Tollefson, in 1975, focused on a general problem in student development, whereby not all of those persons who are to bear respon- sibilities in student development are well prepared to undertake tasks assigned to them. Miller and Prince (1976), in The Future of Student Affairs, called for professionally educated individuals to undertake the specific tasks and strategies necessary for implement- ing the best organizational models for student development (p. 188). Hardly a list of ringing endorsements for competence among practicing student development specialists. The perplexing nature of the dilemma facing student development administrators was identified by Wallenfeldt (1976): The performances of those persons the public believes are accountable for what takes place on college and university campuses will continue to be evaluated. Chief student per- sonnel administrators, as well as many other college and uni- versity officials, may very well be at a critical juncture with respect to this issue. A narrow view of performance reflected through a yardstick measuring only mechanical sets of behaviors might prove disastrous. Highly subjective rating scales which are contingent upon personality biases and per- sonal preferences appear equally inappropriate. (p. 5) What, then, is a fair way to measure the performance of student development professionals? In 1968, the American College Personnel Association conceived the Tomorrow's Higher Education Project (THE), as a planned response to anticipated extensive changes expected in higher education. Brown, in his 1972 monograph, which expanded upon the THE model, called for a move away from a status-based adminis- trative style to comprehensive performance analysis (p. 47). However, a significant number of student personnel administrators have not been able to adjust to building student relationships based upon compe- tence and collaboration (Crookston, 1975, p. 5). Miller and Prince (1976) echoed these sentiments with the observation that status and position are less important than competence (p. 20). While the profession at its genesis was rooted in control and manipulation of students, it is apparent that the future will produce demands from student consumers and academic colleagues for teachable and marketable professional competence. Student development profes- sionals in general, and community college chief student affairs officers in particular will not only have to believe they are useful, they will also have to prove it. A 1971 study on what should be accomplished by chief student affairs administrators at community- junior colleges in the 19805 recommended that each basic student affairs function be studied in depth in order to determine what is being accomplished and what should be accomplished (Decabooter, 1971, p. 95). It is important to stress here that higher education does not exist in a vacuum in the sense that it has a substantial impact on the nation, its economy, and its problems. American higher education is a huge industry that annually costs an amount equal to about 5 percent of the GNP (Bowen, 1977, p. 21). Practical problems of economic, social, and political natures surround and affect the higher education community. Colleges are charged with the awesome responsibility of producing graduates who are competent enough to deal with the problems inherent in such areas as environmental abuse, energy shortages, inflation, and social injustice. An important and practical benefit of education flows from professional training, in that the presence in society of a corps of competent professional persons may directly improve social conditions (Bowen, 1977, p. 288). Bowen (1977) asserted that to prepare people for competence in the practical affairs of life is a major goal of higher education (p. 137). It will be diffi- cult to prepare competent students if teachers and administrators are not themselves competent. Therehas been little research in the area of competency as it pertains to student affairs professionals. Recent emphasis on accounta- bility provides impetus for concentration on competency in both profes- sional preparation and performance. Those chief student affairs officers who have practiced the profession at community-junior colleges or are currently doing so represent a valuable source of information about the competencies that they perceive to be critical to the satisfactory performance of their jobs in the next decade. It is precisely these people whom this study addressed in the attempt to identify and rank critical competencies for future chief student affairs officers within the community-junior college setting. Statement of the Problem One of the most striking developments in professional educa- tion has been competency-based education (Connors & Pruitt, 1978, p. 527). Teaching of competencies for student development specialists at the preservice level is not being addressed in a systematic way (Connors & Pruitt, 1978, p. 527). The watchword for the 19805 does indeed seem to be competency. Gares (1973), in a dissertation study of student affairs competencies, concluded that student affairs gradu- ate programs must attempt to become competency based (p. 81). Graduate education programs that are competency based will undoubtedly benefit new professionals. This study was designed to identify those competencies necessary for new student affairs profes- sionals and current practitioners, who will serve community-junior colleges in the 19805. In addition, the identification of critical competencies for community-junior college chief student affairs officers may provide impetus for new inservice training emphases. Reuben McDaniel (1972) articulated the problem that this study addressed when he wrote that: Research in student personnel administration should become more concerned with identifying and operationalizing the cognitive and affective behaviors required for job success. There exist innumerable lists of functions, services, and definitions, but few indicators of skills required in organizationally relevant roles. (p. 105). Belief in one's own competence will no longer be enough. Demand for demonstrated competence now motivates much of education (Grant et al., 1979, p. 19). The next decade will bring new emphasis upon competency for all administrators, but particularly for community college chief student affairs officers. The environmental demands placed on community colleges will require flexibility and adaptability (Mood, 1973; Lee, 1977). Wochner (1976) of Arizona State University captured the essence of the challenge and provided inspiration for this study in the following statement: It is necessary to not just identify competencies but also to identify indicators of competencies or observable evidence which would indicate that the person evidencing the competen— cies had in fact developed them to a satisfactory level of quality. (p. 3) In the 19805, form mu§t_follow function. The challenge of this study was to identify and state in behavioral terms those critical com- petencies that selected community-junior college chief student affairs officers perceived as most necessary for successful performance in the 19805. The effort was made to clarify competencies by indicating the observable behaviors that characterize them. The "behavioral" state- ments that were selected as competency area modifiers in the question- naire for this study are not to be interpreted as consistent with or derived from classic behaviorism as presented by psychologist John Watson. Rather, the statements were developed, in part, as a response to the Wochner suggestion for observable evidence of competence. ‘PUrpose of the Study It was the purpose of this study to identify and define criti- cal areas of competency for chief student affairs administrators in community-junior colleges for the 19805. In addition, it was the purpose of this study to seek answers to the following research ques- tions: 1. How do perceptions of competency areas among student affairs administrators at rural community-junior colleges compare with their counterparts in suburban and urban community-junior colleges? 2. How do the judgments of a panel of nationally prominent student affairs educators about competencies compare with judgments of those community-junior college student affairs administrators recommended by the panel for inclusion in this study? 3. How do the perceptions of male study participants compare with those of female study participants? 4. What are the implications of the results of this study for current graduate programs in student affairs administration? 5. What are the implications of the findings for staff development and continuing education programs for community-junior college student affairs administrators? Those critical competencies identified and ranked in this study could provide direction for both preservice and inservice train- ing programs for community-junior college student affairs professionals. Procedures This study required the survey of skilled practitioners who represent various geographic regions and community-junior colleges of various sizes. In order to compile a list of potential respondents who met the criteria of skill, geographic balance, and varying insti- tutional size, a letter was sent to 12 nationally prominent student affairs educators, authors, and practitioners. The letter requested nominations of current or former community-junior college chief stu- dent affairs officers whom the leaders could identify as exceptionally skilled practitioners. Each prominent leader responded, and from the responses a list of 100 potential survey participants was compiled. The following 12 student personnel leaders were contacted for nomi- nations: 1. Dr. Max Raines, Professor of Higher Education Administra- tion, Michigan State University 2. Dr. Laurine Fitzgerald, Dean of the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh 3. Dr. Lee Betts, Executive Director of the ACCTion Student Development Center, Hesston, Kansas 4. Dr. Norbert Dettman, Director, Texas Public Community/ Junior College Association 5. Dr. Theodore Miller, Professor of Higher Education, Univer- sity of Georgia 6. Dr. William Robbins, President, W. A. Robbins Associates, Londonville, New York; Professor, V.P.I. 7. Dr. Jane Matson, Professor of Education, California State University at Los Angeles 8. Dr. Richard C. Richardson, Chairman, Department of Higher and Adult Education, Arizona State University 9. Dr. Terry O'Banion, Executive Director, League for Innova- tion, Los Angeles, California 10. Dr. Charles Spence, President, Clinton Community College, Iowa 11. Dr. Ernest Leach, Dean of Student Affairs, Prince George's Community College, Maryland 12. Dr. James L. Wattenbarger, Director, Institute of Higher Education, University of Florida This distinguished group of educational leaders was selected because of significant contributions to higher education in leadership, publishing, teaching, and community-junior college student development. Each was in a position to identify current or former chief student affairs officers (practitioners) who have demonstrated exemplary pro- fessional competence. Those practitioners chosen to participate in the study were surveyed, and in some cases interviewed. The questionnaire included a list of competency areas culled from interviews and a review of related literature. Respondents were asked to indicate which competency areas were critical to their own job performance and to identify any addi- tional competencies perceived to be critical. Finally, respondents were asked to rank order 12 critical competency areas for chief student personnel officers at community-junior colleges in the 19805. The survey included practitioners at both small and large col- leges. Respondents represented institutions in each geographic region of the United States. Each of the prominent student affairs educators who nominated practitioners for survey participation completed the 10 survey in turn, enabling comparison between educator and practitioner perceptions of critical competencies. Underlying Assumptions It was assumed that the nationally prominent leaders who were asked to nominate skilled practitioners for inclusion in this study were indeed knowledgeable enough to do so. It was further assumed that the surveyed community-junior college chief student affairs officers and the nationally prominent leaders were able to identify critical areas of concern related to job competencies. Delimitations of the Study The study is delimited to those community-junior college chief student affairs officers nominated by the panel of student affairs leaders for inclusion in the survey. Only those competency areas culled from related research for inclusion in the questionnaire and those competency areas added by respondents are treated in this study. Limitations of the Study The study was limited to those community-junior college chief student affairs officers who responded to the survey. The study was further limited by the initial choice of 12 prominent student affairs leader/educators whose visibility through publication and positions in national associations was a predominant factor in their selection. Undoubtedly, the selection of only 12 leaders from the student person- nel profession could be considered arbitrary. It was not possible to 11 ascertain that these people possessed the greatest knowledge base or the clearest perceptions of critical competencies for the 19805. How- ever, their levels of accomplishment, publications, and positions of responsibility certainly bear witness to their leadership in the student affairs profession. The study purported to provide a list of critical competencies for student personnel educators and practitioners as the profession confronts a new decade. In the attempt to achieve consensus among respondents from colleges of different size and location, equal empha- sis on areas of competency may have been precluded. The inherent diversity of student enrollment and local practitioner concerns were reflected in the study only to the extent that they were cited often enough to be ranked within the general perception of most critical competencies. Among any listing of competencies will be found those that bear little, if any, relevance to the competency concerns of a particular community-junior college chief student affairs officer. The elicited competencies identified in this study are not to be generalized to the preparation and performance of student affairs staff members at institutions other than community-junior colleges Definition of Terms The following terms are defined as they are used in this study. Chief Student Affairs 0fficer--That person who is responsible for the management of a comprehensive student affairs program at a public community-junior college. The individual's title may be dean, 12 director, coordinator, or vice-president. However, for the purposes of this study, the term Chief Student Affairs Officer is used. Competency Areas--Those skills and knowledges a student affairs educator must possess in order to enable students to achieve maximum development within the context of the stated mission of the public community-junior college. Field-Based Studyr-A study that gathers data by survey and interviews from those practitioners actively engaged in the profession. Perception--An implicit awareness of the probable consequences an action might have for use in carrying out some purpose that might have value for us. Community-Junior Colleges-A publicly funded college typically established to meet the educational needs of a particular community and offering two-year training, either terminal or preparatory, in technical and liberal arts fields. Theoreticians--Those professionals whose knowledge has contributed significantly to the conventional wisdom in the field of student affairs, whether that knowledge was gained through practice, research, teaching, or a combination of those endeavors. Significance of the Study_ The real challenge confronting chief student affairs officers for the 19805 is to do more than supervise function areas. They must speak and perform in behavioral terms, setting the performance condi- tions and criteria through which skilled performance of functions can be achieved. 13 This study attempted to provide a base of valuable information about not only the functional critical competencies required for community-junior college chief student affairs officers for the 19805, but also their definition in performance-based terms that would be clearly understood by students, educators, and practitioners. Research about competencies for community college chief stu- dent affairs administrators has been minimal and, in general, limited in scape to lists of competencies (or functions) which are not behav- ioristically stated. The competency information gathered in this study from a wide range of practitioners and evaluated in comparison to information from leading theoreticians can facilitate a major reassessment of professional preparation, performance, and life-long education goals for student affairs administrators. This study pro- vides useful information about those specific and performance-based competencies with which both new and currently practicing professionals will have to be equipped in order to meet the demands of the 19805 with confidence and skill. Organization of the Study Chapter I presented the introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the study, procedures, underlying assumptions, delimita- tions and limitations of the study, definitions, and a significance statement. Relevant and related literature and research dealing with competencies for community-junior college chief student affairs officers are reviewed in Chapter II. The design of the study is 14 detailed in Chapter III. Chapter IV includes the results of the study. A presentation of the recommendations and conclusions based on the findings of the study comprises Chapter V. CHAPTER 11 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This study was designed to identify the critical competencies for community-junior college chief student affairs officers in the 19805. While some authors stressed the uniqueness of the community college experience (Collins, 1967, p. 36), others found great simi- larities in the roles and functions of two-year and four-year college student affairs administrators (Brooks & Avila, 1973, p. 533). There- fore, in order to generate a comprehensive list of competencies for presentation to current chief student affairs officers at a cross- section of American community colleges, the review of literature focused on the chief student affairs officer position, both in four- year and two-year colleges. This review is presented in four sections. First is a brief history of the community college movement. An examination of research related to the role of the chief student affairs officer in post- secondary education follows. A third part of the review focuses upon the concept of competency as it relates to the professional prepara- tion of student affairs workers. The final section of this chapter identifies prior attempts to generate lists of competencies appropri- ate for community-junior college chief student affairs officers. 