INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy o f the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, die quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If i t was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may received. have indistinct print. Filmed as University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor. Michigan 48106 USA St. John's Road. Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP 10 8HR 7815148 M A R LE R , J O H N DAV ID S ON , JR. an a p p r a i s a l OP the d o c t o r a l p r e p a r a t i o n OP c o l l e g e s t u d e n t P E R S O N N E L A D M I N I S T R A T O R S in THE D E P A R T M E N T OP A D M I N I S T R A T I O N a nd h i g h e r E D U C A T I O N AT M I C H I G A N S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y -, 1985 7 7 M I C H I G A N S T A TE U N I V E R S I T Y , PH. D. , 1978 Uni\«r5ifc/ Microfilms International w o n z ie b h o a o .a n n a rb o r © .m m bk * 1977 JOHN DAVIDSON MARLER, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED JR. AN APPRAISAL OF THE DOCTORAL PREPARATION OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1965-77 By John Davidson Marler, Jr. A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1977 ABSTRACT AN APPRAISAL OF THE DOCTORAL PREPARATION OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1965-77 By John Davidson Marler, Jr. Purpose The purpose of the study was an appraisal of the doctoral preparation of college student personnel admin­ istrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University during the period fall 1965 through spring 1977. Procedure A comprehensive list of six college student per­ sonnel doctoral program learning goals and 34 related learning objectives were developed from a review of the literature and related research. These learning goals and objectives were used as a standard with which to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student per sonnel administrators at Michigan State University. Doc toral graduates of the Department who were employed in college student personnel positions were asked to rate John Davidson Marler, Jr. the relevance of each learning objective to their current professional responsibilities and to rate the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of each learning objective. A total of 87 out of a possible 95 (91.5%) questionnaires were completed and returned. Findings Forty percent of the graduates held key college student personnel administrative positions of vice president of student affairs, dean, associate or assistant dean of students. Eighty-seven percent of the graduates were employed in positions compatible with employment objec­ tives they held while working toward their doctorate and 83% of the graduates were very satisfied or satisfied with their current employment position. Graduates in the study had an average of 10 years of experience in the college student personnel field and their average annual salary was in the category of $22,000 to $24,999. College student personnel learning objectives in program goal five— understanding administrative theory, principles, concepts, and methods and the development of administrative skills of organizing, administering, planning, financing, budgeting, promoting, and referring— was rated as the most relevant to the graduates’ current professional responsibilities. The graduates' combined ratings of the contribution of the doctoral program to John Davidson Marler, Jr the achievement of college student personnel doctoral pro­ gram learning goals and objectives was well above the mean possible score. Program goal one— to provide the graduate student with a professional orientation to the field of college student personnel administration— received the highest contribution rating. In the study doctoral graduates rated the contri­ bution of 22 doctoral program components toward their pro­ fessional development. Of the 22 program components the program cognate received the highest overall rating and the management cognate was rated the highest on the con­ tribution to professional development scale. When asked what they considered to be the most valuable learning experience in their doctoral program, graduates most often responded that it was their relation­ ship with their major professor. Graduates considered the flexibility of the doc­ toral program in meeting individual career interest and preparation needs as a major strength of their doctoral program. The most frequently mentioned doctoral program weakness was the lack of or inadequate course content in the area of fiscal management including budgeting, account ing, and finance. Based on the findings of the study, it was con­ cluded that the doctoral preparation of college student John Davidson Marler, Jr. personnel administrators in the Department of Administra­ tion and Higher Education was generally successful in preparing college student personnel administrators during the period between fall 1965 and fall 1977. To Inez and John Marler, my parents, for their love, faith, understanding and devotion ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer expresses his appreciation to members of his doctoral committee: Dr. Van Johnson, Chairman and Co-director of the dissertation study; Dr. Walter Johnson, Co-director of the dissertation study; Dr. Don Nickerson; and Dr. Richard Gonzalez, Cognate Advisor, for their encouragement, direction, and support. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. Lou Stamatakos for his critique of the dissertation proposal and his friendship and encour­ agement during the doctoral program experience. The writer wishes to express special appreciation to his best friend and wife, Midge, for her enduring love and faith during the dissertation experience. Without her wisdom, counsel, and encouragement the dissertation would never have been completed. The writer expresses appreciation to his friend, Bob Minetti, dissertation; for his support and consultation on the to Dick Sanderson for his permission to use his dissertation study design in the present study; to Tom O'Shea for sharing the findings of his research on the history of the Department of Administration and iii Higher Education and demographic data on doctoral graduates of the Department. Appreciation is expressed to Jeanne Bunch, my colleague in the College of Veterinary Medicine, for her encouragement, patience, and understanding during the demanding and sometimes frustrating experiences of com­ pleting the dissertation. Finally, appreciation is expressed to the writer' fellow doctoral students who were members of the "Higher Education Group" for their encouragement, friendship. support, and TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. II. INTRODUCTION .................................. 1 ................. Statement of the Problem Purposes of the S t u d y ..................... .............. Theory and Related Research Research Questions ........................ Significance of the S t u d y ................. Design of the S t u d y ........................ 8 8 10 14 14 16 P o p u l a t i o n ............................... Survey Instrument ........................ Data C o l l e c t i o n ........................... Data A n a l y s i s ........................... 16 18 19 20 Definition of T e r m s ........................ Limitations of the S t u d y ................. Organization of the S t u d y ................. 21 22 23 REVIEW OF L I T E R A T U R E ........................ 25 Introduction ............................... Four Historical Themes of the Student Personnel Field in Higher Education . . Student Development: An Emerging Theme . The Role and Function of College Student Personnel in Higher Education— The P r e s e n t .................................. Future Roles and F u n c t i o n s ................. Summary of the Literature on the Role and Function of College Student Personnel Professionals Present and Future . . . Professional Preparation of College Stu­ dent Personnel Administrators . . . . Recommended Program Emphases . . . . Summary of the Literature Relevant to Program E m p h a s e s ........................ Suggested Areas of S t u d y ................. Summary of Literature Related to Suggested Areas of Study .............. v 25 26 28 30 36 43 46 46 51 52 61 Page III. Criticisms of College Student Personnel Preparation Programs ................... Discussion of Literature Related to Criticisms of College Student Per­ sonnel Preparation Programs............. Evaluation of College Student Per­ sonnel Preparation Programs............. 68 Summary...................................... 74 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ...................................... 77 Research Questions ......................... Primary Tasks of the S t u d y ................ Development of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Objectives . . Comprehensive Learning Objectives for Col­ lege Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives............. The Sample................................... The Survey Instrument ...................... Collecting the Data......................... Data Analysis................................ IV. ANALYSIS OF THE D A T A ......................... Introduction ................................ Purposes of the S t u d y ...................... Number of Graduates Returning the Survey Questionnaire ............................. Characteristics of the Graduates . . . . Present Employment Positionof Graduates . Type of Employing Institution and State Residence of Graduates ................ Primary Type of Employment Responsi­ bility of G r a d u a t e s ................... Mean Percentage of Time Spent by Grad­ uates in Administrative, Teaching, Counseling, Research, Consulting, and Other Duties............................. Area of the Institution in Which Grad­ uates Are Employed...................... Number of Graduates Employed in Key Col­ lege Student Personnel Administrator Positions................................ 63 66 77 78 78 79 84 85 86 87 89 89 89 92 92 93 94 97 97 98 99 Page Compatibility of Present Employment Position and Primary Employment Objectives Held While Working Toward the D o c t o r a t e .................. Job Satisfaction of Graduates with Their Present Employment Positions . . Average Annual Salary of Graduates . . . Number of Years of Experience of Grad­ uates in College Student Personnel Prior to the Completion of Their Doctoral Degree......................... 102 Number of Years of Experience of Grad­ uates in College Student Personnel Since Completing Their Doctoral Degree . Total Number of Years of Experience in College Student Personnel ............. 99 101 101 102 104 Educational Experiences and Activities of G r a d u a t e s .................................... 104 Doctoral Program Emphasis of Graduates in the Study................................. 104 Doctoral Graduates Conducting Disser­ tation Studies in College Student Personnel.................................... 106 Number of Graduates Studying Full-Time and Part-Time while Completing Their Doctoral Program Course Work . . . . 107 Number of Graduates Writing Their Dis­ sertations while Holding Full-Time E m p l o y m e n t ................................. 108 Mean Age of G r a d u a t e s .......................... 109 Relevance of College Student Personnel Doc­ toral Program Learning Goals and Objec­ tives to Graduates' Current Professional Responsibilities .......................... 109 College Student Program Goal College Student Program Goal College Student Program Goal College Student Program Goal College Student Program Goal College Student Program Goal Personnel Doctoral I ............................. 110 Personnel Doctoral II............................. 112 Personnel Doctoral I I I .......................... 112 Personnel Doctoral IV............................. 114 Personnel Doctoral V ............................. 115 Personnel Doctoral V I ............................. 118 vii Page Contribution of Doctoral Program to the Achievement of College Student Person­ nel Learning Goals and Objectives . . . College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal I .......................... College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal I I ....................... College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal I I I ....................... College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal I V ....................... College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal V .......................... College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal V I ....................... Graduates' Evaluation of Components of Their Doctoral Program.................... Courses, Seminars, Independent Study, and Practical Experiences— Category I . Comprehensive Exams— Category II . . . Dissertation— Category I I I ............. Residency— Category I V .................... Informal Study Groups— Category V . . . Association with Participants in the Doctoral Program— Category VI. . . . Specific Course and Seminar Areas— 139 Category V I I ................... Doctoral Program Cognates— Category V I I I ............................. 140 Graduates' Responses to Open-ended Ques­ tions About Their Doctoral Program Experiences at Michigan State University. Would the Graduate Return to Michigan State University?................ 145 Changes Graduates Would Make in Their Doctoral Program ....................... Most Valuable Learning Experiences in the Doctoral Program............ 148 Major Strengths of Doctoral Preparation Program at MSU. ............. Major Weaknesses of the Doctoral Prepar­ ation Program at M S U ............ 150 Areas of Inadequate Preparation. . . . viii 125 126 126 127 127 128 12 8 135 136 137 137 138 138 139 144 146 149 152 Page Suggestions for Improving the Doctoral Preparation of College Student Per­ sonnel Administrators ................. 153 Differences in the Perceptions of Grad­ uates within Sub-populations as to the Relevance and Contribution of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives . . . . H y p o t h e s e s .......................... 155 156 Differences on Ratings of Relevance . Differences on Ratings of Contribution . . 159 172 S u m m a r y ..................................... Characteristics of the Graduates. . . . 180 181 Employment and Professional Activities . Educational Experiences and Activities of G r a d u a t e s ........................... Other Characteristics of Graduates . . 181 Relevance of Program Learning Goals and Objectives to Graduates' Current Pro­ fessional Responsibilities ............. Contribution of the Doctoral Program to the Achievement of Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives . . . . Graduates' Evaluation of Components of Their Doctoral Program ................. Differences in the Perceptions of Grad­ uates within Sub-populations as to the Relevance and Contribution of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives . . . . Graduates' Responses to Open-ended Questions about Their Doctoral Pro­ gram E x p e r i e n c e s ............... 185 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 182 182 182 183 184 184 . 187 Introduction .............................. Summary of the Development of the Study . 187 188 Chapter 1 ......................... Chapter I I ...................... Chapter I I I ...................... 188 189 190 Page College Student Personnel Doctoral Pro­ gram Learning Goals and Objectives . . Chapter IV— Summary of the Findings of the S t udy..................... 191 195 Characteristics of the Graduates . . Education Experiences and Activi­ t i e s ............................ 196 Mean Age of Graduates........... 197 Relevance of CSP Doctoral Program Learning Objectives to Graduates' Current Professional Responsi­ ........................... bilities Contribution of the Doctoral Program to the Achievement of CSP Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objec­ tives .............................. Contribution of Doctoral Program Components to Professional D e v e l o p m e n t ....................... Differences in the Perceptions of Graduates within Sub-populations as to the Relevance and Contribu­ tion of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and O b j e c t i v e s .................... Graduates' Responses to Open-ended Questions about Their Doctoral Program Experiences................. C o n c l u s i o n s .............................. Recommendations ........................... 195 197 19 7 2 01 202 203 206 213 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. B. L E T T E R S .............................. 217 Q U E S T I O N N A I R E .......................... 219 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY .............................. 226 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 4.1. Present Employment Position of Graduates . 4.2. Residence of G r a d u a t e s ................... 4.3. Primary Type of Professional Responsibility of G r a d u a t e s ......................... 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. , 95 96 97 Mean Percentage of Time Spent by Graduates in Six Different Types of Duties . . . . 98 Area of the Institution in Which Graduates Are Employed............................ 99 Number of Graduates Employed in Key College Student Personnel Administrator Positions . 100 Responses of Graduates to the Question# "Are You Now Employed in a Position Which Is Compatible with the Employment Objectives You Held While Working Toward Your Doc­ torate?" ................................... 100 4.8. Job Satisfaction of Graduates............ 101 4.9. Annual Salary of Graduates............... 102 Graduates' Number of Years of Experience in College Student Personnel Prior to Com­ pleting Their Doctoral Studies......... 103 Number of Years of Experience of Graduates in College Student Personnel Since Com­ pleting Their Doctoral D e g r e e ......... 103 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. 4.13. Doctoral Graduates with Program Emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration Number of Graduates Conducting Dissertation Studies in the Field of College Student P e r s o n n e l ................ xi . 106 107 Table Page 4.14. Number of Graduates Studying Full-Time and Part-Time While Completing Their Doc­ toral Program Course W o r k ........ 108 4.15. Number of Graduates Writing Their Disser­ tations While Holding Full-Time Employ­ ment ....................................... 109 Relevance of College Student Personnel Doc­ toral Program Learning Goals and Objec­ tives to Graduates' Current Professional Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . 119 4.16. 4.17. 4.18. 4.19. 4.20. 4.21. 4.22. Contribution of Doctoral Program to the Achievement of College Student Per­ sonnel Learning Goals and Objectives . 129 Extent of Contribution of Program Components to Graduates' Professional Development. . 141 Responses of Graduates to the Question, "If You Were to Begin Your Doctoral Program Again, Would You Attend Michigan State University?" 146 Responses of Graduates to the Question, "What Changes Would You Make in Your Doctoral Program if You Were to Begin It A g a i n ? " ................................ 147 Responses of Graduates to the Question, "Do You Have Professional Responsibili­ ties in Your Present Position for Which Your Doctoral Program at MSU Provided ................ Inadequate Preparation?" 153 Differences on Ratings of Relevance of Col­ lege Student Personnel Learning Goals and Objectives to Respondents' Current Pro­ fessional Responsibilities— Means, Stan­ dard Deviations, Significant Chi Square, and Variable Effects of All College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives............. 166 xii . Table 4.23. Page Differences on Ratings of Contribution of Doctoral Program to the Achievement of College Student Personnel Learning Goals and Objectives— Means, Standard Devia­ tions, Significant Chi Square, and Variable Effects of All College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives .................... xiii 174 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Historically the professional preparation of college student personnel professionals has been contro­ versial (Rhatigan, 1968). In recent years there has been increasing concern among college student personnel edu­ cators, practitioners, and professional associations about the content and process of professional preparation pro­ grams. Much of the concern is related to issues about the present and future role of college student personnel professionals and the graduate preparation appropriate for them. Some of the traditional student personnel functions are being challenged by professionals in the field and by others in the higher education community. Traditional functions such as discipline and out-of-class control are giving way to student development concepts as the "in loco parentis" role of universities wanes and students gain more voice in the governance of their lives (Brown, 1972). There is an increasing summons from within the profession for student personnel professionals to view themselves 1 2 as behavioral scientists, and there is a growing volume of research and thought on what promotes student develop­ ment (Brown, 1972). Walter Johnson (1970) states that student personnel professionals of the future "will com­ bine the roles of educator, provider of services, and student development specialist . . . " and that they ". . . will be expected to serve as consultants to faculty and administration in interpreting students1 behavioral and developmental needs which can be met through educational programs" (p. 11). Chandler (1973) states that "student development concepts will evolve on campuses in differing rates and by different means . . ." and " . . . that there will be a transitional state of undetermined length and depth" (p. would deny ment, 393). Cross (1972) states that "while few the importance of the goals of student develop­ . . ., no one has formulated a specific program for reaching the goals and we find it very difficult indeed to determine whether or not student development has taken place" (p. 23). She predicts that the student personnel field will continue to derive its legitimacy primarily from the service functions, while at the same time attempt to increase the knowledge and understanding of student development. The last five years have seen a major identity crisis develop in the field of student personnel, but the crisis has out of it, new been a healthy one because, 3 visions of appropriate personnel functions are emerging (Harvey, 1974) . Harvey believes that the field of stu­ dent personnel will take on significant changes over the next 25 years: It will begin to merge with educational administra­ tion; it will have to help higher education in general to accept the concept of avuncularity in place of "in loco parentis"; and it will have to conceive of functions and paradigms— particularly counseling, curriculum, ombudsman bureaucracy, and environment, instead of office. (p. 243) It appears that the college student personnel field like higher education in general is in a state of transfor­ mation and that new roles and functions are emerging for both. If the role and function of student personnel professionals is to change, it follows that professional preparation programs must change accordingly (O'Banion, 1969) . It is possible that traditional preparation pro­ grams for college student personnel professionals are not completely consistent with problems and competency needs of today's practitioner of college student per­ sonnel. Dewey (1972) observed that college student per­ sonnel preparation programs have caused criticism of the field because of their limited design, repetition and lack of imagination. Tracy (1971) indicated that high priority should be given to the evaluation and improve­ ment of existing college student personnel preparation programs. 