15 16 The Development of the Community-Junior College in the United States The establishment of Joliet Junior College in Joliet, Illinois, in 1902, preceded by the work of William Rainey Harper at the Univer- sity of Chicago in 1896, marked the beginning of the public two-year community-junior college movement in America (Ogilvie & Raines, 1971, p. 78). However, the concept of community-junior college education was identified much earlier in American history. The original collegiate institutions, Harvard among them, were initiated and closely supervised by local governments (Leonard, 1956, p. 20). In the nineteenth century the Morrill Land Grant Act (1862) provided the impetus for the founding of some of the nation's great research universities. This legislation also had a profound effect upon community-junior colleges, whose curricula in the next century would place great emphasis upon the service philosophy of the land grant movement (Carnegie Commission, 1970, p. 9). Following the founding of the College at Joliet, there was slow development for community colleges for almost half the century. It was in 1960 that a Master Plan for Higher Education in California pro- vided formal recognition of the community-junior college movement and granted full status for such colleges within the higher education framework (Carnegie Commission, 1970, p. 10). It took over 50 years for community-junior colleges to be recognized as a significant part of the post-secondary education process. However, it took only one decade for phenomenal growth and 17 development of community-junior colleges. From 1960 to 1970, Cali- fornia recognition of and support for community-junior colleges, the federal education acts of 1963, tremendous technical and financial support from the Kellogg Foundation, and the increased political and theoretical influence of the American Association of CommUnity and Junior Colleges all contributed to rapid community-junior college expansion (Ogilvie & Raines, 1971, p. 80). In the 19705, community colleges parlayed the rising cost of university and private education, and the emergence of "nontraditional" students, into continued growth. In just over 80 years the community- junior college movement evolved from Harper's idea into a major force in American higher education. In 1980, there were almost 4,500,000 students attending almost 1,400 community-junior colleges in America (O'Banion, 1972, p. 15). Those figures represent a doubling of enroll- ment in the last decade. While the rate of growth may abate, there are indications that there will be more students and more community colleges in the 19805. Palinchak (1973) stated that "the present community college concept is the most advanced stage in the junior college movement" (p. 101). If that is true, then the new decade affords opportunities for community-junior colleges to move beyond growth to new areas of service. Edmund Gleazer, Jr. (1980), former president of the American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, charged community col- lege administrators as follows: 18 There's simply so much to be done as we go into a new decade that there is not time to relax. New challenges and new oppor- tunities continue to emerge, even as faculty, the trustees, the administrators and community supporters refine and advance existing programs. (p. 3) If community-junior college chief student affairs officers possess the right competencies, they can provide leadership in seizing opportunities and meeting the challenges of the 19805. Summary Public community colleges became a part of the higher education system in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. The desire to serve more people and make higher education more acces- sible prompted William Rainey Harper to found the first junior college. Reaction to the Morrill Act, and later the California Higher Education Master Plan, helped to broaden the community college base. Kellogg Foundation support and an increased need for technical and vocational competencies provided impetus for continued and dramatic growth for community-junior colleges in the 19605 and 19705. The Role of the Chief Student Affairs Officer in Post-Secondarnyducation The role of the student affairs administrator has been defined in different ways by many authors. It was the purpose of this study to explain the role of community college chief student affairs officers and in that process to help clarify the responsibilities of these stu- dent affairs administrators. Student affairs administration was not a part of the original higher education process. Leonard (1956) asserted that "the assumption 19 of responsibility for the extra-classroom life of the students grew out of the religious, social and political life of the early colonists rather than from divergent or unique purposes of the founders of insti- tutions" (p. 4). Student affairs began with the appointment of deans of men and women at such institutions as Harvard, Swarthmore, and Oberlin in the 18905 (Wrenn, 1967, p. 103). Lebarron Russell Briggs of Harvard is credited with having been the first Dean of Students (1890) and Thomas Arkle Clark of Illinois, the first Dean of Men (1909) (Cowley, 1940,. p. 154). Unfortunately, these deans and many successors lacked spe- cific professional training for their jobs. That early paucity of professional student affairs preparation supports a contention that the student affairs profession developed from the campus up rather than from the theory down (Appleton et al., 1978). Many early student affairs appointees were given monitor or warden titles largely because college presidents needed help in regulating behavior (O'Banion, 1971, p. 8). Discipline, not professionalism, was the major emphasis. Long before Appleton determined that the student affairs pro- fession had grown from the "campus up," Williamson (1961) stressed that "student personnel work had a grass-roots development in the daily experiences and difficulties of students and teachers" (p. 11). As the twentieth century began, student enrollment increased at colleges and universities, and, consequently, services for students required more than wardens and monitors. Lack of classification and testing services for students gen- erated early efforts by Cattell (1894) at Columbia and Kitson (1917) 20 at Chicago to provide psychological testing and counseling services (Lloyd-Jones, 1929, p. 4). Subsequently, counseling positions were created at many colleges. By 1915, deans of men and women had been appointed at many colleges and universities. These initial chief student affairs officers were not trained in the student affairs profession. However, just before World War I, Columbia University granted the first Master of Arts and diploma of Dean of Women degree (Lloyd-Jones, 1949). Pro- fessional preparation programs proliferated in the next four decades. The 19205 and 19305 were decades of increased professionalism. Chief student affairs officers began to establish professional asso- ciations. It was in 1931 that Cowley helped to convert the National Association of Placement and Personnel Officers into the American College Personnel Association. That organization, the National Asso- ciation of Student Personnel Administrators, and the National Associa- tion of Women's Deans and Counselors facilitated communication and cooperation among chief student affairs officers. This communication and cooperation led to the promulgation of the "personnel point of view" in 1938 and again in 1949 by the Ameri- can Council of Education Committee on College Personnel. The viewpoint affirmed the uniqueness of individual students and the broadness of the college personnel field (Mueller, 1961, p. 56). The evolution of the college personnel profession was even more apparent when, in 1950, an American Council on Education statement about the goals of higher education included the establishment of high standards of selection and of professional competence for the 21 specialized personnel worker (American Council on Education, 1950). The ensuing expansion of the profession in the 19505, 19605, and 19705 coincided with faculty preoccupations with scholarship, the expand- ing scope of education, and new techniques for dealing with students (Mueller, 1961, p. 58). Although training and preparation for student affairs profes- sionals has expanded and improved, the majority of chief student affairs administrators at community-junior colleges have not been trained specifically to work in community colleges (Raines, 1966, p. 6). Consequently, experiential learning rather than formal train- ing has influenced behavior and dictated priorities for practitioners. Critics have argued that student affairs administrators have been reactive rather than proactive, perceived by colleagues to be less than full professionals, and that there is a plethora of humanism among practitioners (Hurst & Ivey, 1971; Penney, 1972; Hodgkinson, 1970). There has not been an organized professional response to criti- cism. However, there have been many attempts to define the role of the chief student affairs administrator. Burnett (1954) asked for such clarification in 1954 when he pressed for careful research to deter- mine the competencies required for graduate students planning to do student personnel work (p. 123). K. Patricia Cross (1965), 11 years after Burnett, defined the student affairs dean as "the official buffer between the college administration and the students who frequently get bumped hard by both" (p. 5). In 1971, Hedlund cast the student affairs dean in the 22 role of administrator rather than buffer, arguing that educational institutions must have capable professional administrators with an understanding and appreciation of, but not necessarily expertise in, the educational process (p. 325). Whereas Hedlund separated the administrator and educator roles, others have tried to emphasize the importance of combining those roles (Dinniman, 1977; Neher & Potter, 1974; Matson, 1971). Each lamented the "separate but equal" status of student affairs work within higher education institutions. Perhaps in partial response to this concern, the 19705 brought forth the student development emphasis in student affairs theory. Burns Crookston (1972) explained the philosophic transition with his emphasis on "doing away with the term 'student personnel,‘ which has always been a descriptive anomaly, and asserting that student development is not merely supplementary or complimentary to the instructional program, it is a central teaching function of the college." Regardless of the impetus, the profession has continued to move away from solely providing ancillary services and toward partici- pation in decision making across traditional institutional lines of communication. A cooperative merger of student affairs and student personnel and instructional services in educating students has been proposed by several authors through the 19605 and 19705 (Medsker, 1960; Cross, 1965; Appleton et al., 1978). Student development, in its broadest sense, includes academic, psychological, interpersonal, and physical maturation for all persons within an educational institution. Thus, the chief student affairs 23 administrator may be expected to possess a wide variety of competen- cies and to interact with representatives of every institutional con- stituency. In an effort to delineate the responsibilities of a chief student affairs administrator, several authors have commented about job priorities. The dean should cultivate personal relationships with faculty, serve as a campus consultant, act as a true student advocate and ombudsman, become actively involved in teaching, devote energies to planning for the future, and function as a top-ranking official of the college working with other administrative officers, faculty, and students to solve problems that confront the entire col- lege (Appleton, 1978; Hurst & Ivey, 1971; Matson, 1971; O'Banion, 1971; Penney, 1972; Thrash, 1975). The role of the chief student affairs officer has expanded and changed in the past three decades. Nowhere has the evolution been more evident than at the community-junior college. Whereas many adminis- trative responsibilities are common for all chief student affairs officers, regardless of the institutional setting, community-junior college deans are challenged to meet the needs of very diverse students with vastly different reasons for attending college. In a recent book Grant et a1. (1979) warned that students who would have been considered woefully underprepared for college a decade or two ago now enter colleges and universities in large numbers directly from high school (p. 10). That perception lends credence to the 1967 warning to community college administrators, that their stu- dents were likely to have postponed major decisions about college and 24 career, apt to have received little encouragement from parents or high school instructors to attend college, less inclined to rate col- lege as important, and would have preferred to attend other kinds of colleges had finance or poor planning not limited their choices (Collins, 1967, p. 11). Given the fact that community colleges enroll nontraditional students, the challenge for chief student personnel officers would seem to be the determination of how best to serve a divergent student population. This may be especially true in the next decade. Recent criticisms of community college student affairs programs have focused on the charge that programming is steeped in traditionalism and directed toward the l7-22-year-old age range, a range that is rapidly becoming a youthful minority in the whole of higher education (Palinchak, 1973; Knott, 1977; Tollefson, 1975). Criticism has been directed toward community-junior college deans as well as their student affairs programs. Deans have been vilified for managing the resources and the inertia of the education process, directing efforts to the development of students' personali- ties and not to the improvement of intellectual skills, and finally, for presiding over a "cooling-out" process that arranges student failure in such a way that the system is not faulted (Monroe, 1972; Palinchak, 1973; Zwerling, 1976). Such harsh judgments do more to identify what should not be included in the role of the community- junior college chief student affairs officer than to clarify the responsibilities pertinent to the position. 25 Clearly the presence of underprepared and nontraditional stu- dents presents a challenge to a community-junior college student affairs dean. O'Banion (1971) has optimistically and emphatically concluded that in no other post-high-school educational institution is student affairs work considered as important as in the community college. Some authors have given general guidelines to community college chief student personnel officers about appropriate personality strengths. Deans who are strong individuals, who master the art of effective human relations, and who build bridges to faculty members manage to create auras of influence as formal decision makers (Blocker & Richardson, 1964; Zoglin, 1976). These perceptions are value-laden and do not address the issues of necessary competencies or role clari- fication. The review of literature that is pertinent to the specific role of the community-junior college chief student affairs officer underscored the importance of generating a new list of competencies for the 19805. Summary In this section, the literature pertinent to the role of the chief student affairs officer in higher education has been reviewed. The history of the chief student affairs position was sum- marized. Criticisms of the student affairs contribution of post- secondary education endeavors were reviewed, as were the various perceptions of what the chief student affairs administrator ought to do. 26 Finally, the community-junior college chief student affairs administrative position was considered separately from the role at other institutions. There have been several declarations about the unique- ness of the community college. However, few authors have indicated how such uniqueness affects the role of chief student affairs officers at community-junior colleges. The Concept of Competency as It Relates to the Professional Preparation of Student Affairs Workers Having examined the role of the chief student affairs officer, it is important to consider the competencies necessary to fulfill the role. In Chapter I a competency area was defined as the skill and knowledge an educator must possess in order to enable students to achieve maximum development within the content of the stated mission of the public community-junior college. Much of the skill and knowledge a student affairs administra- tor must possess is acquired in the process of professional prepara- tion. Therefore, in this section of the literature review the relationship between competence and formalized training will be considered. Appleton (1978) stressed the fact that competency is the dean's power vehicle. Earlier, the American Personnel and Guidance Association (1969), in a statement about guidelines for graduate pro- grams, addressed the importance of research and the development of competencies (p. 495). Bowen (1977) outlined the three primary goals of education and included personal development with respect to cogni- tive abilities, affective characteristics, and practical competence 27 (p. 42). Gleazer (1968) and Raines (1977) both affirmed the need for competent leadership in community-junior colleges. Much has been written about the need for competent student personnel professionals in higher education. However, there are few authors who have precisely defined what specific competencies student affairs professionals should possess. A particular concern for gradu- ate educators has been the difficult translation of desired intangible personal qualities into observable behaviors that can be demonstrated by aspiring professionals. Wrenn (1952) was one of the first educators to indicate the qualities necessary for those who wished to be student personnel workers. He sought individuals who were socially sensitive, emo- tionally mature, and intellectually able (p. 11). Burnett (1954) suggested that scholastic aptitude, motivation, attitude, and experi- ence were equally important but not likely to be changed in any short training period (p. 121). A decade later, Mueller (1966) and Cosby (1965) lamented the lack of specific skill training, which causes graduates to enter the student personnel profession underprepared. In 1967, Eldridge indicated that the most crucial challenge for higher education would be providing competent deans for new community-junior colleges (p. 12). All of these authors were concerned about training student affairs professionals. None identified specific competencies that should be mastered by students. Eugene Knott (1977) underscored the lack of progress in solving the competency identification problem when he said that professional 28 training in the student affairs field was ample in quantity but deficient in quality and scope (p. 438). Student affairs specialists are not the only theorists who have struggled with the problem of preparing competent administrators. Getzels and Guba (1957), two prominent administrative theorists, addressed the problem and conceded that it was impossible to speak of administration in terms that would be acceptable to, or for that matter even readily understood by, students and practitioners in the several special fields (p. 423). Nevertheless, there is a demand for more emphasis on the administrative aspects of student personnel in the development of graduate curricula (McDaniel, 1972, p. 101). If desired administrative traits cannot be delineated in behavioral terms, then it is possible that effective practitioners of skill and artistry may be successful in spite of and not because of their pro- fessional preparation (Dewey, 1972, p. 62). Efforts to stress specific skills in the training of student personnel professionals have helped to relate the acquisition of com- petencies to graduate study. The American Personnel and Guidance Association (1969) presented the following competency and subject areas as necessary components of graduate programs in student personnel: history and philosophy of student personnel work in higher education; human growth and development; social and cultural foundations; methods, techniques, and concepts used by student personnel workers; research and evaluation; and preparation in specialized fields (p. 465). Other suggestions for improving graduate preparation have included solid grounding in the behavioral sciences, greater variety in 29 experience opportunities, greater responsibility and less routine in student work assignments, and more preparation in the area of business administration (Hedlund, 1971; Bolton, 1974). Further definition of appropriately specific professional preparation was provided by the Executive Council of the American College Personnel Association(l967). That group included the follow- ing in its Professional Preparation Program Model: professional orientation to the field; multi-disciplinary foundations for the practice of student personnel work; human development and the nature and needs of the college student; context and setting, i.e., the American university, college, and junior college; methods and tech- niques used by counselors and other student affairs workers; sub- stantive areas of student personnel work; and research and evaluation (p. 64). This statement is most significant for its inclusion of the community-junior college as a separate and important segment of higher education. The Council also stressed that the primary responsibili- ties for deans of students include management of individuals, groups, and things. These attempts to clarify skills to be mastered and specify curricular content provided impetus for the concept of competency- based professional preparation programs. In 1952, Wrenn had dis- cussed desired qualities for student personnel professionals. By the 19705, educators were beginning to discuss the behaviors those profes- sionals should be expected to demonstrate. In 1972, Caple warned that the professional educator needed today is not the same as the one who 30 was needed ten years ago and the educator of today will not be ade- quate ten years from now (p. 40). One very significant publication, edited by Knock in 1977, provided an in-depth view of the preparation of student affairs work- ers. This ACPA publication, Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals, featured articles and position papers by sev- eral scholars and reactions by their distinguished colleagues. Peterson, one of Knock's contributing authors, described his ideal preparation program, the Student Personnel Education Process- Outcome Model. The model was prepared at Purdue University in response to an abiding concern that student affairs graduate programs were insufficiently grounded in theory, lacking in consistency of program quality, staffed by ill-prepared and rigid educators, plagued by inexcusable student-faculty ratios, and guilty of permitting sub- standard theses and dissertations (Peterson, in Knock, 1977, p. 42). The Peterson approach advocated a program core of substantive knowl- edge, skills and techniques, and personal awareness. All of these were included in a program designed mutually by instructor and student. Perhaps the most important point Peterson made is that those in charge of preparation programs must decide to turn out fewer advanced candidates, particularly at the doctorate level, and concen- trate on seeing that those few are superbly qualified (p. 45). Brown's reaction to Peterson's proposal (in Knock, 1977, p. 64) criticized the fact that substantive areas of knowledge weren't ranked according to importance and that there were no criteria for 31 determining how the student and instructor were to determine the content areas appropriate for a graduate program. A problem for professional preparation educators is the deter- mination of which competencies or knowledges are appropriate for the master's level, the specialist level, or the doctorate level. Matson, also writing in Knock (1977), proposed a list of competencies for master's candidates in student affairs. However, she and other authors weren't able to delineate how many of the com- petencies were entrance level and how many would be necessary for more advanced administrative positions. Nevertheless, Matson's list made the first notable effort to distinguish training for community-junior college student affairs pro- fessionals from their four-year-college colleagues. Matson's compe- tency list included the following: 1. Appraisal of student needs Learning problems and disabilities Counseling theory and practicum Design and development of student personnel programs Learning theory and curriculum development Use of technical media Vocational choice and development theory and practice Student characteristics Supervision of paraprofessionals 10. Assessment of collegiate environment 11. Consultative processes 12. Knowledge of community organization and skill in outreach 13. Evaluation and accountability 14. Research capability \DmNONU'l-th (Matson, in Knock, 1977, p. 116) Matson added that the distinguishing feature of the community college student personnel functions was the fact that they were con- sidered to be essential to the institution and were so defined in official statements of purpose or objective (p. 104). Her most 32 vigorous assertion was that field experience in the community college was essential for any professional training program for future commu- nity college student affairs workers or administrators. In the 19805, graduate education for student personnel workers is apt to include less theory and more practical experience. Few training programs provide adequate skill development Opportunities, and consequently, new professionals seldom speak in other than value- 1aden terms (McDaniel, 1972, p. 104). Dewey (1972) submitted that the profession had sought and honored good intentions over realistic achievement (p. 62). Many authors remain unconvinced about the necessity to redirect training priorities toward increased technical competence. The pref- erence for credentials rather than genuine competence was lamented by Bowen (1977, p. 43). Crookston (1972) and Blackburn (1978) argued in favor of selecting administrators based on flair for human management rather than technical competence. There is a legitimate concern that professional preparation programs geared to mastering competencies will neglect the humanizing aspect of student affairs administration. O'Banion (1971) suggested a compromise wherein the chief student affairs administrator will be a person who is hard-headed enough to survive the battles of academe and yet warm-hearted and deeply com- mitted to the full development of human potential (p. 9). No review of training priorities and their relationship to competence would be complete without reference to continuing education, staff development, and other retraining efforts. Community colleges specialize in continuing education and embrace such efforts as a 33 cornerstone of institutional mission. Certainly one of the great challenges for community-junior college chief student affairs officers is the creation of an environment which encourages and provides oppor- tunity for the continuing development of a competent, highly motivated, up-to-date staff (Matson, 1971, 1972; DeHart, 1977). Summary It was not the intention here to outline the ideal professional preparation program for the student affairs worker who may ulti- mately become a dean of students at a community-junior college. How- ever, reviewing what has happened in graduate preparation and what has been proposed provided a better understanding of a perceived need to move away from theoretical emphases and toward competency-based cur- ricula. Newton and Richardson (1976) summarized concern about the training and preparation of student personnel professionals and high- lighted a major purpose of this study: Professional competence begins with an effective training pro- gram for entry level professionals. One necessary step to achieving effective training is to maintain responsive commu- nication between the needs of practicing professionals and the training program. (p. 429) Identification of Competencies for Community-Junior College Chief Student Affairs Officers In order to ascertain perceptions about critical competencies for community-junior college chief student affairs officers, a review of previous competency research was undertaken. Information gleaned from the review was cross-referenced with personal interview notes and job descriptions and used to generate the list of competencies and behaviors that were included in the questionnaire for this study. 34 Competency and competency-based instruction are terms that gained the attention of educators in the 19705. However, it was a 1965 Carnegie report, Junior College Student Personnel Programs: Appraisal and Development, that identified and listed distinct student affairs functions and established evaluative guidelines for them. That major research effort introduced the concept of competent behav- iors and focused attention on community-junior college chief student affairs officers. The study identified the following dimensions of a community-junior college student personnel program: admissions, placement, financial aid, student activities, guidance and counseling, and central administration. Several other studies will be referenced, although none dealt specifically with community-junior college chief student affairs officers. The research was, however, helpful in the generation of competencies for this study. A 1967 American Personnel and Guidance Association statement listed counseling, understanding the student as learner, group advis- ing, programming, and research as functions appropriate for student personnel workers (p. 63). In 1970, Lynam investigated administrative competencies for community college academic deans. Nevertheless, his list of compe- tencies was reasonably related to the purpose of this study. Lynam identified the following administrative competencies: l. Interpersonal Relationships Competency 2. Communication Systems Competency 3. Personnel Management Competency 4 5 6 7. 8. 9. 0. 1 35 Instructional Evaluation Competency Curriculum Development Competency Leadership Development Competency Professional Development Competency Budget Management Competency Presidential Cabinet Competency Administrator Interrelationship Competency Although many of Lynam's competencies related directly to academic administration and not to student affairs administration, his efforts to further explain competencies in distinctly behavioral terms were innovative and valuable for future researchers. Gares (1973) surveyed 90 educators and 188 student affairs deans and identified the following competencies: 1. To be able to critically analyze a situation and develop creative problem-solving alternatives. To develop various service areas on campus. To interpret institutional objectives and opportunities to a wide range of groups and individuals. To interpret institutional performance for the purpose of hiring and firing professional and non-professional per- sonnel. To administer programs for cultural and ethnic minorities as well as foreign students. To present effectively the purpose of student personnel services and their relationship to faculty. To counsel individually and in groups. To manage an office efficiently. To function within the boundaries of sound legal prin- ciples. 36 10. To coordinate the total student personnel area. 11. To teach effectively within an area of competency. 12. To administer student conduct. 13. To administer educational and service area programs. 14. To conduct institutional analysis focusing on institu- tional functioning and goals. 15. To advise student groups. 16. To prepare a budget. 17. To supervise any or all service areas. 18. To interact and negotiate effectively with others on a professional basis. 19. To advise students about educational programs and career goals. ' 20. To design or modify the student's physical environment based on a knowledge of human behavior. 21. To initiate action when student needs are not being met. 22. To deal with crises. 23. To accumulate and provide support data. 24. To demonstrate research and evaluation skills. (p. ix) Gares found that the following were most often cited as "most important": to critically analyze a situation and develop creative problem-solving alternatives, to interact and negotiate effectively with others on a professional basis, and to initiate action when stu— dent needs are not being met. These competencies were not expressed in behavior-oriented terms, which would make it very difficult to ascertain whether or not they had been acquired. 37 Gares was unable to find a clear consensus among educators and practitioners as to the relative worth of the competencies he identified. In 1974, Lilley identified four major categories for student affairs officer functions. They were: Internal Coordination, Orien- tation, Support Services, and Education. This study was confined to chief student affairs officers at small liberal arts colleges and is included here because it was one of the very few that addressed the issue of functions or competencies for chief student affairs officers. In a 1976 study, Newton and Richardson examined entry-level student affairs worker competencies. They found that practitioners were seeking primarily entry-level professionals who possessed mature interpersonal relationship skills (p. 427). A 1977 study by Knott identified a need for student affairs professionals "cut from the generalist cloth." Knott listed the fol- lowing ten competencies as necessary for generalists in the student affairs profession: 1. Administrative Skills Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Skills Communication Skills Consultative Skills Developmental Education Skills Goal Setting and Strategizing Skills Leadership Skills common-boom Legal and Collective Bargaining Skills 38 9. Managerial Skills 10. Organizational Skills (p. 436) In 1977, Minetti, like Lynam, listed competencies and then amplified them through the use of behavioral language. Because the study concentrated on the relationship between academic training and assistantship programs for student affairs graduate students, there was little extrapolation possible to the role of a community college chief student affairs officer. The following are the competencies Minetti found to be necessary for entry-level student affairs profes- sionals: 1. Counseling, Human Relations, and Interpersonal Skills Theory and Practice of Administration and Management Research Testing and Measurement #00“) Historical, Philosophical, and Social Foundations 5. Meeting Student Needs 6. Professional Purpose and Role Identity In a 1979 dissertation study, Carmichael focused on competen- cies that are most important for in-service training for student affairs professionals. His list included the following: employing tact when dealing with others, understanding needs of others, innova- tion, delegation of authority and responsibility, knowledge of federal and state educational law, ability to direct and control, and leader- ship ability in the conduct of various meetings. Others, although not researching competencies, have either listed skills or traits that are desirable for chief student affairs officers. Wrenn, in 1967, proposed the preeminence of the quality 39 of human relationships in every phase of a student affairs program, decentralization of student services, and meeting different needs of students at different age levels (pp. 114-16). Thrash, in 1975, identified integrity, intelligence, Openness, and commitment as the most significant qualities for a student affairs dean (p. 12). In 1977, Nordvall listed the following standards for evaluation of col— lege administrators: quality of work, interpersonal relationships, leadership, professional interest, commitment to the institution, and personal integrity (p. 57). Finally, in 1978, Appleton, Briggs, and Rhatigan in their book, Pieces of Eight, characterized eight outstand- ing student affairs administrators as follows: although work rhythms are individualistic, all convey a high level of energy; they are clearly initiators and innovators more than responders and imitators; they have learned to cope effectively with daily pressures, uncertainties, and ambiguities in their total responsibility as well as in their detailed duties; each exemplifies the capacity to bring complex tasks to a successful finale; each employs a fairly compact set of principles in making decisions; each enjoys a reputation for relating easily with students, staff, faculty, and colleagues; each is inclined to review and analyze information thoroughly and to apply it to maximum value; and each places the highest possible premium upon competence and integrity in themselves no less than in their staffs (p. 3). No single author provided a comprehensive list of competen— cies specific to the community-junior college chief student affairs officer. However, the literature review was valuable in the sense that it provided background material and reinforced the investigator's 40 notion that a study about competencies for community-junior college chief student affairs officers would be timely. Grant et al. in the 1979 book On Competence stressed the need for such research: At virtually every institution we examined, the faculty have at some point analyzed the subsets of skills, knowledges, and per- sonal requirements necessary for competence in a role. Often this analysis has involved observations of actual performance in the role, interviews with exemplary performers of the role, or surveys of clients about what expectations they hold for competent performance in such roles. (p. 6) Summary Although many researchers have considered the concept of com- petency for student affairs officers, none has attempted to rank order competencies and to state them in behavioral terms for community- junior college student affairs deans. There is an apparent consensus among cited authors. Several identified counseling, interpersonal skills, research, and leadership/ administrative skills as the areas in which competencies will be most necessary for community-junior college student affairs workers and administrators and, indeed, for all other student affairs leaders. This may distress the proponents of separate training programs for community-junior college student affairs professionals. However, the predominant opinion appears to be that basic competencies are necessary regardless of the type of institution at which the student affairs professional is employed. Practicum or internship exposure at community-junior colleges has been proposed by Matson and others as the most effective way to prepare for employment at such institu- tions. 