4 Data for evaluating graduate programs may come from various sources including the professors and graduates of the program. Professors may recognize the need for certain changes and seek to implement them. However, Warnath (1956) points out that the kind of char­ acteristics valued in training programs by educators are not always the same as those needed on the job later and that practitioners in the field can provide useful infor­ mation about the value of their educational experiences. A large portion of doctoral graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University have pursued careers in the college student personnel field. As college student personnel practitioners, these graduates are aware of the problems and competency needs of the profession and therefore may be able to offer valuable suggestions for improving the preparation of college student personnel administrators at MSU. To date, doctoral graduates of the Department who have pursued careers in the college student personnel field have not formally appraised their doctoral preparation program. The beginnings of the doctoral program in higher education at Michigan State University can be traced back to the mid 1950s.^ Ewing's (1963) chronology of ^•Tom O'Shea is conducting a study of graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University in which he completed a chapter on the history and development of the Department. 5 the establishment of instructional courses in higher education administration revealed that the date of the first course offering as stated by the institution was 1955. Since 1955, the number of course offerings in higher education administration has steadily increased. During the 1950s doctoral students pursuing careers in student personnel work took courses in the Guidance and Counseling Department at MSU as well as administration courses in the Department of Administra­ tion and Higher Education. In 1964 a sub-committee appointed by Dr. John E. Ivey, Dean of the College of Education, was given the charge "to study the current academic programs at the graduate level in the area of college student personnel work and to make recommendations regarding the establishment of masters and doctoral pro­ grams within the projected Institute for Higher Education in the College of Education.” Members of the sub-committee were Drs. Walter F. Johnson, Laurine E. Fitzgerald, and Eldon R. Nonnamaker. The sub-committee recommended a doctoral level program in college student personnel administration with a core of courses as follows: (1) a four-term continuous seminar "to focus on the following aspects of student personnel services: legal, financial- budgetary, student activities, housing and food service, and special services (counseling, orientation, etc.); (2) Established courses in the higher education 6 sequence: administration, instruction, evaluation, higher education in the United States and other courses of a similar nature." Also the sub-committee recommended that all doc­ toral candidates in the College Student Personnel Admin­ istration program participate in a college student per­ sonnel internship experience as part of their doctoral studies. Professor Walter F. Johnson and other faculty in the Department of Administration and Higher Education developed a statement on the graduate program in College Student Personnel Administration at MSU which included a "program mission statement." The heterogeneity of student bodies and curricula and the complexity of organizing and administering programs relevant for them have produced a great demand for professional personnel who are knowl­ edgeable about concepts of growth and development of young people, are skilled in human relations, and possess the expertise required to administer a wide variety of specialized services and activities for and with students. The mission of this program, then, is (1) to select and provide professional preparation for personnel who will function in the various levels and types of programs represented in the field; (2) to give leadership in helping the college student personnel profession to achieve its appropriate identity and to assume its proper place in the complex composition of the modern college and university; (3) to participate in continuing research activities designed to make the profession responsive to the purposes for which it exists. In 1968, Professor Van C. Johnson designed a compre­ hensive program for the study of higher education to be administered by the Department of Administration and 7 Higher Education at Michigan State University, He began the development of the program by reviewing the higher education administration programs of study of major uni­ versities in the United States and visited the campuses of those which had outstanding programs. One of the most comprehensive programs of the study of higher edu­ cation in the country, Professor Johnson's program included core courses of study and suggested cognate areas for seven key administrative and teaching positions in col­ leges and universities including the following: eral administration, istration, (1) gen­ (2) college student personnel admin­ (3) development officer, {4) business officer, (5) community-junior college administrator, education administrator, and (6) continuing (7) college and university teacher. The doctoral preparation of college student per­ sonnel administrators in the Department has been recog­ nized as one of the outstanding programs in the country (Rockey, 1972). Graduates of the program have made valuable contributions in broad areas of higher education and they practice their profession in all parts of the country and world. However, excellence in graduate programs is sine qua n o n , and as society e v o l v e s , so must the edu­ cational process. Therefore, regular assessment of graduate programs is essential. 8 Statement of the Problem Given: (1) a program of doctoral study for pro­ fessional preparation in college student personnel admin­ istration at Michigan State University; (2) a comprehen­ sive set of learning objectives for college student personnel preparation programs; (3) a range of alterna­ tive learning activities in the program, some encountered by all participants and others encountered by individuals or special interest groups; and (4) participants who entered the program at different times and from different professional experience backgrounds and pursued it with different selections of program components and different degrees of intensity, the general problem of this study was: (1) to determine participant perceptions of (a) rele vance of the comprehensive learning objectives, (b) extent to which their doctoral program at MSU contributed to their achievement of each of these objectives, and (c) extent of contribution of their MSU doctoral program components to their professional development; and (2) to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student per­ sonnel administrators at Michigan State University Purposes of the Study The focus of this study was the doctoral prepar­ ation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at 9 Michigan State University during the period fall 1965 through spring 1977. 1. The purposes of the study were: To investigate certain aspects of the doctoral graduates' employment, educational and profes­ sional activities 2. To determine the relevance as perceived by the doctoral graduates, of comprehensive college student personnel doctoral program learning objectives to their current professional respon­ sibilities 3. To determine the extent to which their doctoral program at MSU contributed, as perceived by doc­ toral graduates, to their achievement of compre­ hensive college student personnel learning objec­ tives 4. To determine the extent to which program compo­ nents in their doctoral program at MSU are per­ ceived by doctoral graduates as having contributed to their professional development 5. To determine the strongest and weakest aspects of the doctoral preparation of college student per­ sonnel administrators at MSU, during the period of the study, as perceived by the doctoral graduates 10 6. To solicit suggestions from the doctoral graduates for strengthening the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education 7. To determine whether the graduates' perceptions of relevance and contribution are differentially related to bilities, (a) professional roles and responsi­ (b) educational experiences, and (c) other professional factors 8. To present findings, analyze and interpret those findings, draw conclusions and offer suggestions for strengthening the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at MSU Theory and Related Research The curriculum theory of Charters Tyler (1950) (1923) and states that the educational program or cur­ riculum is derived from the purposes and functions of the occupation or profession for which the student is being prepared. O'Banion (1969) applied this theory in his study to determine the core of educational experiences essential for college student personnel professionals. He surveyed 310 college student personnel leaders and a panel of experts in the field. From the findings of his 11 study he concluded that the core of educational experiences which should be common to all college student personnel professionals should include psychology, counseling principles and techniques, practicum in student personnel work, an overview of student personnel work in higher education, the study of the college student, sociology and anthropology and the study of higher education. Sanderson (1974) cites three theories of doctoral programs in education identified by Knowles (196 2). Theory A is a curriculum that contains a basic core that has been defined by the institution and is common for all students. Theory B, with flexibility, combines a common core of content with an opportunity for the stu­ dents to specialize in the area of his interests or career objectives. Theory C suggests that the program of graduate study should be unstructured and be dictated by the interests and career objectives of the student. The theory of the doctorate in education advo­ cated by Knowles is Theory B. It is based upon the assumption that all educators must possess certain abili­ ties and qualities as educational generalists, but that some specialization of function takes place so that specialized sub-roles are provided within the role of educator. According to Knowles' theory of the doctorate, a graduate curriculum should be developed according to the following p r o cess: 12 a. b. c. d. e. Analyzing the functions required in the role of (1) educational generalists and (2) each kind of educational specialists. Determining the competencies required to perform each function. Diagnosing the learning (knowledges, understand­ ings, skills, attitudes, interests, and values) that make up each competency. Formulating objectives in terms of behavioral changes to be sought in these learnings. Planning a program of learning activities that will achieve these objectives according to a design that provides for continuity, sequence and integration of learning. (p. 137) Sanderson (1977) developed a comprehensive list • of learning objectives for doctoral study in adult and continuing education and used it as a standard with which to appraise the doctoral program in Adult and Continuing Education at Michigan State University. One hundred doctoral graduates of the program from 1956 to 1977 were surveyed in the study. Each