41 Chapter Summary The review of literature included four topic areas: develOp- ment of the community—junior college in the United States, the role of the chief student affairs officer in post-secondary education, the concept of competency as it relates to the preparation of student affairs workers, and finally, identification of competencies approp- riate for community-junior college chief student affairs officers. A paucity of material relevant to chief student affairs officers at community-junior colleges was apparent after analysis of library holdings, dissertation abstracts, ERIC publications, and pro- fessional journals. Frederick Brodzinski (1979), writing for the Jossey-Bass N§y_ Directions series, pointed student affairs administration toward the future and, in the process, identified challenges that may best be met by community college leaders: The time has come for a change in our orientation, for a new direction for student services, one that will not only permit us to continue our valuable contributions to student develop- ment but will also enable us to make a substantial contribution to our institutions and to create a secure place for ourselves in the institutional structure. For quite simply, to survive as a profession, we must become an effective and integral part of the higher education community. We must stimulate institu— tional change; we must lead the way into the uncharted areas of institutional no-growth, adult students, vocationalism, and consumerism. We need to develop new approaches, new programs, and new goals for student services based on the realities of the future and not on our past concepts. (p. vii) In order to meet the challenges Brodzinski set forth, the student affairs profession will need a corps of competent practitioners. Community-junior college chief student affairs officers may be the 42 first to confront new adult learners, vocationalism, and consumerism. This study attempted to provide a rank ordering of critical competen- cies necessary for student affairs leaders in the community-junior colleges of the 19805. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY This study was conducted to determine the perceptions of a carefully selected sample of current or former community-junior college chief student affairs officers about the critical competencies neces- sary for job performance in the 19805. The research incorporated a group of 12 student affairs leaders (authors, educators, researchers, etc.) who both nominated practitioners for inclusion in the study and were, themselves, studied. The elements of the study that are discussed in this chapter include: (1) design of the study, (2) selection of study participants, (3) development of the survey instrument, and (4) collection and treat- ment of information. Design of the Study This was a primarily nonstatistical, descriptive research project for which a field study was conducted. A group of prominent student affairs leaders and a group of current or former chief student affairs officers at community-junior colleges, whom the leaders nomi- nated for participation in the study, were asked to rank 12 competency areas according to perceived importance for the next decade. Group rank means for the competencies were compared. Mean group rankings 43 44 for men and women and for rural, suburban, and urban practitioners were also compared. Demographic information about age, highest academic degree attained, years in present position, enrollment at college where employed, reporting relationship to college president, was gathered and presented to further characterize study participants. Insufficient response to the request for information about student ethnic back- ground precluded inclusion Of that data in the study. Selection of Study Participants Originally, a Delphi study technique was proposed for this project. The Delphi research technique is a procedure developed by the Rand Corporation to obtain a consensus of Opinion among experts through a series of controlled questionnaire responses without face- tO-face contact (Uhl, 1971, p. 7). However, the diminishing response rate for repeated survey administrations and the potential effect on group consensus of intragroup correspondence precipitated rejection of the Delphi technique (Gazzola, 1971, p. 99). Therefore, a unique approach to obtaining consensus information was selected. Both experts and experienced practitioners were included in this study. They were contacted once, and their independent responses to a request to rank order competencies were compared. The need for expert input in a study that would project critical future competencies was apparent. With the help Of Dr. Max Raines, Professor of Higher Education at Michigan State University, a group of 12 outstanding student affairs leaders was identified. These leaders were selected for contributions to student affairs in education, 45 writing, research, and practical experience with the community-junior college movement. All were deemed capable Of identifying competent community-junior college chief student affairs Officers for participa- tion in this study. The leaders represented a wide geographic dis- tribution. In the spring of 1980, each of the 12 leaders was asked to nominate at least ten chief student affairs Officers who had served at a community-junior college and were perceived to be so outstanding as to be on the "cutting-edge" of future planning in their profession. Ten Of the experts responded and, subsequently, two others were selected to replace nonrespondents. Eventually this method produced more than 120 potential study participants. Nominations were cross- referenced for duplications, and 89 practitioners were identified for survey. The 12 leaders also responded to the survey questionnaire, bringing the total participant pool to 101. Questionnaires were sent to all 101 participants in May 1980. Seventy-two practitioners and all 12 leaders returned questionnaires after receiving the original request and one reminder letter. The geographic distribution and response rate for the persons surveyed are included in Table l. The 83.8 percent response included an 80.9 percent return rate for practitioners, which was well beyond a desired 75 percent response. The experts (leaders) who were chosen to nominate practitioners and their responsibilities at the time they were surveyed are listed below: 46 Table l.--Geographic distribution of study participants. State Surveys Sent Responses Arizona 8 7 California 11 11 Connecticut 1 0 Florida 11 11 Georgia 9 8 Idaho 1 1 Illinois 5 4 Iowa 1 1 Kansas 2 2 Maryland 2 1 Michigan 3 2 Nevada 2 2 New Jersey 5 4 New Mexico 1 1 New York 9 9 North Carolina 1 1 Ohio 2 2 Pennsylvania 7 7 South Carolina 1 1 Texas 9 8 Virginia 5 0 Washington 2 0 Wisconsin 1 1 Puerto Rico 1 O Canada 1 0 Totals 101 84 Percent responding = 83.8 10. 47 Dr. Lee Betts Director, Student Development Services ACCTion Center Hesston College, Kansas (Currently President, Muscatine Community College, Iowa) Dr. Norbert Dettmann Director, Texas Community-Junior College Association Austin, Texas (Currently at League for Innovation in the Community Colleges, Los Angeles, California) Dr. Laurine Fitzgerald Dean of the Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh Dr. Ernest Leach Dean of Students Prince George's Community College, Maryland Dr. Jane Matson Professor Of Education California State University, Los Angeles Dr. Ted Miller Professor of Education and Director, Student Development Laboratory University of Georgia Dr. Terry O'Banion Executive Director League for Innovation Los Angeles Dr. Max R. Raines Professor Of Higher Education Michigan State University, East Lansing Dr. Richard C. Richardson, Jr. Professor and Chair Department Of Higher and Adult Education Arizona State University, Tempe Dr. William A. Robbins President, W. A. Robbins Associates Faculty Member, Suny-Albany, New York (Currently Associate Professor, College Of Education, V.P.I. Richmond) 48 11. Dr. Charles C. Spence Dean Of Students Butler County Community College, Pennsylvania (Currently President, Clinton Community College, Iowa) 12. Dr. James L. Wattenbarger Director, Institute of Higher Education University of Florida, Gainesville The premise of the study was that competent practitioners would be the Optimum group to survey in order to ascertain the most critical competencies necessary for community-junior college chief student affairs Officers in the 19805. Therefore, rather than use a random sample Of practitioners, a panel of student affairs experts was asked to nominate participants for the study. Nominators were asked to select only those practitioners who had demonstrated exceptional com- petence and leadership as chief student affairs officers at community- junior colleges. The contention that survey respondents are particu— larly competent practitioners is, of course, Open to challenge, as is the implication that the nominators are experts. Nevertheless, the experts have made significant contributions to student affairs work in general and community college development in particular. NO attempt is made to aver that these 12 people are the only experts in the field, for, indeed, there are many others. Those who were asked to participate represented a wide geo- graphic distribution and therefore were able to nominate practitioners from throughout the United States. For this study a broad geographic distribution was desirable in order to compensate for regional and local priorities, which might otherwise have skewed the rank consensus in favor Of certain competencies. Responses were received from 72 practitioners representing 20 states and every region of the country. 49 Development Of the Survey Instrument A review of the literature, with special emphasis on the earlier work of Lynam (1970) and Minetti (1977), preceded the develop- ment of a competency list and the subsequent preparation of a ques- tionnaire for this study. Once the competency areas were identified, a concerted effort was made to list subcompetency functions in clearly behavioristic terminology. Although several authors have generated lists Of competencies (Lynam, 1970; Gares, 1973; Newton & Richardson, 1976; Minetti, 1977; Knott, 1977; Carmichael, 1979), few have stated competencies, tasks, or functions in behavioral terms. To facilitate understanding of per- formance objectives and provide evaluative guidelines, this study took a distinctively behavioristic approach to the problem of competency clarification. The following general competency areas were listed in the survey instrument: Budget/Material Competency, Consultation Compe- tency, Counseling Competency, Curriculum Development Competency, Governmental Articulation Competency, Leadership Competency, Minority Relations/Affirmative Action Competency, Outreach Competency, Personnel Management Competency, Professional Growth Competency, Research and Planning Competency, and Student Development Competency. These compe- tencies were cited consistently in the literature and mentioned most often in personal interviews with practitioners. Each competency was further defined and amplified by listing behaviors that are typically necessary for performance within the 50 competency area. A condensed listing Of competency behaviors follows: A. Budget/Material Competency 1. Understand budget policies at institution 2. Prepare budgets 3. Monitor expenditures 4. Supervise all buildings which house Student Affairs staff Consultation Competency l. Consult with faculty in their personal development 2. Consult with faculty in their career development 3. Plan and supervise career and life planning workshops for faculty 4 Plan and supervise career and life planning workshops for students Counseling Competency l. Counsel staff members in their personal development 2. Counsel staff members in their professional development 3. Make student referrals to appropriate professionals Curriculum Development Competency l. Supervise credit courses taught by Student Affairs staff 2. Work with faculty to develop new curricular areas and evaluate current programs Government Articulation Competency 1. Have knowledge Of state and federal regulations which affect student affairs policies 2. Establish relationships with community leaders and state and federal Officials 3. Identify grant sources and prepare written grant proposals Leadership Competency Conduct efficient staff meetings Show assertiveness when presenting departmental concerns across institutional lines Maintain respect Of and cooperation with student groups Show interest in student events and participate when appropriate Plan and implement student leadership programs and staff training programs 01 Am N-J o o o I O 51 Minority Relations/Affirmative Action Competency l. 2. 3. Be aware of affirmative action policies and maintain programs for minorities Show bilingual speech and writing skills when necessary Assure that minorities are represented on institutional boards or committees Outreach Competency 01-50) N-J o o o o 0 Maintain continuing relationships with civic groups Plan and implement on-campus visitation days for prospec- tive students Contact local businesses about future training priorities Generate endowment or Operating revenue Recruit new students Personnel Management Competency m-n-w N—' O O 0 Select, train, evaluate, discipline and terminate staff Understand and apply motivation theory with professional and clerical staff Make decisions in a timely manner Mediate intra and extra staff conflicts Develop and manage student regulations and handle disci- pline cases Professional Growth Competency 1. 2. 3. 4. Be active in student affairs organizations Be familiar with published materials in books, journals, etc. Write articles for professional journals Continue post-graduate work Research and Planning Competency m-th-fl o o o o 0 Set research priorities and accomplishment strategies Prepare yearly evaluations of all Student Affairs programs Develop long and short term mission statements Design and conduct institutional research studies Develop and maintain Student Affairs computer capabilities Student Development Competency 1. 2. 3. Develop appropriate methods for assessing needs of new students Supervise policies relating to psychological and educa- tional standardized tests Design and implement a comprehensive career personal development course for all students Establish a developmental skills program for students with limited academic backgrounds 52 Survey respondents were asked to indicate for each of the 48 behaviors whether it was perceived to be not important, important, or critical for performance in the 19805. After considering the impor- tance of each of the behaviors, each respondent was asked to rank order the 12 competency areas according to personal perceptions of critical importance in the current decade. To facilitate demographic comparisons, respondents were asked to indicate title, number of professionals supervised, age, degree attained, gender, years in position, and whether or not the college president was the direct superior. Information requested about the colleges at which respondents were employed included urban, rural, or suburban locations; enrollment; and ethnic composition of the stu- dent body. The survey instrument was field tested by a group of ten chief student affairs Officers and two doctoral committee members. Changes and additions were incorporated in a final survey format before mail- ing the instrument to the selected group of practitioners and student personnel leaders. The survey questionnaire was developed carefully after review Of previous research and interaction with community-junior college deans of students. A complete copy of the questionnaire is found in Appendix B. Collection and Treatment of Information In May of 1980, 101 surveys were sent to practitioners and experts. In June of 1980, reminder letters were sent to persons who 53 had not responded. By August 1980, more than 80 percent of the sur- veys had been returned. Each of the 12 experts surveyed responded promptly. Copies Of correspondence are included in Appendix A. Eighty-four returned and usable surveys (83.8%) were included in the data analysis for this study. Before treatment of data, it was necessary to test the survey instrument for reliability. There- fore, in November 1980, 25 practitioner respondents were selected at random for resurvey. Each of the 25 practitioners who were resurveyed was sent the original questionnaire and asked to complete it a second time. Fifteen practitioners returned the second questionnaire, a 60 percent rate of response. Using the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient test for reliability at the .002 confidence level, the mean rankings for each competency category on the first questionnaire were compared with mean rankings on the second questionnaire for the group of 15 resur- veyed practitioners. The formula used for the test Of reliability was as follows (Levin & Rubin, 1980, p. 497): 2 =l-6Xd S n(n2-l) Y‘ To compare rank orderings of practitioners versus experts, men versus women, and to compare rural, urban, and suburban college chief student affairs Officers, the SYMSTC Program for the PDP-ll computer was selected. This computer program enabled the researcher to compute means and standard deviations for desired grouped rankings of the 12 competency categories. 54 Since each respondent had ranked the competency categories in 1 through 12 descending order, grouped means were selected as most viable points of comparison. The researcher worked with a profes- sional computer programmer to develop the most suitable program for this study. The SYMSTC Program enabled statistical points of compari- son to be made based on the available rank-ordered data. Marx In Chapter III the procedures and research design for this study were presented. An explanation of and justification for the selection of participants was detailed. Information about survey content and demographic variables was included. Finally, the methods of statistical treatment and computer analysis were discussed. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA The analysis and interpretation of data collected from a selected sample of community-junior college chief student affairs Officers and a panel of distinguished student affairs educators is presented in this chapter. Information contained in this chapter includes: (1) Description of the Problem, (2) Interpretation Of Demo- graphic Data, (3) Interpretation of Data with Reference to Study Ques- tions, (4) Reliability of Survey Instrument, and (5) Summary. Description Of the Problem This study was conducted for the purpose of learning from chief student affairs Officers at selected community-junior colleges their perceptions of the critical performance-based competencies that they must possess in the 19805 in order to provide student affairs leadership at their institutions. Respondents were asked to assess the importance of 4B behaviors that amplified 12 major competency categories. Subsequently, study participants rank ordered the 12 competency categories. Respondents were selected only after having been nominated for study participation by one or more members of a panel of student affairs leaders, educators, and authors. The panel members also completed the study questionnaire, and their perceptions were compared 55 56 with those of the practitioners whom they had nominated for partici- pation in the study. Comparisons between male and female respondents were made, and analyses made with regard to perceptual differences about compe- tencies among chief student personnel Officers at rural, suburban, and urban community colleges. Because few graduate programs in student affairs or higher education administration use a competency-based learning approach, this study proposed to generate and rank order behaviorally stated competencies. Pairing recent competency research results with state- ments from successful practitioners, priority competencies were iden- tified that could be a valuable resource for graduate professional preparation program educators when reviewing curricular content empha- ses and planning practicum experiences. This research addressed one other area of concern for community- junior college chief student affairs administrators: staff development and continuing education endeavors. A list Of current on-the-job priorities could help to provide focus for staff development in the next decade. Many assumptions have been made about the nature of the job of a community-junior college chief student affairs administrator. How- ever, very little field research has been conducted that would support or refute assumptions. This survey was directed to those practitioners who, based on experience, training, and performance, would most likely be able to identify those competencies critical for community-junior college chief student affairs Officers. 57 Interpretation of Demographic Data All study participants, panel members and practitioners alike, were asked to indicate age, highest academic degree attained, gender, years in present position, enrollment at the college where employed, and reporting relationship to the college president. Statistical inferences were made for differences in gender among respondents. Other demographic data were gathered to provide a better understand- ing of the respondent group and are presented in ensuing paragraphs. Age of Respondents Of the 84 persons who completed and returned surveys, 40.5 percent were in the 40-50 age range. They represented the largest response group. Almost 30 percent were between ages 30 and 40, and 25 percent were between 50 and 60. It is interesting to compare the complete respondent age profile with that of the 12-member student affairs leader panel. More than 90 percent Of the leaders were over 40 years Old, whereas only 70.2 percent of the complete respondent group was over 40. Age range percentages for each group were similar for the 20-30 and 60+ categories. Table 2 presents complete age details. Highest Academic Degree Attained All 12 of the educational leaders who participated in this study had earned the doctorate degree. However, considering the entire sample Of 84 respondents, most of whom were chief student affairs Officers, 22.6 percent had not earned the doctorate degree. That figure is interesting because of their established records Of excellent 58 job performance. Nevertheless, Table 3 clearly indicates that the majority of respondents had earned the doctorate. Table 2.--Ages of leader panel compared to ages of combined leader and practitioner sample. Age Range Total Sample Leaders Total Sample % Leader % 20-30 0 0 0 0 30-40 25 1 29.8 8.3 40-50 34 5 40.5 50.0 50-50 21 4 25.0 33.3 50+ 4 1 4.7 8.3 Totals 84 12 100.0 99.9 Table 3.--Highest academic degree attained by respondents. Degree Number % Diploma 1 1.2 Bachelors O 0 Masters 11 13.1 Education specialist 7 8.3 Doctorate 65 77.4 Totals 84 100.0 Gender of Respondents Table 4 provides an accounting of respondents according to gender. NO particular effort was made to achieve gender balance in this survey. Leaders were selected based on contributions to student 59 affairs, and they nominated participants based on job performance. Nevertheless, the male and female respondent percentages roughly reflect the composition Of the leader panel, which included two women (16.6%). Table 4.--Sex of respondents. Sex Number % Male 71 84.5 Female 13 15.5 Totals 84 100.0 Years in Present Position The most significant revelation in Table 5 (longevity in cur- rent position) is that almost half the respondents had been in their current positions for less than five years. Only 3.6 percent had been in the same position for more than 15 years. It is apparent that this particular group of community-junior college chief student personnel Officers have been hired recently. The fact that only 3.6 percent have held present positions for more than 15 years may be explained, in part, by the relatively short history of community-junior colleges in many parts of the United States. 60 Table 5.--Number of years respondents have been in present position. Year Range Number % 0- 5 41 49.4 5-10 24 28.9 10—15 15 18.1 15+ 3 3.6 Totals 83 100.0 Student Enrollment at Respondent Institutions To gain a perspective about the kinds of institutions at which the survey respondents are employed, enrollment information was solicited. Community-junior colleges with student enrollments between 0 and 500 were considered to be small, those with enrollments between 500 and 5000 were considered to be average, and those with enrollments over 5000 were considered to be large. The sample can, therefore, be characterized as most representative of larger community colleges. Forth-five percent of the study participants who responded to the enrollment question are employed at colleges where student enrollment exceeds 5000. It is important to note that more than one-quarter of the survey participants failed to indicate enrollment figures, perhaps because many community college funding formulas are based on full- time-equated rather than actual-head-count enrollment figures. Com- prehensive enrollment information is presented in Table 6. 61 Table 6.--Enrollment at institutions where respondents are employed. Enrollment Range Number % O- 500 students 0 0 500-1000 students 13 21.7 2000-5000 students 20 33.3 5000+ students 27 45.0 Totals 50a 100.0 aTwenty-four survey respondents failed to indicate enrollment. Reporting Relationship The researcher wanted to know how many respondents reported directly to the presidents of their institutions. Almost three- quarters responded to the question about reporting relationship, and more than 70 percent do, in fact, report directly to the president. Chief student affairs officers who report directly to college presi- dents may have a greater influence on institutional priorities than those whose reporting responsibility is at less-than-cabinet level. Reporting relationship numbers and percentages are presented in Table 7. Demographic Data Summary While acknowledging the obvious fact that the participants in this study were not randomly selected, it is helpful to character- ize them demographically. Such a characterization helps to create a general impression about the persons whose input will be discussed and analyzed in this chapter. 62 Table 7.--Reporting relationship for respondents to their institution presidents. Relationship Number % Report directly to president 49 71.0 Spegpgezeport directly to 20 29.0 Total s 593 100. 0 aFifteen survey respondents failed to indicate reporting relationship. The collection of demographic data made it possible to char- acterize the sample as follows: (1) representing a wide cross-section of community-junior colleges in the United States, (2) male, (3) between 40 and 50 years of age, (4) holding an earned doctorate, (5) employed at an institution with a student enrollment greater than 5,000, (6) in present position less than five years, and (7) reporting directly to the chief executive officer of the institution at which employed. Interpretation of Data With Reference to Study Questions Introduction The study was concerned primarily with respondents' rankings of 12 competencies. Respondents were asked to rank order the compe- tencies according to degree of importance (or criticalness) for the next decade, both personally and as they believed their academic administrative colleagues would. Many respondents neglected to indi- cate perceptions of how colleagues would rank the competencies. 63 Therefore, analysis of data in response to the first study question is based upon respondents' personal rankings only. Although all study participants were encouraged to indicate competencies they believed were overlooked in the questionnaire list Of 12, only four respondents did 50. One respondent added "marketing" and “adult student learning" competencies. Others suggested "staff development," "legal aspects of student personnel," and "adjusting to new and changing conditions." While each suggestion might have been included as a behavior- istic statement amplifying a competency category, none seemed dis- tinctly deserving of independent competency status. Indeed, each could be interpreted to be included, implicitly, in one Of the 12 original competency categories. Having addressed the issues pertinent to the list of competen- cies, the method of analyzing ranked data had to be confronted. Since each respondent had rank ordered the 12 competencies, and the study sought to compare groups Of respondents, the decision was made to seek out mean rankings over specific groups. This technique facili- tated the necessary comparisons between several groups of respondents. The fact that an individual would be included in more than one group created another data-analysis problem. For example, one person could conceivably have been included in the large group "practitioners" and also the subgroups "suburban dean" and "female dean." One of two computer analysts consulted during the course of this study prepared a comprehensive SYMSTC program for the PDP-II computer, which enabled the researcher to cross-reference multiple subgroup mean rankings. 64 Study Question 1 How do perceptions of competency areas among student affairs administrators at rural community-junior col— leges compare with their counterparts in suburban and urban community-junior colleges? Of the 84 surveys that were returned, only 65 revealed a col- lege location. Eleven respondents classified themselves rural, 27 urban, and 27 suburban. Five expert panel members indicated location, and their first-ranking responses were included only in Table 10 in this chapter. In the rural sample, each respondent ranked each competency. The rankings were summed and a rural group mean identified for each competency category. The competency identified as having the smallest group mean was labeled most critical. This procedure was used to identify group competency rankings for urban, suburban, male, female, expert, and practitioner subgroups. Table 8 presents mean competency rankings for rural, urban, and suburban respondents. In Table 9 the competency categories are listed in rank order for the rural, urban, and suburban practitioner subgroups. It is interesting that respondents from all three college-location groups perceived the Leadership Competency to be the most critical for the next decade. The Leadership Competency, as further delineated behav- iorally in this study, included the routine (conduct of staff meetings), the practical (participation in student events), and the imaginative (planning student and staff training programs) aspects of leadership. The complexity of the competency category and the increasing demands 65 for intra- and extra-departmental direction may have influenced the critical designation for Leadership. Table 8.--Competency mean scores by location. Competency Rural Mean Urban Mean Suburban Mean Leadership 2.64 3.59 3.11 Personnel Management 2.73 4.00 4.81 Student Development 3.91 4.93 5.78 Budget/Material 5.18 4.59 4.74 Counseling 6.27 7.26 5.30 Outreach 6.73 7.48 6.67 Professional Growth 6.82 7.78 8.07 Research and Planning 6.91 6.30 7.00 Curriculum Development 6.91 7.67 7.44 Consultation 7.09 6.85 7.56 Governmental Articulation 8.18 9.52 8.89 Minority Relations] Affirmative Action 8.90 8.26 8.63 66 :owpmpauwpc< .p>oo cowpmpzumps< .p>ow mgmmmm< xpwcocwz NF» mcwawe< xwwcocwz mcmmee< auwsocwz coppmpzuwuc< .a>ow Fpe :pzocw Pacowmmmeocm guzogw chowmmmeoca cowpmpszcoo ope cowumppsmcoo Ez—somcczu mm gugmmmmm Espauwsczo cummcuso Amwuv Espauwcczu we mcwccmpa w zucawmom mcwpmmczoo guzogw chowmmmeoca me gummcpao :owpwupzmcoo :ummguao 0* “cosmopm>mo ucmuzpm mcwccmpa w socmmmmm mcmpmmczou ms mampmmcsou ummuam womvam 8% “cosmmmcmz Puccomgmm acmEQoPO>mo pcmuapm pcmsao_m>mo acouspm m» ammvzm unmemmmcaz Foccomcma pcmewmmcmz chcomgmm we awgmcmummg awgmcmommg amgmcmummg P4 cassansm cans: Pmcam xcmm .compmuop an mmcmxcmc zucmpmasouuu.m mpamp 67 An analysis of frequency of critical designations for the 48 behaviors listed within competency categories revealed that the five Leadership behaviors were checked as "critical" more often than other behaviors. A further reinforcement for the universal high ranking for the Leadership Competency is provided by computing the number Of times competencies were ranked first by respondents. Thirty-two respondents ranked Leadership first. Table 10 shows the rural, urban, and suburban number-one rankings. Table lO.--Tabu1ation of first rankings of competencies by location. Ranked lst Ranked lst Ranked lst Rural Urban Suburban Total Competency 1 1 32 1 Leadership Personnel Management Student Development Budget Counseling Outreach Consultation Research & Planning Curriculum Develop. Professional Growth Govt. Articulation Minority Affairs Totala COO-fl—l-J—INN-bww ooommmwpwooo NOODOOO—‘O-‘(fiw-b .—I (A) O N m \l O aTotal includes some expert respondents who chose to indicate location on their questionnaires. 68 The Leadership Competency is clearly perceived to be the most critical by a large plurality of student participants. Less clear are perceptions about the second most critical com- petency. Rural and urban respondents ranked Personnel Management sec- ond, while suburban respondents ranked Budget second. The most interesting response revealed by the group mean data in Table 8 was the perception about the Minority Relations/Affirmative Action competency. Although it might have seemed obvious that urban respondents would confront more minority concerns, means were almost identical for each group (rural 8.90, urban 8.26, and suburban 8.63). In addition, the groups ranked the competency either eleventh or twelfth. It is apparent that competency in minority and affirmative action tasks is not perceived to be critical by the community-junior college chief student affairs officers who participated in this study. When the top five competency rankings were compared, each of the three geographic groups included Leadership, Personnel Management, Budget, and Student Development. Urban respondents ranked Research and Planning as the fifth critical competency, while Counseling rated among the top five for suburban and rural respondents. Rural practitioners ranked Professional Growth seventh, but that competency fared no better than tenth among suburban and urban practitioners. Some respondents indicated that after ranking the first five competencies they had difficulty ranking the remaining seven. The general consensus across groups about the first five or six competen- cies is not apparent for the second six. 69 Survey results reveal that perceptions of critical competency areas are very similar for rural, urban, and suburban respondents. Leadership, Personnel Management, and Budget are the most consistently highly ranked competencies and, therefore, perceived to be most critical. Study Question 2 How do the judgments of a panel of nationally prominent student affairs educators about competencies compare with judgments of those community-junior college student affairs administrators recommended by the panel for inclusion in this study? Eighty-two respondents provided ranked competencies. Of that number, 70 were dean practitioners and 12 were members of the panel of distinguished educators. A major research objective was the compari- son of critical competency perceptions of these two groups. There were two reasons for asking this research question. First, it was important to understand how educators, authors, and leaders in student affairs perceived competency priorities for the 19805. A second concern was the need to assess whether or not leader concerns matched those of practitioners. The absence of a consensus might indicate that theory and practice were incongruent and that trainers and practitioners were working at cross-purposes. Table 11 compares competency means for the leader and prac- titioner groups. 70 Table ll.--Group competency means for leaders and practitioners. Competency Leadeeragel Mean Practifiigger Mean Budget/Material 5.58 4.71 Consultation 6.92 7.27 Counseling 7.50 6.36 Curriculum 8.00 7.59 Govt. Articulation 10.75 8.87 Leadership 2.33 3.24 Minority Affairs 8.92 8.53 Outreach 7.58 6.94 Personnel Management 3.58 4.17 Professional Growth 6.58 7.73 Research and Planning 6.08 6.73 Student Development 4.17 5.04 Table 12 provides leader and practitioner rankings for each competency. Just as with the earlier comparison of rankings according to geographic location, Leadership, Personnel Management, Student Develop- ment, and Budget competencies are included in the top five ranks by both leaders and practitioners. Regardless of how respondents are grouped, there seems to be considerable and consistent consensus about these four competencies. Of particular interest in the comparison of leader and practi- tioner perceptions are the differences in rank for Professional Growth, Counseling, and Outreach competencies. Although group means did not differ appreciably, the Professional Growth competency is ranked sixth 71 by the leader panel and tenth by practitioners. This disparity is understandable. All members of the leader panel have attained the terminal degree, and many are published authors and active in student affairs organizations. Several practitioner respondents have not earned the doctorate and may place a stronger emphasis on day-to-day practice than professional growth. Table 12.