graduate was requested to respond to the comprehensive list of learning objectives in two ways: (1) to rate the relevance of each learning objective to his or her current professional responsi­ bilities and (2) to rate the extent to which the doctoral program at MSU contributed to his or her achievement of each learning objective. Using the findings of the study Sanderson made recommendations for strengthening the doctoral program in Adult and Continuing Education at Michigan State University. The present study used the basic design of the Sanderson study to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators at Michigan State University in the 13 Department of Administration and Higher Education during the period from fall 1965 through spring 1977. Numerous individuals in the student personnel field have offered proposals describing model preparation programs which address both content and process (Anderson, 1948; Arner, T.D., Arner, C.A., Hawkins, Peterson, & Spooner, 1976; Brown, 1972; Cosby, 1965; Crookston, 1972; Dewey, 1975, 1977; Hedlund, 1971; Hoyt, 1968; Jones, 1948; Kelley, 1962; Miller, 1967; Miller & Prince, 1976; McDaniel, 1972; Newton, 1974; O'Banion, 1969; Ostroth, 1975; Sturtevant, 1928; Stripling, 1965; Trueblood, 1966; Williamson, 1952; and others). In addition various com­ mittee reports have been issued (American College Per­ sonnel Association [ACPA], 1965; American Council on Education, 1937, 1949 [ACE]; American Personnel and Guidance Association [APGA], 1966; Association for Counselor Education and Supervision [ACES], 1973; Council of Student Personnel Associations [COSPA], 1964, 1974). From a thorough review of the literature a comprehensive list of college student personnel learning objectives was developed and used as a standard upon which to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Adminis­ tration and Higher Education. 14 Research Questions The focus of this study was the preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Depart­ ment of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University from the fall of 1965 through spring 1977. To assist in accomplishing the purposes of the study, the following research questions were developed: Research Question 1 : Will the perceived relevance, by doctoral graduates, of comprehensive college student personnel learning goals and objectives vary with their professional roles and responsibilities, educational experiences, and other professional factors? Research Question 2 : Will the perceived extent of achievement, by doctoral graduates, of comprehensive college student personnel learning goals and objectives through their MSU doctoral program vary with their professional roles and responsibilities, educational experiences, and other professional factors? Significance of the Study 1. A review of studies of preparation programs for college student personnel professionals revealed the following: (a) most studies of college stu­ dent personnel preparation programs have been general studies which did not distinguish between Masters and doctoral level programs, (b) few studies of college student personnel graduate preparation programs have focused specifically 15 on doctoral level preparation programs, (c) studies of college student personnel preparation programs have, in most cases, been based on surveys of existing practice. "This approach may tend to perpetuate the problem rather than solve it" (Dewey, 1972, p. 61). The present study was designed to avoid the above problems in that the study focuses specifically on the doctoral preparation of college student personnel adminis­ trators and a broad list of comprehensive learning objectives was used rather than a list of learning objectives stated specifically for the program at Michigan State University. 2. The study provided information about the effec­ tiveness of doctoral preparation of college stu­ dent personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University. 3. The study appraised and offered recommendations designed to strengthen the preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University. 4. As a systematic follow-up study of the doctoral program at Michigan State University, the study 16 provided information useful to appropriate faculty as they assess the effectiveness of the current program and make plans for the future. 5. If individual college student personnel graduate programs are to be evaluated and improved and if comparisons are to be made among them, then a common body of information needs to be collected and maintained. This study contributed to that end. 6. Dr. Kirk A. Nigro conducted a study of the doc­ toral graduates in the Educational Administration program; Mr. Thomas O'Shea is conducting a study of Higher Education Administration doctoral graduates and Dr. Richard L. Sanderson has com­ pleted a study of the doctoral graduates in Adult and Continuing Education in the Department. The combination of these studies with the present study enables the Department to gain a compre­ hensive view of its major program segments as perceived by its graduates. Design of the Study Population The population of this study included doctoral graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University from fall 1965 17 through spring 1977 who were currently employed in stu­ dent personnel positions in higher education. Doctoral graduates from the Educational Administration area of the Department were not included in the population of this study. Doctoral graduates who were currently employed in student personnel positions in higher edu­ cation were identified by utilizing several sources. Initially a comprehensive list of all doctoral graduates, excluding Educational Administration doctoral graduates, was developed from the records of the Graduate Student Affairs Office of the College of Education. Each faculty member was then consulted regarding the employment status of his doctoral graduate advisees to identify those employed in college student personnel positions. Also T o m O'Shea conducted a study of the doctoral graduates of the Department from fall 1965 through spring 19 72. In his study he identified those doctoral graduates employed as college student personnel administrators. The records of the Alumni Office at Michigan State Uni­ versity and the mailing address file of the MSU Orient were also utilized to determine the doctoral graduates of the Department who were employed in college student personnel positions. Ninety-five doctoral graduates of the Department were identified as being currently employed in college student personnel positions. The decision was reached that the sample population should include 18 the entire population of 95 graduates since the size of the population was not unreasonably large and a number of valuable suggestions could be missed if only a sample of the population were used. Survey Instrument The design of the survey instrument addressed the problem of the study which was to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University during the period fall 1965 through spring 1977. A comprehensive list of college student personnel doctoral program learning objectives was used as a standard upon which to appraise the doc­ toral preparation of those graduates of the Department employed in college student personnel positions. The learning objectives were incorporated into a question­ naire which consisted of both fixed-alternative and openended questions. The questionnaire was critiqued by personnel in the Office of Research Consultation, faculty of the Department of Administration and Higher Education, and student personnel administrators at Michigan State Uni­ versity. Two pilot tests were conducted among doctoral candidates in the Department who were not included in the study. On the basis of the above face validity was claimed for the survey instrument. 19 The questionnaire consisted of six parts. Part I gathered data on employment and career experiences of doctoral graduates in the study. Parts II and III asked doctoral graduates to respond to the list of comprehensive learning objectives by answering two questions: (part II) How relevant is each objective to your current profes­ sional responsibilities and (part III) To what extent did your doctoral preparation at MSU contribute to the achievement of each objective? Part IV of the question­ naire asked the doctoral graduates to rate the extent of contribution to their professional development of selected program components of their doctoral preparation program. In part V graduates were asked to list three of the major strengths and three of the major weaknesses of their doc­ toral program and to make suggestions for strengthening the doctoral program. In part VI general information was gathered regarding the graduates' professional employment and educational experiences. Data Collection The data required for this study were collected from (1) major advisors in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at MSU, (2) the records of the Graduate Student Affairs Office, (3) the Alumni Office, (4) the MSU Orient mailing address file, and (5) the survey questionnaire returned by doctoral graduates in the study. 20 A rather sizable amount of data were collected from a widely dispersed population; therefore, the mailed questionnaire was used. Consideration was given to the problems involved in the use of the questionnaire method and wherever possible steps were taken to avert them. 5 Each study subject received: ment, (1) a survey instru­ (2) an individually typed and addressed cover letter explaining the purposes and significance of the study, and (3) a stamped, pre-addressed envelope. Doctoral recipients who did not respond to the initial mailing were sent a reminder of the first mailing. Data Analysis Data Analysis Techniques of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences and summarize the data. (SPSS) were used to analyze Several SPSS statistical pro­ cedures were utilized on the CDC 6500 computer at Michigan State University. To ascertain basic descrip­ tive information, the Condescriptive procedure was employed. This procedure provided measures of central tendency, mean scores, standard deviation, etc. Contin­ gency tables which provided frequency and percentage scores were also acquired through the SPSS Condescriptive procedure. To determine if significant differences existed in the responses of sub-populations within the study, the Crosstabs and Breakdown procedures were 21 utilized. The Crosstabs procedure provided chi square scores and the Breakdown procedure provided an analysis of variance of sub-populations in the study. Differences of responses by sub-populations within the study on the relevance and contribution of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives were tested. The responses of sub-populations were compared according to doctoral program emphasis, dissertation topic, area of professional responsibility, years of experience in the college student personnel field, and area of the Masters degree. Definition of Terms College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learn­ ing Goals and Objectives.— A broad list of learning goals and related objectives for graduate preparation in stu­ dent personnel administration in higher education derived from a review of the literature and critiqued and refined by college student personnel educators and administrators. Doctoral Graduates Employed in College Student Personnel Positions in Higher Education.— Those doctoral graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University during the period fall 1965 through spring 19 77 who were currently employed 22 as administrators/directors, counselors/advisors, faculty, consultants, or researchers in the college student per­ sonnel field. Doctoral Program Emphasis in College Student Per­ sonnel A d m i n i stration.— For the purposes of this study doctoral graduates were classified as having a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Adminis­ tration if they had taken two or more doctorate level college student personnel seminars and at least three credits of a college student personnel internship. Limitations of the Study 1. The major limitations of the study were: The study was limited to doctoral graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Edu­ cation from the fall of 1965 through the spring of 1977 who were employed in student personnel administration positions in higher education. 2. The appraisal of the program was limited to selected areas and was not comprehensive of all possible curriculum areas in the Department. 3. The study represented one facet of an evaluation of the preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University, 23 graduates' perceptions of the value of their doctoral program experiences, and other inputs, such as from the faculty and comparisons with other universities will be needed to provide a more complete evaluation of the program. 4. It was assumed in the study that all answers to the survey instrument questions were sincere and forthright. Its validity depends on the extent to which graduates of the program were able to provide honest, impartial, and unbiased reactions to the survey instrument. 5. It was assumed in the study that the respondents would be able to accurately report information related to their doctoral program which for many was completed a number of years 6. During the twelve-year period of this study the doctoral program in the Department was modified to address the changing problems and competency needs of professionals in higher education. New seminars, workshops and special courses were provided. Therefore, the doctoral program was not static over the period of the study. Organization of the Study The report of the study was organized into five chapters. Chapter I consists of an introduction to the 24 study. It describes the problem, the purposes of the study, the significance of the study, research questions, theory and related research, definitions of terms used in the study, limitations of the study, and organization of the study. Chapter II consists of a review of the literature and research related to the history, role and function of college student personnel professionals, emphases and suggested areas of study and criticisms and evalu­ ations of college student personnel programs. Chapter III discusses the design and methodology of the study. Chapter IV is devoted to the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of the findings of the study. Chapter V consists of a summary of the findings, major conclusions, and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction One of the basic issues in the field of college student personnel is whether or not college student per­ sonnel workers need specialized preparation. (1964) Kauffman surveyed institutions of higher education and found that many institutions require professional prepar­ ation for college student personnel workers while other institutions did not recognize formal college student personnel training as essential to the successful func­ tioning of the college student personnel administrator. Upcraft (1971), in a study of chief student personnel administrators in universities over 10,000 students, found that less than half of them had been professionally trained in college student personnel work. However, Bolman (1964) states that " . . . there appears to be a growing conviction that college and uni­ versity administrators have unique functions to perform and they perform them best when specifically equipped with distinctive academic capabilities" 25 (p. 276). Which 26 "unique functions" college student personnel administra­ tors are to perform and which "distinctive academic capa­ bilities" they should possess is frequently discussed in the literature of the field and there are a variety of positions taken on these issues. This chapter reviews the college student personnel literature related to historical themes of the student personnel field, the present and future roles of college student personnel professionals, recommended preparation program emphases, suggested areas of study, criticisms of college student personnel preparation programs, and evaluation of college student personnel preparation programs. Four Historical Themes of the Student Personnel Field in Higher Education There is little agreement as to when student personnel work actually began in higher education, but Bathurst (1938) traced the roots of student personnel work back to Athenian education. After reviewing the college student personnel literature, Blackburn (1969) identifies four historical themes, beginning in the late 1800s, that have evolved in the development of the col­ lege student personnel field: (1) "the control of behavior theme" is marked by the appointment of the first student personnel dean, Le Barron Russel Briggs, at Harvard in 1890, "to take the burden of discipline 27 off the shoulders of the president” (p. 20); (2) "the vocational guidance theme" was spawned by the industrial revolution and placed an emphasis on individual counsel­ ing and the world of work; Frank Parsons who contributed greatly to this theme by developing a systematic vocational counseling approach later became known as the father of guidance in America; (3) "the personnel theme" began in the early 1900s and was marked by the first scientific study of students and the expansion of student personnel functions to include psychological measurement and testing of students; (4) "the mental health theme" was enhanced during the 1930s by the psychoanalysts who fled Europe in the face of the rise of Nazism" (p. 18) . The emphasis on counseling became so strong during the mental health period that the terms student personnel and counseling became almost interchangeable. It was during the mental health period that the American Council on Education published a statement entitled The Student Personnel Point of View (1937). The Council's statement brought together the four his­ torical themes to form a construct in the college stu­ dent personnel field. The statement outlined the phil­ osophy and 23 services of the student personnel field in higher education. It represented a synthesis of earlier work done by Robert C. Clothier and L. B. Hopkins. st a t e d : It 28 This philosophy imposes upon educational institutions the obligation to consider the student as a whole— his intellectual capacity and achievement, his emotional makeup, his physical condition, his social relationships, his values, his economic resources, his asthetic appreciations. It puts emphasis, in brief, upon the development of the student as a person rather than upon his intellectual training alone. (American Council on Education, 1937) Barry and Wolf (1957) wrote that the publication of The Student Personnel Point of View marked an end to a period of fluid development in student personnel work. It was their contention that since the publication of this document student personnel work has been organized around the student services concept. Student Development; An Emerging Theme Following the drafting of The Student Personnel Point of View and its revision in 1949, the college student personnel field maintained the student services function as higher education grew and prospered reaching its peak growth in the 1960s and 70s. More recently, however, some writers in the field of college student personnel have urged a shift in emphasis from student services to student development. Brown (1972) states that some of the traditional functions of student per­ sonnel such as discipline and out-of-class control are giving way to student development concepts as the "in loco parentis" role of universities wanes and students gain more voice in the governance of their lives. He states further that there is an increasing summons from 29 within the profession for student personnel professionals to view themselves as behavioral scientists and that there is a growing volume of research and thought on what pro­ motes student development. Crookston (1976) states "that student personnel work as historically defined is no longer a viable con­ cept" (p. 26). He strongly supports the student develop­ ment movement. He defines student development as: . . . the application of the philosophy and principles of development in the educational setting. . . . education for human development is the creation of a humane learning environment within which learners, teachers, and social systems inter­ act and utilize developmental tasks for personel growth and societal betterment. (p. 27) Minetti (1977) recognizes the value of the stu­ dent development movement in the college student personnel field but states that it would be a mistake to abandon the student services concept in lieu of the student development movement: To provide for a learning environment which allows and facilitates human/student development is the charge of the student personnel worker of this decade. However, since student affairs derives its legitimacy primarily from the services functions which student personnel workers perform (financial aids, housing, records, student discipline, admis­ sions, activities, and counseling) the profession will most probably have to continue with its admin­ istrative or service tasks, while at the same time implement student development programs. (p. 3) Cross (1972) states that "while few would deny the importance of the goals of student development, . . ., no one has formulated a specific program for 30 reaching the goals, and we find it very difficult indeed to determine whether or not student development has taken place" (p. 23). She predicts that the student personnel field will continue to derive its legitimacy primarily from the service functions, while at the same time attempt to increase the knowledge and understanding of student development. The Role and Function of College Student Personnel in Higher Education— The Present Studies of the current role and function of stu­ dent personnel administrators have been done by Ayers, Tripp, and Russel, 1966; Dutton, 1969; Hoyt and Tripp, 1967; Lilley, 1974; and O'Banion, 1971. O'Banion sur­ veyed counselor educators, student personnel educators, and deans of students to determine the purposes of stu­ dent personnel work in higher education. According to his study, the twelve essential purposes of student per­ sonnel work in higher education are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To promote the development of a climate condu­ cive to the intellectual, personal, psychological, social, and physical growth of the student. To assist the student in his search for identity and in his development of self-discipline, selfevaluation, and competence in decision making. To administer the offices responsible for pro­ viding student services. To insure optimum opportunities for the student to examine, fulfill, or change his educational and career objectives. To provide opportunities for the student's development of a system of values. To develop opportunities for students to learn and apply leadership and organizational skills throughout the areas of student life. 31 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. To serve as resource persons in interpreting student life to faculty and administrators and conversely in interpreting faculty and adminis­ trators to students. To assure that the student's need for individual attention is met. To provide students with opportunities for broad educational experiences through co-curricular activities. To assist students in developing social and human relations skills. To utilize available resources— student, admin­ istrators, faculty, alumni, parents, and