--Leader and practitioner competency rankings. Rank Leader Panel Practitioners #1 Leadership Leadership #2 Personnel Management Personnel Management #3 Student Development Budget #4 Budget Student Development #5 Research and Planning Counseling #6 Professional Growth Research and Planning #7 Consultation Outreach #8 Counseling Consultation #9 Outreach Curriculum #10 Curriculum Professional Growth #11 Minority Affairs Minority Affairs #12 Government Articulation Government Articulation Practitioners ranked the Counseling competency fifth, while the leader panel ranked Counseling eighth. Practitioners listed Outreach ninth. In both cases, the daily concerns with student con- tact, recruitment, and revenue generation may have influenced practi- tioners strongly. 72 An analysis of the frequency with which leaders and practi- tioners ranked each competency first (most critical) proved to be consistent with a similar analysis for respondents based upon geo- graphic location. Almost half the practitioners and two-thirds of the leader panel ranked Leadership as the most critical competency. Table 13 presents a tabulation of leader and practitioner first rank- ings. The first five competencies listed are the same as those iden- tified by practitioners when they were grouped according to geographic location. Table 13.--Tabulation of leader and practitioner first rankings. Ranked First Ranked First by Competency by Leaders Practitioners Total (N=12) (N=69) Leadership 8 3O 38 Personnel Management O 10 10 Student Development 2 8 10 Budget 0 8 8 Counseling 0 4 4 Consultation 0 3 3 Outreach l 2 3 Research and Planning 1 2 3 Curriculum Development 0 2 2 Professional Growth 0 O 0 Government Articulation O O O Minority Affairs 0 O O 73 Although all respondents were asked to indicate whether each of the 48 behavioral, task-oriented statements within competency cate- gories was unimportant, important, or critical, many chose not to do so. However, after analyzing a scattergram of responses for leaders and practitioners, two of the task-oriented statements were identi- fied by almost all respondents as critical. "Understanding budget policies at the institution" was perceived as critical by 10 leaders and 55 practitioners. The same number of leaders and practitioners designated "Demonstrate appropriate assertiveness in presentation of departmental concerns across institutional lines" as critical. The fact that these behaviors were singled out as most critical by so many respondents helped to account for the fact that the Budget and Leader- ship competency categories were consistently ranked among the most critical by leaders and practitioners. A listing of the 48 competency behaviors and the percentage of respondents who perceived them to be critical is presented in Appendix C. Study Question 3 How do the perceptions of male study participants compare with those of female study participants? Within the past two decades, women have assumed more adminis- trative positions in higher education, and there is reason to believe that women administrators will fill even more significant roles in higher education in the 19805. There are more women earning doctorates and more women assuming dean-level responsibilities each year. Refer- ence was made in much of the literature reviewed during this study to the expanding role of women in higher education. Therefore, a 74 comparison between competency perceptions of male and female study participants was included in the design of the study. However, the 101 persons selected for participation in this study included only 15 women. Of those who returned usable surveys, 13 were women. Two of the 12 leader panel members were women, chosen because of contributions to college student affairs work in general, and com- munity college development in particular. Of the 15 women surveyed, 11 were nominated by the male panel members, 4 by the female panel members. There was no indication of a predilection among panel members for the selection of males for participation in the study. Nor was the composition of the participant group based on any assumption that there were more competent males in community-junior college leadership posi- tions. Study participation gig_reflect the fact that community-junior college chief student affairs officers were, in 1980, predominantly male. Table 14 provides a display of male and female group mean rankings for all 12 competencies. Sixty-nine men and 13 women com- pleted questionnaires well enough for use in this part of the study. It was in comparing group means for the 12 competency cate- gories for male and female respondents that the first real disparity became evident. Whereas the perceptions of study participants classi- fied as practitioners and experts, or classified by geographic loca- tion, had been strikingly similar, the male and female classifications revealed significant differences in perceptions about competency importance. 75 Table l4.--Male and female competency mean scores. Competency M?A:69§an FemaleBMean Budget 5.23 3.29 Consultation 7.14 7.21 Counseling 6.23 7.86 Curriculum 7.39 8.79 Government Articulation 9.22 8.43 Leadership 3.17 3.36 Minority Affairs 8.77 7.21 Outreach 6.88 8.43 Personnel Management 4.36 3.00 Professional Growth 7.62 7.36 Research and Planning 6.59 6.79 Student Development 4.67 6.29 Table 15 reveals the order in which men and women ranked the 12 competency categories. Men and women did not concur on any of the 12 ranks. Leadership, ranked first among all other subgroups of participants, was placed third by female respondents. Personnel Management was perceived by females to be the most critical competency for the 19805. The greatest difference in male and female rank orders was for Counseling. Men ranked Counseling fifth and women ranked it ninth. Men ranked the Outreach competency seventh, whereas women ranked it tenth. Despite the lack of agreement between the two groups, analysis of the ranked competencies revealed the fact that, once again, 76 Leadership, Student Development, Personnel Management, and Budget were among the five most critical competencies. Just as with all other subgroups identified in this study, these four competencies were perceived to be the most important. Table 15.--Fema1e and male competency rankings. Rank Female (N=l3) Male (N=69) #1 Personnel Management Leadership #2 Budget Personnel Management #3 Leadership Student Development #4 Student Development Budget #5 Research and Planning Counseling #6 Consultation . (tie) Research and Planning Minority Affairs #7 Outreach #8 Professional Growth Consultation #9 Counseling Curriculum #10 Government Articulation (tie) Professional Growth Outreach #11 Minority Affairs #12 Curriculum Government Articulation Another perspective on the male/female comparison is provided in Table 16, which shows the number of times each competency category was ranked first by the respective groups. Table 16 reveals that, despite ranking Leadership third through the computation of competency mean rankings, female practitioners and leaders agreed with their male counterparts and, by a large plurality, gave the most first-place rankings to the Leadership competency. The competencies ranked second, 77 third, fourth, and fifth in Table 16 coincide exactly with those ranked by practitioners and experts and the subgroup divided by geographic location. Table l6.--Tabulation of first rankings of competencies by men and women. Competency R3212: (N:69)By EgnggsFENi13§y Total Leadership 32 6 38 Personnel Management 9 l 10 Student Development 8 2 10 Budget 7 l 8 Counseling 4 O 4 Research and Planning 2 2 4 Outreach 3 O 3 Consultation 2 l 3 Curriculum 2 O 2 Professional Growth 0 O 0 Government Articulation O O O Minority Affairs 0 O 0 Totals 69 13 82 Summary of Study Question Analyses The 84 original respondents were categorized according to geographic location, professional status, and sex. Regardless of how the subgroups were defined, the Leadership, Student Development, Personnel Management, and Budget competencies were consistently ranked among the top five critical competencies. 78 The subgroup of female participants was the only one to not rank Leadership first. Nevertheless, more individual women ranked Leadership first than any other competency. Implications of this study with regard to current student personnel graduate programs or to community college staff development and continuing education programs will be addressed in the ensuing chapter on Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Reliability of the Survey Instrument This study centered on a survey of prominent educational leaders and community college practitioners. All data and subsequent inferences were derived from responses to a request that study par- ticipants rank order a group of 12 student affairs competency cate- gories, based upon perceptions of critical importance for community- junior college chief student affairs officers during the 19805. To make projections for the next ten years, based on question- naire responses, it was important to establish confidence in the survey instrument, upon which so much depended. It was determined, after consultation with a professional statistician, that a reliability test over time would be necessary to ascertain whether or not the question- naire that was developed for this study elicited similar responses from survey participants six months after the original responses. In November 1980, 25 original respondents were selected at random to be resurveyed. Fifteen responded to the second administra- tion of the survey questionnaire. 79 Using the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient Test for reliability, group ranks for each competency category for the May 1980 questionnaire administration were compared with ranks for the November 1980 administration. Table 17 reveals group ranks and means for each competency for both time periods. Table l7.--Grouped means and competency ranks for resurveyed practitioners. Mean for Mean for Competency May 1980 Nov. 1980 May Rank Nov. Rank (N=15) (N=15) Budget 4.53 5.06 4 4 Consultation 7.13 7.80 7.5 9 Counseling 5.53 5.46 5 5 Curriculum 7.13 7.86 7.5 10 Government Articulation 9.06 9.26 12 12 Leadership 4.00 3.06 2 l Minority Affairs 8.93 8.93 11 11 Outreach 8.40 7.53 9 7 Personnel Management 3.46 3.80 l 2 Professional Growth 8.73 7.66 10 8 Research and Planning 6.80 7.00 6 6 Student Development 4.33 4.60 3 3 A comparison of May and November 1980 competency rankings for the group of 15 practitioners who were selected randomly for resurvey revealed very little difference in either group means for each compe- tency or the rank-ordering process. Leadership and Personnel Management 80 ranks reversed over the six-month period, but third, fourth, fifth, and sixth ranked competencies remained the same. It has already been stated that original survey respondents had difficulty deciding about rank ordering beyond the fifth selection. In fact, several respondents indicated that they found the requirement to rank order all 12 competencies to be cumbersome. However, a smaller group of competency categories would not have provided the depth and breadth of professional behaviors deemed appropriate for this study. Resurveyed study participants seemed to be very sure of the first five competency ranks over a six-month period of time. However, the rest of the competency rankings were altered slightly between initial response and resurvey. This difference may have resulted more from the difficulty associated with trying to rank order so many com- petencies than from actual change in perception about how critical competencies were. The Spearman Test employed the squared differences between the first rankings and second rankings for each competency and resulted in a reliability correlation coefficient of .9353. This coefficient was cross-referenced with the Spearman Table, which revealed a probability of error less than .002. A desired reliability coefficient of .75 was far exceeded in this case, and the questionnaire met and surpassed the expectation that it stand the test of time. 81 Summary This chapter included the analysis and interpretation of the data obtained through a survey of community-junior college chief stu- dent affairs officers and a panel of college student affairs leaders and educators. The data analysis provided answers to three major study ques- tions. No substantial differences were found between the critical competency perceptions of rural, urban, and suburban practitioners. Similarly, there were no significant differences between the top com- petency ranks of educational leaders and chief student affairs officers at community-junior colleges. These two groups did differ considerably in their comparative perceptions of the Professional Growth compe- tency, ranked sixth by the leaders and tenth by the practitioners. More differences were found between male and female perceptions of critical competencies. Women respondents ranked the Personnel Man- agement and Budget competencies first and second, whereas men ranked them second and fourth. The men ranked Counseling and Outreach fifth and seventh, whereas women ranked those competencies ninth and tenth. Women were the only subgroup to rank the Minority Affairs/Affirmative Action competency in the top half of the competency list. Despite minor differences in lower rankings, there was a clear consensus among study participants that the following competencies, in order of ranking, were most critical for the 19805: Leadership, Per- sonnel Management, Budget, and Student Development. This chapter also included statistical support for the reliability of the survey questionnaire used in this study. There 82 were very few differences between original and resurvey competency ranks for a randomly selected group of community-junior college chief student affairs officers. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter V is a summary of the study presenting the findings, conclusions based upon those findings, and reconmendations for the future. Information presented in this chapter relates only to the group of persons who participated in this study. Inferences about the impact of this study on all community-junior college chief student affairs officers in the 19805 are speculative. m It was the purpose of this study to identify and define criti- cal areas of competency in student affairs administration as they are perceived by a panel of educational leaders epg_by selected community- junior college chief student affairs officers. In May 1980, more than 100 chief student affairs officers and the educational leaders who recommended their participation in this study were surveyed via questionnaire. Response was excellent, and by August 1980, 84 questionnaires (83.3%) had been returned. Subse- quently, two responses were determined to be completely unusable and one useful for only part of the study. After all responses were tabulated, and following a thorough literature review that facilitated generation of competencies used in the questionnaire, a plan was implemented for the purpose of establishing 83 84 the reliability of the survey instrument. Twenty-five respondents were selected randomly to be resurveyed so that their initial compe- tency rankings could be compared to a second set of ranked competen- cies six months later. Rank comparisons revealed a very favorable .9353 reliability coefficient. Ultimately, analysis of data by subgrouping resulted in a clear consensus among study participants. The Leadership, Personnel Management, Budget, and Student Development competencies were consis- tently ranked among the top five critical competencies for community- junior college chief student affairs officers in the 19805. Presentation of Findings The survey response group included 72 current or former com- munity college chief student affairs officers and 12 persons selected to comprise a panel of experts who had made significant contributions to community college student affairs work. The pool of respondents was divided into subgroups according to geographic location, practi- tioner versus leader status, and gender. Group means for ranked stu- dent affairs administrative competencies were compared across subgroups. Findings of these comparisons follow: 1. Rural, suburban, and urban community-junior college deans of student affairs all ranked Leadership as the most critical compe- tency. 2. Although not in exactly the same order, all three geo- graphic region subgroups of community-junior college student affairs deans ranked Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Management competencies among the top five critical competencies. 85 3. A comparison between leader panel member and practi- tioner competency rank means revealed that Leadership was ranked as the most critical competency by both groups. 4. Both leader panel members and practitioners concurred in ranking the Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Management competencies among the top five critical competencies. 5. Women respondents ranked Personnel Management as the most critical competency, while their male counterparts listed Leadership as most critical. 6. When rankings of men and women respondents were compared, the Leadership, Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Management competencies were included among the top five critical competencies by both subgroups. In addition to findings about subgroup comparisons, the study revealed the following: 1. Despite being encouraged to add new or different competen- cies to those included in the questionnaire, survey respondents listed only five competencies, all of which could be included within the pur- view of an existing competency. 2. Consistency marked the subgroup comparisons of top rankings, whereas randomness prevailed at the lower end of the rankings. Conclusions The findings in the preceding section of this chapter led to the following conclusions: 86 1. Respondent competency rank comparisons enabled the researcher to conclude that, for the participants in this study, geo- graphic location of the community-junior college (rural, urban, or suburban) had no effect upon critical competency perceptions. 2. Members of the leader panel and surveyed practitioners agreed that Leadership was the most critical competency for a community-junior college chief student affairs administrator and that Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Management were among the top five competencies. Therefore, it was concluded that there was a consensus between surveyed leaders and practitioners as to which of the 12 student affairs competencies were most critical for chief stu- dent affairs officers at community-junior colleges in the 19805. 