repre­ sentatives of the community government, and other educational institutions— to fulfill the objectives of higher education and of the par­ ticular institution. To acquaint the student with and encourage him to use student personnel services and other resources available to him. (p. 210) Lilley (1974) studied the functions of chief student personnel officers at small four-year institu­ tions. From the findings of his study, he concluded that the functions receiving the greatest attention by chief student personnel officers are characterized by "order, organization and leadership" (p. 8). Ten functions were found to be of most direct concern to chief student per­ sonnel officers studied: "administrator, policy formu­ lation effecting students, determining objectives, pre­ paring the budget, recruiting staff, non-academic discipline, student government, student faculty liaison, interpreting policy to students, and advising faculty on students" (p. 9). Hoyt and Trip (1976) in their research on the characteristics of American College Personnel Association 32 members found that administrative functions accounted for more of the time of the persons surveyed than any other function. In a statement titled, "The Role and Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Institutions of Higher Learning" (Fitzgerald, 1967), the Interdivisional Com­ mittee of the American Personnel and Guidance Association (APGA) in 196 7 stated that the basic purpose of higher education had grown from the exploration, accumulation, and transmission of knowledge to more complex purposes where the desired outcomes are students who are well prepared in an academic discipline, broadly prepared in the sciences, arts, humanities, and social studies and who: are beginning to achieve a sense of identity within the larger society, assume responsibility for making their fullest con­ tribution to society, have a quality of openness which allows for change, creativity, and difference and yet are committed to a set of values, have begun to develop attitudes and mechanisms which will enable them to cope with reality as they experience it, are aware of and utilize resources and opportunities available to them for continuous development, have begun to find their place in the economic world and have fundamental knowledge and skills necessary for their vocational development, seek to deepen their sensitivity for a full appreci­ ation of the arts and sciences, recognize and respect the concepts of freedom and opportunity for all people in the community, the nation and world. (p. 62) The Committee stated that the role of the college student personnel professional is that of "a central 33 integrating function" in the achievement of the above outcomes with the student personnel professional spe­ cifically working to assist the student to understand himself, and his relationships with others; to supplement and increase his knowledge and skills; to change patterns of behavior; and to work in establishing the kind of environment where meaningful learning can take place. Regarding the role of the student personnel professional, the APGA Interdivisional Committee also states that: In fulfilling the responsibilities (of the diverse specialities within the profession) there are some functions unique to each area of student personnel work. But, there are also basic functions which must be performed by the majority of student per­ sonnel workers regardless of area of specialization. These include: 1. Understanding the college student as a learner; 2. Accurately and effectively interpreting the values, goals, objectives, and actions of the student to the institution and others; 3. Interpreting the goals, values, objectives and actions of the institution to the student; 4. Understanding the significant political, cultural, and social forces operating within the college community as they affect both the individual and groups of students; 5. Counseling on a one-to-one basis at some level ranging from the relatively perfunctory to psychotherapy; 6. Group work ranging from advising student interest organizations and influencing student attitudes and behavior to group counseling; 7. Programming of educative experiences which supplement classroom learning as well as the development of meaningful recreational oppor­ tunities; 8. The collection, organization and dissemination of information about students ranging from the simple descriptive to that needed for the study of student behavior; 9. The performance of administrative functions such as policy formulation and implementation, student development and budgetmaking; 34 10. Research ranging from the demographic and evalu­ ative to basic studies of psychological, social, and cultural forces influencing student per­ formance and behavior. (p. 6 8) The functions and responsibilities described above are represented in a three-dimensional model {APGA, 1967). (a) The three dimensions of the model are: the process used, (b) the objects worked with, and {c ) the population from which the three processes are: (3) research. objects come. (1) enabling, The {2) managing, and The primary characteristic of the enabling process is the focus on the facilitation of growth of the person or persons involved. Words which characterize the process are helping, counseling, and educating. Functions performed include giving, testing, diagnosing, advising, counseling, referring, and evaluating. The managing process is characterized by leading and con­ trolling. Among the major components of the managing process are organizing, administering, planning, financ­ ing, interpreting, constructing, reviewing, delegating, training, selection, budgeting, promoting, and referring. The research process is characterized by the accumulation, analysis, and interpretation of information necessary to the continuous development of knowledge within the field. In 1966 Robinson compared the documents of three professional organizations on the role and function of college student personnel professionals (Fitzgerald, 1967). The three organizations were the Council of Student 35 Personnel Associations Committee on Professional Develop­ ment (COSPA, 1963) ; the American Personnel and Guidance Association, Committee on Professional Training (APGA, 1965) ; and the American College Personnel Association, Commission XII, Professional Education of the Student Personnel Worker (ACPA, 1965) . three statements relative to: responsibility and authority, Robinson compared the (1) substantive areas of (2) purposes and goals, (3) proposed curriculum and training experiences, and (4) emphasis and unique characteristics. For the purposes of the present discussion on the present role and function of college student personnel professionals, the comparison of items (1) substantive areas of responsibility and authority and (2) purposes and goals will be reported. In comparing item (1), substantive areas of responsibility and authority, Robinson states: Although there are editorial differences, there seems to be, with minor exceptions, agreement as to areas of responsibility and authority which should be considered within the sphere of influence of college student personnel work. All statements agree explicitly on the following: admission, registration and records, orientation, college union programs, student activities, financial aids, housing and food services, health services, counseling services, international student pro­ grams fraternities and sororities, placement, alumni relations, social issues involving students and administration. (p. 255) In comparing item (2), purposes and goals, Robinson found that: Major points explicitly or implicitly mentioned in all documents include: interpreting the institution to students, counseling, advising student groups, 36 supplementary educational programming of various types, programming of meaningful recreational activities, administrative functions ranging from policy development and implementation through budget-making, research and program evaluation, recruitment of professional staff, collecting and disseminating information about students, the development of "climate" and facilities necessary for growth, and the integration of all relevant institutional resources contributing to the education of the student. (p. 256) In conclusion Robinson states that the three documents point up that persons and groups within the profession do agree on the nature of the field, and with but minor variation what ought to be included in programs preparing individuals for college student pe r ­ sonnel work. Future Roles and Functions Walter Johnson (1970) states that "the student personnel professional of the future will combine the roles of educator, provider of services and student development specialist" (p. 11). He also states that personnel workers "will be expected to serve as consul­ tants of faculty and administration in interpreting students' behavioral and developmental needs which can be met through educational programs" Miller (1976) (p. 11). explained that the future role of the student personnel professional will be as "an educator first and technical specialist or serviceoriented specialist second" (p. 173). Cross (1972) states that student personnel workers must assert 37 themselves as "educators who are concerned with how well the needs of students are getting met throughout the university" (p. 49). After reviewing the college student personnel literature, Rockey (1972) states that "most educators anticipate that the college student personnel worker of the future will be an educator first, but he will also be a provider of services, a student development specialist and a researcher" (p. 31). Harvey (1974) states that the last five years have seen a major identity crisis develop in the field of student personnel, but that the crisis has been a healthy one because, out of it, new visions of appropriate personnel functions are emerging. Harvey states: These new visions do not evolve out of a vacuum, . . . Student personnel administration has been and will continue to be a function of societal and institutional redefinitions. Many additional factors and imperatives will reshape and redirect the field. In the first place the role of undergraduate education in preparing students for vocational roles in society is being questioned. . . . further­ more, achievement in college, as measured by grades, bears little significant relationship to achievement in postacademic situations. Factors such as moti­ vation, socioeconomic background, and self-concept bear much stronger relationships to success. (p. 24 3) Harvey predicts that over the next 20 years that there will be less of a distinction between educational administration and student personnel administration with the two concepts probably merging. He indicates that this has already happened in some places. Parker (1971) 38 and Hodinko (197 3) offer proposals for combining the functions of academic and student personnel administra­ tion. Parker proposes a new organizational structure of institutions, which separates instructional and student personnel programs, might be an important factor con­ tributing to the inability of the two programs to relate, and he proposes a new organizational structure similar to that of Parker. Grant (1972) states that a role that seems par­ ticularly viable for the student personnel professional is that of "education process consultant" (p. 82). He suggested that a distinction be drawn between student personnel workers as "process agents" and faculty members as "content specialist" and that collaboration between these two groups has the potential for being highly effective in resolving educational problems and in creating innovative programs. However, Arner (1976) states that acceptance of student personnel workers as process consultants presupposes an academic credibility which many student personnel workers have not yet estab­ lished with faculty colleagues. Institutional effectiveness and organizational development as a function of the college student per­ sonnel professional are two areas that have been dis­ cussed recently by authors in the college student 39 personnel literature (Dewey, 1975, 1977; Lipsetz, 1973; McDaniel, 1972; Shaffer, 1973; and Silverman, 1971). Shaffer suggests that an emerging role of college student personnel is that of "contributing to institu­ tional effectiveness." He states that to remain a sig­ nificant force in higher education, the student personnel field must contribute to the total organizational develop­ ment of colleges and universities and not focus on the development of the individual student. McDaniel (1972) states that "the future success or failure of the college student personnel trainee will largely be a function of his ability to contribute to the effectiveness of the organization" (p. 101). Dewey (1975) states "student personnel workers must prove themselves so valuable in contributing toward significant survival of their insti­ tution that they not only assure their own survival, but in the process gain their long-sought and long-elusive educational recognition" (p. 79). Also, "the problems of the institution at large, not merely those of the student services division within the institution, should constitute the focus of attention— a very different frame of reference which may reorder student service priorities considerably" (p. 80) . Lipsetz (197 3) proposed that there is a natural relationship between student personnel work and organi­ zational development. Silverman (19 71) states that 40 student personnel workers occupy a unique position within the structure of institutions that enables them to act as integrators of subsystems and factions within the institution. In addition to their external orientation, student personnel workers hold, by training and inclination, the norms of faculty (with emphasis on intellectual development), of administrators (with their stress on efficiency), and of students (with attention placed on individual growth). In a sense, personnel workers are peripherally related to the goals and values of the campus' diverse elements. . . . The student personnel worker has an important role to play on the contemporary college scene. Organiza­ tionally he is in the right position. (pp. 3-5) In discussing future trends in the field of col­ lege student personnel, Lilley (1974) says that "leaders in the field are calling for a new kind of professional, a human development facilitator who will be more con­ cerned with the process of education than with providing services" (p. 10). However, he points out that such a change may be difficult because "the traditional personnel services model has achieved the status necessary to function well on a campus, and members of the campus community who have recently accepted the validity of student personnel services could be resistive to any proposed alteration in the present model" (p. 10). Two recent works on student development which have received broad attention among educators and prac­ titioners of college student personnel are Student Development in T o morrow’s Higher Education— A Return 41 to the Academy Affairs (Brown, 1972) (Miller & Prince, and The Future of Student 1976). Brown's work came as a result of the work of a task force organized by the American College Personnel Association for the purpose of "reconceptualizing and redefining the mission of college student personnel work" (p. 10). The work of the task force was published in a monograph and authored by Robert Brown in 1972. The task force studied the present state of higher education; the place of college student personnel in higher education; viewed the future of American society and its educational needs; and sug­ gested alternative roles and functions for college stu­ dent personnel professionals. Brown concludes that: While student personnel workers have professed themselves to be educators and to be interested in the whole student, they have served higher education essentially as housekeepers, activities advisers, counselors, and have been viewed by many in the higher education area as petty administrators, (p. 37) About the new student development emphasis, Brown states: "The most profound reason for the new emphasis on student development from student personnel workers is that they seek more fulfillment of their espoused goal of developing the whole student" (p. 37). Brown also states that the present focus in higher edu­ cation is primarily on the academic development of the student and that more attention should be given to assessing and improving the status of the student on 42 human development dimensions. He proposes new student development roles for college student personnel profes­ sionals who would assist the student in mastering increas­ ingly complex developmental tasks. Student development facili-ators would assist the student in assessing his developmental status; establish personal developmental goals and objectives and prescribe strategies and alternative modes of behavior for accomplishing develop­ mental goals and objectives. The work of Miller and Prince (19 76) in The Future of Student Affairs, was an outgrowth of the earlier work of the American College Personnel Association Task Force and Robert Brown in 1972. In their book Miller and Prince define student development as: "The appli­ cation of human development concepts in postsecondary settings so that everyone involved can master increasingly complex developmental tasks, achieve self direction, and become independent" (p. 3). The student development model described by Miller and Prince is based on life stages theory of human development and has the following principles as its foundation: Human development is a continuous and cumulative process of physical, psychological, and social growth which can be divided into an orderly series of life stages. Each stage is characterized by certain developmental tasks that require the human to alter his or her present behavior and master new learning. Development is most likely to occur in an environment where change is anticipated, where 43 individuals and groups work together to actively influence the future rather than just reacting to it after the fact. Systematic integration of cognitive, affective, and psychomotor experiences produces the most effective development. Several abilities and skills that facilitate growth in others have been identified; these can be learned, used, and taught by student development educators. The individual1s development can be advanced by exposure to an organized problem-solving process that enables him or her to complete increasingly complex developmental tasks. Development is enhanced when students, faculty members, and student affairs practitioners work collaboratively to promote the continuous develop­ ment of all. (pp. 5-6) Miller and Prince describe specific strategies that can be used to implement the "student development model." Five key roles of student personnel professionals in the model are: "goal setting, assessment, instruction, consultation, milieu management and evaluation" (pp. 11-12). Summary of the Literature on the Role and Function of College Student Personnel Professionals Present and Future Various roles and functions for college student personnel professionals are described in the literature, educator, student development specialist, organizational developer, provider of student services, researcher, administrator, consultant, and others. Some of these roles and functions are truly new paradigms while others describe more traditional roles of college student per­ sonnel professionals. A significant number of authorities in the field believe that college student personnel 44 professionals should occupy a more central position in higher education; that they must work toward gaining equal status with faculty if the goals of higher edu­ cation are to be realized; that significant progress has been made in understanding the psychology of human development to the extent that the student development model should be embraced by both faculty and student personnel professionals in a collaborative effort. While some leaders in the field are expressing the view that the student development model is the chal­ lenge and direction of the future for student personnel in higher education, there is at present little evidence that this model has been implemented successfully in institutions of higher education; and there are those who have reservations about the adequacy of the student development model to answer the demands for accounta­ bility and cost effectiveness during the "steady state" in higher education. Cross (1972) states that: There is talk in the profession today of casting student personnel workers as experts in student development or as creators of learning environments. Such vague goals will not stand up to accounta­ bility or even steady progress on our own terms. While few would deny the importance of the goals of student development, . . ., no one has formulated a specific program for reaching the goals and we find it very difficult indeed to determine whether or not student development has taken place. (p. 23) While supporting the ideals of the student development model, Chandler (197 3) points out some problems in implementing the student development model: 45 The title student development without proper groundwork may cause both faculty and students to react unfavorably. There are faculty members who are unaware, uncaring and sometimes unsympathetic to the work done by student affairs. The words student development imply only instructionally related development as viewed by some faculty mem­ bers. A change in title to student development by student affairs may be seen by this type of faculty member as a real or implied threat to his real or assumed prerogative and may draw a hostile reaction which may infect others not ordinarily involved in such matters. It appears clear that the full scale implemen­ tation of a student development program requires a nearly complete acceptance of the concept by the vast majority of the entire academic community. It involves more than a reshuffling of departments in student affairs; attitudinal changes by the staff of student affairs, key administrators and faculty leaders are necessary. . . . It appears that the student development concept will evolve on campuses in differing rates and by different means. There will be a transitional state of undetermined length and depth. (p. 39 3) It appears that the student personnel field will continue to derive its legitimacy primarily from the service functions while at the same time attempting to increase knowledge and understanding of student develop­ ment. As Cross (in Kubit, 1973) states, "it is not too early to begin training an elite cadre of future leaders who can build upon the present very weak foundation," but "it is too early to begin the training of applied behavioral scientists as practitioners of student development" (p. 79). 