3. Male and female study participants did not concur in rank- ing the most critical competency. Although these particular subgroups did agree with other subgroups in ranking Leadership, Student Develop- ment, Budget, and Personnel Management among the top five critical competencies, it was apparent that comparison of these two subgroups revealed the most differences in perceptions. 4. A comparison of ranked means and frequency of first rankings enabled the researcher to conclude that Leadership, Personnel Management, Budget, and Student Development were perceived to be the most critical competencies and that Minority Relations/Affirmative Action and Government Articulation were perceived to be least critical. 5. Although it may be argued that the list of 12 competencies used in this study is not comprehensive, the fact that survey respond- ents did not add to the list supports the conclusion that, among survey 87 participants, the list of 12 student affairs competencies was per- ceived to be complete. These conclusions support the contention of many authors (Caple, 1972; McDaniel, 1972; Dewey, 1972; Matson, 1977; Peterson, 1977) that competent practitioners will be needed in community-junior college chief student affairs positions and that training should be directed toward acquisition of specific skills. The practitioners and leaders who responded to the study survey supported the previous recommendations for administrative competence in Leadership, Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Management of several authors (Lynam, 1970; Knott, 1977; Nordvall, 1977). Respondents to the survey used in this study repudiated some of Matson's (1977) most important competencies by relegating Counsel- ing, Curriculum, and Outreach competencies to relatively low rankings. However, Matson, who was one of the first to promote particular competencies for community-junior college student affairs practitioners, listed entry-level competencies and these competencies may not be as important later, when one assumes the role of the chief student affairs officer at a community-junior college. The most important conclusion derived from this study was that, after considering 12 competency areas that were amplified in behav- ioral terms, both leader panel members and current practitioners agreed that the Leadership, Student Development, Budget, and Personnel Manage- ment competencies were the most critical for community-junior college chief student affairs officers in the 19805. That agreement may make 88 it possible to attain the goal Newton and Richardson (1976) advo- cated when they stressed that in order to have effective training for competence responsive communication must be maintained between the needs of practicing professionals and training programs. implications for Graduate Programs As early as 1965 (Cosby) and 1966 (Mueller) indicated that lack of specific skill training caused graduates to enter the student personnel profession underprepared. Knott (1977) found that profes- sional training in student affairs was ample in quantity but defi- cient in quality and scope. Matson (1977) was more specific When she emphasized that community college field experience was essential for training programs for future community college student affairs professionals. The needs expressed by these authors and the findings of this study were the bases for the determination of the following as impli- cations for current graduate programs in student affairs adminis- tration: 1. Because almost 40 percent of surveyed practitioners were employed at campuses with student enrollment exceeding 5,000, and because the increase in community colleges means more student affairs positions, persons in charge of graduate curricula should give serious consideration to increasing course Offerings and practical experiences that focus on the community college movement. 2. Graduate programs should include additional opportunities to develop the behaviors relevant to the Leadership competency. 89 McDaniel (1972) had called for this curricular emphasis in adminis- trative skills. Such opportunities might include examination of the leadership styles of prominent administrators, invitations for students to attend departmental meetings, and training in debate. 3. Because budget responsibilities were stressed so strongly by survey respondents, it would be advantageous for graduate edu- cators to require some business or accounting coursework for student personnel majors. Hedlund (1971) and Bolton (1974) advocated more preparation in areas related to business administration. 4. Practitioners have identified the Personnel Management competency as critical. Therefore, graduate students might benefit from comprehensive training in conflict resolution, decision making, application of motivation theory, delegation, performance evaluation, change management, and staff development. 5. An area of current student affairs graduate training emphasis is counseling (Peterson, 1977; Rodgers, 1977). An implica- tion of this study may be the relatively low priority placed on coun- seling competence by study participants. 6. In this study, competency categories were further defined by listing behavioral tasks. A clear implication for graduate edu- cation is the need to reassess programs and incorporate as many competency-based experiences as possible. 90 Implications for Staff Development and Continuing Education Programs for Community-Junior College Student Affairs Administrators The implications of the study results for staff development and continuing education programs for chief student affairs officers at community-junior colleges are as follows: 1. Community college student affairs professionals below the rank of chief student affairs officer should be provided with opportunities to practice leadership competencies within the job framework and be evaluated on leadership performance. These profes- sionals could be asked to chair staff meetings, serve on interdepart- mental committees, and assume student organization advisory respon- sibilities. 2. Since Personnel Management was listed as a high-priority competency, community college chief student affairs officers should consider providing convenient work schedules and appropriate resources so that staff persons can enroll in courses that will enhance person- nel management skills. 3. Staff development efforts should include more opportuni- ties for budget preparation, explanation, and justification. Accounting courses are Offered at most community colleges and might be a worthy addition to a competency-based staff development program. 4. The high priority placed on Student Development by par- ticipants in this study signals the impact of developmental education on community college curricular decisions. Every opportunity could be offered to student affairs professionals to become involved in assess- ment and enhancement of entering community college student skills. 91 Recommendations Based upon the findings of this study, the following general and research recommendations are made: General Recommendations 1. Competency-based professional preparation programs for student affairs professionals who plan to work at community colleges would be a helpful addition to graduate education. 2. Graduate curricula should include more business courses. Study results clearly demonstrate an interest in competencies that are, at least peripherally, related to the business curriculum. Courses in Organizational Theory and Principles of Collective Bargain- ing would be helpful. Research Recommendations 1. Because survey respondents were asked to project which competencies would be most critical for community college chief stu- dent affairs officers in the 19805, this study should be replicated in the middle of the decade to determine if respondent perceptions of critical competencies remain the same. 2. The concept of a nominated research sample is unique. This competency-ranking study should be repeated using a random sample of community college chief student affairs officers. There are more than 1,400 community-junior colleges in the United States, and representatives of only 70 colleges were included in this study. A larger, random sample would help to make a future study more generalizable. 92 3. Further research is necessary in the area of competency priorities. It is recommended that such research provide for a delineation of regional differences in perception of competency importance. 4. Critical competency identification studies should be conducted for other community college administrative positions and appropriate comparisons made to responses of chief student affairs professionals. Because top administrators must communicate and cooperate to fulfill institutional missions, it would be helpful to know which competencies academic, fiscal, and continuing education deans perceive to be most critical. APPENDICES 93 APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE 94 APPENDIX A May 6, 1980 Dr. Charles C. Spence Clinton Community College 1000 Lincoln Boulevard Clinton, Iowa 52732 Dear Dr. Spence: Under the direction of Dr. Max Raines of Michigan State University I am studying critical competency areas for chief student personnel administrators in community-junior colleges. You have been nominated for inclusion in this study by one of the following prominent edu- cators or practitioners: Dr. Raines, Dr. Laurine Fitzgerald, Dr. Lee Betts, Dr. Norbert Dettman, Dr. Theodore Miller, Dr. William Robbins, Dr. Jane Matson, Dr. Richard C. Richardson, Dr. Terry O'Banion, Dr. Mary Howard, Dr. Ernest Leach, and Dr. James Wattenbarger. Because this study employs a highly selective sample, your prompt completion and return of the enclosed questionnaire is imperative. You are one of one hundred current or former chief student personnel officers identified as particularly competent by one or more of the previously listed educators. I have enclosed a stamped, self-addressed envelope for the purpose of quick response. Please help me to identify competencies criti- cal for all of us in this new decade. Thank you for your help and your immediate attention to this questionnaire. Sincerely, Richard J. Robertson, Dean of Students Butler County Community College Butler, PA 16001 RJthma Enclosures 95 96 May 25. 1980 Dr. Charles C. Spence Clinton Community College 1000 Lincoln Boulevard Clinton, Iowa 52732 Dear Dr. Spence: Thank you for your prompt completion and return of my doctoral dissertation questionnaire. Your cooperation will make my study a valid one. I am very grateful for your willingness to respond promptly. Sincerely, Richard J. Robertson Dean of Students Butler County Community College Butler, PA 16001 RJthma 97 May 28, 1980 Dr. Charles C. Spence Clinton Community College 1000 Lincoln Boulevard Clinton, Iowa 52732 Dear Dr. Spence: A year ago you were kind enough to nominate Community College Chief Student Personnel Officers for inclusion in my doctoral dissertation study, which is under the direction of Dr. Max Raines of Michigan State University. Questionnaires have been sent to the people whom you nominated. I would like to compare their responses and percep- tions with yours. Would you please complete the enclosed question- naire and return it to me at your earliest convenience. Your participation in my study is greatly appreciated. I will be happy to send you a copy of the results of the study. The question- naire was developed as a result of literature review and personal interviews with current Community College Chief Student Personnel Officers. Sincerely, Richard J. Robertson Dean of Students Butler County Community College Butler, PA 16001 RJthma Enclosure 98 June 20, 1980 Dr. Charles C. Spence Clinton Community College 1000 Lincoln Boulevard Clinton, Iowa 52732 Dear Dr. Spence: Almost three weeks ago I sent you a questionnaire and asked you to participate in a directed doctoral research project. Because you were nominated for participation by one Of 12 nationally prominent educators, it is very important for me to have your input. Only 100 people in the United States have been identified as particularly outstanding practitioners. You are among those 100 people. Please take a few minutes of your time to complete and return your questionnaire. It is important to have your responses even if you are not currently serving as a chief student personnel officer. My personal dilemma is an approaching dissertation deadline. I will be most grateful for your help and your participation. Sincerely, Richard J. Robertson Dean of Students RJR:tma 99 November 17, 1980 Dr. Charles C. Spence Clinton Community College 1000 Lincoln Boulevard Clinton, Iowa 52732 Dear Dr. Spence: Approximately five months ago you assisted me by completing and returning a questionnaire for my doctoral dissertation study. The study is completed. However, my committee wants me to do a relia- bility check on the questionnaire. I need your help. Would you please take another ten minutes of your valuable time, complete the questionnaire again, and return it to me as soon as possible. If you will help me again, I will be happy to send survey results to you. You are one of a selected group of deans or former deans nominated by a panel of prominent educators for inclusion in this study. I am most grateful for your assistance. Sincerely, Richard J. Robertson Dean of Students RJR:tma Enclosures APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE 100 10. . Name APPENDIX B A PROJECTION OF CRITICAL COMPETENCY AREAS FOR CHIEF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS IN COMMUNITY JUNIOR COLLEGES IN THE 1980's Position or Title College Name Number Of Professionals You Supervise Your Age: 20 - 3O 30 - 4O 4O - 50 50 - 60 60 + Education Highest Degree Bachelors Masters Specialist Doctorate Sex Years in Present Position—— College Information a. Urban__.. Rural __ Suburban b. Student Ethnic Percentages 96 White __ 96 Black _ 96 Hispanic 96 American Indian __ 96 Asian _ 96 Other c. Head Count — Full Time Equated Day __ Evening No Do you report directly to the President of your College? Yes 101 102 For the purpose of this study 12 competency categories have been identified and listed. Please indicate to what extent each competency is perceived by YOU to be critical for the next decade. Then rank the competencies in priority order assigning a “l" to the most important. Please add any other critical competency areas not included in those listed. BUDGET/MATERIAL COMPETENCY Understand budget policies at institution Not . . Important Important Critical Prepare budgets up to two years in advance Monitor expenditures 99’!" Supervise, equip, and arrange maintenance for all buildings which house Student Affairs personnel CONSULTATION COMPETENCY Foster and respond to opportunities to consult with faculty: in personal development in career development 7. Plan and supervise professional development and training workshops in career and life planning for: faculty students COUNSELING COMPETENCY Counsel staff members in: their personal development 10. in their professional development 11. Make student referrals to appropriately trained professionals when necessary CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT COMPETENCY 12. Supervise development of credit courses taught by student personnel staff members 13. Work with staff, faculty, and administrators to develop new curricular areas and evaluate current curricular programs 103 GOVERNMENTAL ARTICULATION COMPETENCY 14. Maintain working knowledge of state and federal rewlations which impact student development policies and services Not Imp. Imp. Crit. 15. Establish and maintain on-going relationships with key leaders in community agencies and with: state officials 16. federal officials l7. Identify grant sources and prepare written proposals for grant funded programs and or personnel LEADERSHIP COMPETENCY 18. Conduct staff meetings in an organized manner 19. Demonstrate appropriate assertiveness in presentation of departmental concerns across institutional lines 20. Maintain the respect of and cooperation with student groups and organizations 21. Demonstrate an active interest in student events and participate when appropriate 22. Plan and implement student leadership programs and provide appropriate levels of staff training MINORITY RELATIONS/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION COMPETENCY 23. Be fully aware of and responsive to minority/affirmative action policies and regulations and develop and maintain programs for a variety of new constituencies 24. When necessary, demonstrate bi-lingual writing and speech skills or a responsive- ness to becoming bi-Iingual 25. Assure minority representation on institutional policy making boards or com- mittees OUTREACH COMPETENCY 26. Maintain a continuing relationship with significant civic groups 27. Plan and implement on-campus visitation days for prospective students 28. Confer with local business and industry representatives about future community priorities 29. Generate endowment and/or operating revenue 30. Recruit new students 104 PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT COMPETENCY 31. Select. train, evaluate. discipline and terminate staff Not Imp. Imp. Crit. 32. Understand motivation theory and apply it to working with professional and cIericaI staff members 33. Make decisions effectively and without undue delay 34. Mediate intra and extra staff conflicts 35. Develop and manage student regulations including disciplinary administration PROFESSIONAL GROWTH COMPETENCY 36. Take an active role in student personnel organizations 37. Maintain familiarization with material published in professional journals, books, and papers 38. Write articles for professional journals on a regular basis 39. Continue post-graduate coursework RESEARCH AND PLANNING COMPETENCY 40. Set research priorities and identify appropriate strategies to accomplish them 41. Prepare written evaluations Of all Student Affairs programs on a yearly basis 42. Develop written long and short term departmental mission statements 43. Design and conduct systematic institutional research studies 44. Develop and maintain computer capabilities in Student Affairs STUDENT DEVELOPMENT COMPETENCY 45. Develop appropriate methods for entering student assessment 46. Supervise policies and procedures associated with administration of psychological and educational standardized tests 47. Design and implement a comprehensive career/personal development course for all students 48. Establish and supervise a developmental skills program for students with limited academic backgrounds 105 THE TWELVE COMPETENCIES ARE LISTED BELOW IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER. WOULD YOU PLEASE RANK THEM IN BOTH COLUMNS. (Most significant ranked 1, least significant ranked 12) COMPETENCIES RANK ORDER OF SIGNIFICANCE (As currently manifested or responded to by my administrative colleagues) RANK ORDER OF SIGNIFICANCE (As I feel the emphasis should be) 10. 11. 12. . Budget/Material competency Consultation Competency Counseling Competency Curriculum Development Competency Governmental Articulation Competency Leadership Competency Minority Relations/Affirmative Action Competency Outreach Competency Personnel Management Competency Professional Growth Competency Research and Planning Competency Student Development Competency APPENDIX C THE 48 COMPETENCY BEHAVIORS AND THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO PERCEIVED THEM TO BE CRITICAL 106 APPENDIX C THE 48 COMPETENCY BEHAVIORS AND THE PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO PERCEIVED THEM TO BE CRITICAL Competency Behavior (Competency Area in Parentheses) % of Respondents Who Perceived This Behavior to Be Critical 10. 11. . Understand budget policies at institution (Budget) . Demonstrate appropriate assertiveness in presentation of departmental concerns across institutional lines (Leadership) . Select, train, evaluate, discipline, and terminate staff (Personnel Management) . Maintain the respect of and cooperation with student groups and organizations (Leadership) . Recruit new students (Outreach) Plan and supervise professional develop- ment and training workshops in career life planning for students (Consultation) . Make decisions effectively and without undue delay (Personnel Management) . Prepare written evaluations of all student affairs programs on a yearly basis (Research and Planning) . Be fully aware of and responsive to minority/affirmative action policies and regulations and develop and maintain programs for a variety of new constituencies (Minority/Affirmative) Conduct staff meetings in an organized manner (Leadership) Understand motivation theory and apply it to working with professional and clerical staff members (Personnel Management) 107 65% 65% 63% 58% 56% 55% 55% 50% 48% 46% 46% 108 Competency Behavior (Competency Area in Parentheses) % of Respondents Who Perceived This Behavior to Be Critical 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Develop written long and short term depart- mental mission statements (Research and Planning) Monitor expenditures (Budget) Work with staff, faculty, and administra- tors to develop new curricular areas and evaluate current curricular programs (Curriculum) Maintain working knowledge of state and federal regulations which impact student development policies and services (Government) Make student referrals to appropriately trained professionals when necessary (Counseling) Plan and implement student leadership programs and provide appropriate levels of staff training (Leadership) Establish and supervise a developmental skills program for students with limited academic backgrounds (Student Development) Mediate intra and extra staff conflicts (Personnel Management) Demonstrate an active interest in student events and articipate when appropriate (Leadership) Develop appropriate methods for entering student assessment (Student Development Counsel staff members in their profes- sional development (Counseling) Confer with local business and industry representatives about future community priorities (Outreach) 46% 44% 43% 43% 42% 42% 39% 38% 37% 37% 35% 35% 109 Competency Behavior (Competency Area in Parentheses) % of Respondents Who Perceived This Behavior to Be Critical 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Design and implement a comprehensive career/personal development course for all students (Student Development) Maintain familiarization with material published in professional journals, books, and papers (Professional Growth) Identify grant sources and prepare written proposals for grant funded programs and or personnel (Government) Assure minority representation on insti- tutional policy making boards or commit- tees (Minority/Affirmative) Foster and respond to opportunities to consult with faculty in career develop- ment (Consultation) Maintain a continuing relationship with significant civic groups (Outreach) Develop and maintain computer capabilities in student affairs (Research and Planning) Prepare budgets up to two years in advance (Budget) Develop and manage student regulations including disciplinar administration (Personnel Management Set research priorities and identify appropriate strategies to accomplish them (Research and Planning) Foster and respond to opportunities to consult with faculty in personal develop- ment (Consultation) Plan and implement on-campus visitation days for prospective students (Outreach) 32% 31% 30% 30% 26% 26% 26% 24% 24% 24% 23% 23% 110 Competency Behavior (Competency Area in Parentheses) % of Respondents Who Perceived This Behavior to Be Critical 36. 37. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Plan and supervise professional development and training workshops in career life plan- ning for faculty (Consultation) Supervise development of credit courses taught by student personnel staff members (Curriculum) . Establish and maintain on-going relationships with key leaders in community agencies and with state officials (Government) Take an active role in student personnel organizations (Professional Growth) Design and conduct systematic institutional research studies (Research and Planning) Counsel staff members in their personal development (Counseling) Generate endowment and/or operating revenue (Outreach) Supervise policies and procedures asso- ciated with administration of psychologi— cal and educational standardized tests (Student Development) Establish and maintain on-going relation- ships with key leaders in community agencies and with federal officials (Government) Supervise, equip, and arrange maintenance for all buildings which house student affairs personnel (Budget) Write articles for professional journals on a regular basis (Professional Growth) Continue post-graduate work (Professional Growth) When necessary demonstrate bi-lingual writing and speech skills or a responsiveness to becoming bi-lingual (Minority/Affirmative) 20% 20% 20% 20% 17% 15% 15% 15% 10% 7% 6% 5% 4% BIBLIOGRAPHY 111 BIBLIOGRAPHY American College Personnel Association. "The Role and Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Institutions of Higher Learning." Journal of College Student Personnel 8 (January 1967): 62-65. American Personnel and Guidance Association. "Guidelines and Compe- tencies." Personnel and Guidance Journal 47,5 (1969): 495. Appleton, James R.; Briggs, Channing M.; and Rhatigan, James J. Pieces of Eight. Portland, Oregon: NASPA, 1978. Blackburn, John L. Cited in Pieces of Ei ht. Edited by James R. Appleton. Portland, Oregon: NAS , 1978. Blocker, Clyde E., and Richardson, Richard C. "Human Relations Are Important." Junior College Journal 34 (April 1964): 19-22. Bolton, Christopher R. "Recent Graduates' Perceptions of Their Doctoral Training Programs in College Student Personnel." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1974. Bowen, Howard R. Investment in Learning. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, 1977. Brodzinski, Frederick R., ed. Utilizing Futures Research. San Francisco: Jossey—Bass, 1979. Brooks, Gary D., and Avila, Jose F. "A Profile of Student Personnel Workers in Junior and Community Colleges." Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (November 1973): 532-36. Brown, Robert D. "Reaction." In Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals, pp. 64-67. Edited by Gary H. Knock. Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Associa- tion, 1977. . Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher Education--A Return to the Academy. Washington, D.C.: The American College Per- sonneT'Association, 1972. Burnett, Collins W. "School and College Personnel Workers." Review of Educational Research 24 (April 1954): 121-33. 112 113 Caple, Richard B. "A Molar Model for the Training of Student Personnel Workers." Counselor Education and Supervision 12 (September 1972): 31-41. Carmichael, Bobby J. "A Model for Developing Administrative Inservice Development Needs in a Multi-Campus Community College." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, 1979. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. A Special Report. New York: The Carnegie Foundation, 1970. Chandler, Marjorie 0., and Huff, Robert A. A Taxonomy of Instructional Programs in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970. Cohen, Arthur M., and Roueche, John E. Institutional Administrator or Educational Leader?--The Junior College President. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969. Collins, Charles C. "Junior College Student Personnel Programs: What They Are and What They Should Be." A discussion based on the findings and recommendations in the report Junior College Student Personnel Programs--Appraisal and Development. Washington, DLC.: American Association of Junior COlleges, 1967. Connors, Maureen R., and Pruitt, Anne S. "Teaching Goal-Setting in the Preparation of Student Development Specialists." Journal of College Student Personnel 19 (November 1978): 527-31. Cosby, Betty. "Professional Preparation for Student Personnel Work in Higher Education." NAWDAC Journal 29 (Fall 1965): 14-19. Cowley, W. H. "The History and Philosophy of Student Personnel Work." NAWDAC Journal 4,3 (1940): 153-62. Crookston, Burns B. "An Organizational Model for Student Development." NASPA Journal 10 (July 1972): 3-14. Cross, K. Patricia. "Higher Education and the Student Personnel Administrator." NAWDAC Journal 29 (Fall 1965): 5-9. Davies, Timothy G. "Proposed Behavioral Competencies for Members of the Junior College Presidential Cabinet." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. DeHart, A. Robert. Cited in Developing Staff Potential: New Directions for Community Colle es. Edited by Terry O'Banion. San Francisco: Jossey- ass, 1977. 114 Dewey, Mary Evelyn. "The Student Personnel Worker of 1980." NAWDAC Journal 35,2 (1972): 59-64. Dinniman, Andrew E. "Observations on the Evolution of the Student Affairs Deanship." NASPA Journal 14 (Spring 1977): 2-9. Domeier, Patricia E. "A Study to Examine the Training of Student Affairs Administrators for Specified Competency Tasks." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Eldridge, Donald A. "New Dimensions for the Two-Year College." Junior College Journal 38 (September 1967): lO-12. Fitzgerald, Laurine E.; Johnson, Walter F.; and Norris, Willa, eds. College Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1970. Gabor, Dennis. Inventing the Future. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964. Gares, Glen Taylor. "Professional Student Personnel Competencies as Perceived by College Student Personnel Educators and Practi- tioners." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1973. Gazzola, Peter G. "The Effect of the Delphi Technique on Group Con- sensus in Educational Planning." Ph.D. dissertation, Univer- sity of Arizona, 1971. Getzels, J. W., and Guba, E. G. "Social Behavior and the Adminis- trative Process." The School Review 65 (Winter 1957): 423-44. Giles, Frederic T. "The Junior College Leadership Program." Junior College Journal 31 (February 1961): 321-26. Gleazer, Edmund J. "Into the 80's." Community and Junior College Journal 50 (February 1980): 3. . This Is the Community College. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1968. Grant, Gerald et a1. On Competence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979. Hedlund, Dalva E. "Preparation for Student Personnel: Implications for Humanistic Education." Journal of College Student Per- sonnel 12 (September 1971): 324-28. Hodgkinson, Harold L. "How Deans of Students Are Seen by Others and Why." NASPA Journal 8 (July 1970): 49-54. 115 Hurst, James C., and Ivey, Allen E. "Toward a Radicalization of Student Personnel." Journal of College Student Personnel 12 (May 1971): 165-68. Knott, J. Eugene. "Some Perspectives on Carts and Horses in Student Development." Journal of College Student Personnel 18 (September 1977): 434-44. Lee, John W. "Overcoming the Organizational Productivity Paradox in Post Secondary Education." In Management Principles for the Community College Administrator. Edited by Robert L. Breuder. Cocoa, Florida: 1977. Leonard, Eugenie A. Origins of Personnel Services in American Higher Education. Minneapolis: Univer5ity ofTMinnesota Press, 1956. Levin, Richard 1., and Rubin, David S. Applied Elementary Statistics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980. Lilley, George W. "Functions of Chief Student Personnel Officers in Selected Colleges." NASPA Journal 11 (Winter 1974): 7-10. Lynam, William J. "A Study of the Administrative Competencies Needed by the Community College Academic Dean and a Model of Their Translation Into Behavioral Statements Related to Administra- tive Training Experiences." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Lynd, Albert. "The Identification of Criteria for Evaluating Graduate Programs in Higher Education at Big Ten Institutions." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1976. Matson, Jane E. "The Development and Care of Community-Junior College Student Personnel Specialists." In Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals, pp. 103-23. Edited by Gary Knock. Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1977. "Student Personnel Services in Two-Year Colleges: A Time for Charting New Directions." Peabody Journal of Education 48 (July 1971): 276-81. . "Student Personnel Work Four Years Later: The Carnegie Study and Its Impact." In Student Development Programs in the Community Junior Colle e. Edited by Terry O'Banion and Alice Thurston. Englewood'Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, 1972. McConnell, T. R. "Foreword." In Junior College Student Personnel Programs: Appraisal and Development, by Max R. Raines et al. ‘A report to the Carnegie Corporation. American Association of Junior Colleges, 1965. 116 McDaniel, Reuben R. "Organization Theory and the Preparation of TOYdTBS Personnel Workers." NASPA Journal 10 (October 1972): Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Miller, Theodore K., and Prince, Judith S. The Future of Student Affairs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976. Minetti, Robert H. "An Analytical Description of the Relationship Between the Academic Training and Assistantship Experiences of Master's Degree Programs in Student Personnel Administra- tion." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Monroe, Charles R. Profile of the Community College. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972. Mood, Alexander M. The Future of Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Moore, William. Blind Man on a Freeway. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1971. Mueller, Kate H. Student Personnel Work in Higher Education. Cambridge, Mass.: The Riverside Press, 1961. . "Three Dilemmas of the Student Personnel Profession and Their Resolution.“ NAWDAC Journal 29 (Winter 1966): 81-91. Neher, Timothy, and Potter, Christopher. "The Experience of Learning. In New Directions for Community Colleges: Humanizing Student Services. Edited by Arthur Cohen and Florence Brawer. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1974. Newton, Fred B., and Richardson, Robert L. "Expected Entry-Level Competencies of Student Personnel Workers." Journal of College Student Personnel 17 (September 1976): 426-30. Nordvall, Robert C. "Evaluations of College Administrators: Where Are We Now?" NASPA Journal 15 (Fall 1977): 53-60. O'Banion, Terry. New Directions in Community College Student Personnel Pro rams. Washington, D.C.: American C01lege Personnel Association, 1971. . Teachers for Tomorrow. Tucson: University of Arizona Press,*1972. Ogilvie, William K., and Raines, Max R., eds. Perspectives on the Community-Junior College. New York: Meredith Corp., 1971. 117 Ostroth, D. David. "Master's Level Preparation for Student Personnel Work." Journal of College Student Personnel 16 (July 1975): 319-22. . "Procedures and Criteria Used in Selecting Entry~Level College Student Personnel Professionals." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1979. Palinchak, Robert. The Evolution of the Community College. Metuchen, N.J.: The Scarecrow Press, 1973. Penney, James F. Perspective and Challenge in College Personnel Work. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C. Thomas, 1972. Peterson, William D. "What the Doctor Prescribed: A Process-Outcome Approach to Student Personnel Education.“ In Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Professionals, pp. 40-64. Edited by Gary Knock. Washington, D.C.: American College Personnel Association, 1977. Raines, Max R. "A Life Centered Student Affairs Program.“ NASPA Journal 15 (Summer 1977): 2-10. et 81. Junior College Student Personnel Programs: Appraisal and Development. A report to the Carnegie Corporation. American Association of Junior Colleges, 1965. Rodgers, Robert F. "Student Personnel Work as Social Intervention." In Perspectives on the Preparation of Student Affairs Profes- sionals. PP.—12-34. Edited by Gary Knock. Washington, D.C.: rican College Personnel Association, 1977. Svoren, Donald 5. "Significant Areas of Behavior Resulting From the Interaction of Chief Student Personnel Officers and Chief Executive Officers on Three Tasks in Michigan Colleges and Universities." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Thrash, Patricia A. "The Changing Role of the Student Personnel Dean." NAWDAC Journal 29 (Fall 1975): 10-13. Thurston, Alice J.; Zook, Fredric B.; Neher, Timothy; and Ingraham, Joseph. The Chief Student Personnel Administrator in the Public Two-Year College. Washington, D.C.: American Associa- tion of’Junior Colleges, 1972. Tilley, David C.; Benezet, Louis T.; Katz, Joseph; and Shanteau, William. The Student Affairs Dean and the President: Trends in Higher Edhcation. *Ahn Arbor, Mich.: ERIC/COPS, 1979. 118 Tollefson, Arthur L. New Approaches to College Student Development. New York: Behavioral Publications, 1975. Uhl, Norman P. Identifying Institutional Goals. Durham, North Carolina: National Laboratory for Higher Education, 1971. Williamson, E. G. Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Univer- sities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Wochner, Raymond E. Competency-Based Preparation of Educational Administrators. Tempe: Arizona State University Press, 1976. Wrenn, C. Gilbert. "The Development of Student Personnel Work in the United States and Some Guidelines for the Future." In [he Individual and the System: Personalizing Higher Education. Edited by John Minter. Boulder, Colorado: Western Inter- state Commission for Higher Education, 1967. . "The Selection and Education of Student Personnel Workers." Personnel and Guidance Journal 31 (October 1952): 9-14. Zoglin, Mary Lou. Power Politics in the Community College. Palm Springs, Calif.: ETC Publications, 1976. Zwerling, L. Steven. Second Best: The Crisis of the Community College. New York: McGraw-HilT] 1976. RIEs "‘iliililllllllllll