46 Professional Preparation of College Student Personne 1 Admlrii st r at or s Recommended Program Emphases In discussing appropriate roles and functions of college student personnel in higher education, authori­ ties in the field have suggested a variety of roles and functions that range from the traditional student ser­ vices concept to the more recent student development model. To the extent that the role and function of college student personnel professionals changes so also must the professional preparation program change (O'Banion, 1969) . A variety of emphases, including counseling, behavioral sciences, administration, educational theory and practical experience, have been stressed in prepar­ ation programs. A counseling emphasis in college student personnel has been advocated by a number of authorities. Dressel (1957) recommended that counseling psychology be the basic discipline for student personnel administrators. Hodinko (1973) is critical of preparation programs because they have "emphasized regulatory procedures and appli­ cation of 'in loco parentis' and the treatment of the personality deviate" (p. 55). He recommends that prepar­ ation programs emphasize study in personality theory, psychological testing, and clinical counseling. Super (1962) states that student personnel edu­ cators "need to help graduate students decide early in 47 their preparation whether they are going to be counselors or administrators and then differentiate the programs" (p. 236). Cosby (1965) and Chandler (1973) discussed possible role conflicts between administrator and coun­ selor roles within student personnel and suggested dif­ fering preparation programs for each. Penny (1969) contends that counseling was an insufficient base for college student personnel adminis­ trators. Lloyd-Jones (1968) argued that student affairs staff members would not become qualified by concentrating exclusively on personality theory, psychological testing and clinical counseling. She foresaw college student personnel staff members working "with others using the resources and techniques of discussion symposia, expo­ sition, colloquia, dialogue, clarifying questions, literature, art, history, religion, philosophy, social fellowship, and sustained search" (p. 28). Lloyd-Jones felt that student personnel workers must be qualified to help students learn to assess their environments and environmental changes in the direction of carefully determined values. Therefore, in her opinion, the stu­ dent personnel worker cannot take refuge in narrow specializations. Cosby (1965) states that the student personnel curriculum should be developed within the context of the study of higher education. The student personnel 48 professional should study the development of the American college as a sociocultural institution; understand the changing role concepts and relationships of students, faculty, administration, and of those forces which were causal to change. Cosby cites research by Jacob which indicates that the greatest student value change occurs on campuses where there is student, faculty, and administrator concensus on expectations for the under­ graduate experience and that for such consensus to be achieved there must be open and free communication between all segments of the college community. "It is this kind of goal which may be reached when student personnel workers teach the university" (p. 16). Several writers in the field propose "Systems Philosophy as a Professional Preparation Base" (Dewey, 1977) , By viewing itself in such a limiting role as student services, it (the college student personnel field) is now viewed, at worst, as an expensive luxury with insatiable appetite for funds and staff and at the best, as a difficult to evaluate function which needs to clarify its roles, inputs, processes and results. Systems philosophy, . . ., is the vehicle that has the capacity for ordering the disparate knowl­ edge, the complexities, the apparent incongruences, the interrelationships of individuals, groups, and organizations. . . . Systems philosophy would seem to constitute the appropriate philosophical base for any educator concerned with holistic education. This includes student personnel workers. (p. 9) McDaniels (1972) makes specific suggestions about what should be included in preparation programs 49 to prepare college student personnel administrators. He states that college student personnel administrators should view higher education institutions as systems. The student personnel worker needs analytical tools for recognizing and assessing changes in the organi­ zational environment; . . . Training programs need to attend to the systems characteristics of insti­ tutions of higher education including the adminis­ t r a t o r ’s role as he relates within and across sub­ systems. (p. 104) McDaniels states that some student personnel educators seem to have ignored the fact that the student personnel professional is part of an administrative structure and that the future success or failure of the trainees will be a function of their ability to contribute to the total effectiveness of the organization. He believes that the administrative aspects of the student personnel program should be given more attention in the development of the college student personnel curriculum. He cites the research of Hoyt and Tripp (1967) who studied American College Personnel Association members and found that administrative functions accounted for more of the time of the persons surveyed than any other function. An emphasis in the behavioral sciences has been advocated by several authors. McConnel (19 70) proposed that all student personnel workers, regardless of their particular interests, must have a broad and extensive background in the behavioral sciences. Hedlund (1971) states that the appropriate role for college student 50 personnel professionals is that of a "humanistic educator" and that it seems natural that the core of his graduate program should also be in the behavioral sciences with the development of skills in research (p. 325). Trueblood (1966) recommended that on the doctoral level, the emphasis be "on deepening the understanding of the behavioral sciences, the content of higher education and on the philosophy and skill of counseling, research, and philosophy of inquiry" (p. 83). Unseem (1964) observed that increasing attention had been paid to theoretical principles in the student personnel field. From her viewpoint, she reasoned that skilled performances should flow from theory. She sug­ gests that professionalization of student personnel work depended upon student personnel workers becoming authori­ ties in large bureaucratized institutions. A number of authors and professional organizations are suggesting that college student personnel programs emphasize principles of human/student development and strategies for their implementation (APGA, 1967; Arner, T.D., Peterson, Arner, C.A., Hawkins, and Spooner, 1976; Chickering, 1969; Crookston, 1976; Grant, 1968; Miller, 1974; Miller & Prince, 1977; and others). The Commission on Professional Development of the Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education (COSPA, 1974) in a statement titled: "Student 51 Development Services in Higher Education" proposed that the student development process should be the basic means of professional education for college student personnel graduates. The goal of the professional program should be the preparation of persons who, in addition to having attained a high level of self-development, have skills to colloborate with others in their self­ development. They must be able to use competencies of assessment, goal setting, and change processes as appropriate in implementing the roles of consul­ tant, administrator, and instructor in relationships with individuals, groups and organizations. (p. 78) Arner et al. (1976) proposed a model preparation program based on student development principles. Working collaboratively with faculty, graduates would implement student development processes of assessment, goal setting, and change processes. Applying this model, doctoral graduates would assess their skills and abilities, establish career goals and objectives, and develop plans to improve areas of weaknesses, the change process. With Arner et al.'s student development model of student per­ sonnel education, special attention is focused on the personal development and integration of the student per­ sonnel graduate. This is viewed as one of the most important outcomes of the preparation program. Summary of the Literature Relevant to Program Emphases A wide variety of program emphases have been recommended including administration, organizational 52 development, student development theory and skills, higher education foundations, counseling skills, research skills, and practical experience. One author cites a national study of college student personnel professionals which indicates that the nature of their responsibilities is primarily administrative and concludes that prepar­ ation programs should emphasize principles of adminis­ tration and management, analytical and conceptual tools for problem solving, and organizational development. At least three authors recognized different role models within student personnel and indicated that each role should have a different program emphasis of either coun­ seling and behavioral sciences or principles of adminis­ tration and management. More recently a number of authors and professional organizations view the most viable role of college student personnel professionals as that of student development facilitator or educator and suggest that student personnel preparation programs should emphasize theories, principles, and skills in student development. Suggested Areas of Study In 1966 the Council of Student Personnel Associ­ ations in Higher Education (COSPA) appointed a committee on Professional Development to study professional prepar­ ation programs and to make recommendations that would be representative of the position of COSPA member 53 organizations. In 19 65, the American Personnel and Guidance Association (APGA) established an interdivisional committee to study the professional preparation of stu­ dent personnel professionals in higher education. Then at the 1965 annual convention ACPA instructed Commission XII— Professional Education of Student Personnel Workers— to develop a position on training which might be a repre­ sentative view of ACPA on the matter. Consequently three documents or statements were developed on the subject of professional preparation of college student personnel professionals. Robinson ments relative to: and authority, (1966) compared the three state­ (1) substantive areas of responsibility (2) purposes and goals, (3) proposed cur­ riculum and training experiences, and (4) emphasis and unique characteristics (Fitzgerald, 1966). Items 1, 2, and 4 have been reviewed elsewhere in this chapter and item 3, curriculum and preparation, will be reviewed here. In reviewing the three statements on curriculum and preparation, Robinson states that all agree that the student personnel worker must have a grounding in the behavioral sciences with an emphasis on psychology and sociology; all agree that an understanding of higher education principles, philosophy, and administration is necessary; and all agree that preparation in "tool" subjects as counseling, testing, and research method­ ology is essential. Robinson states that there are 54 some minor points of difference between the three state­ ments: the APGA and COSPA statements specify that there should be some work relative to the differing life pat­ terns of men and women; the ACPA Commission XII statement stresses research training as being necessary for all to a greater extent than do the other two statements. According to Robinson each statement does contain at least one unique contribution: the APGA statement stresses the role of the professional associations in strengthening training programs and explicitly stresses the need for a continual integration of knowledge and skills; the COSPA statement offers suggested extensions of the core for specialized fields within college student personnel work; and the ACPA Commission XII document suggests that a minimum preparation program involves at least an extended, possibly two-year, masters degree program. The latter statement also clearly recognized the necessity of training through the doctorate for individuals aspiring to positions of general adminis­ trative leadership, or headed for careers in specialized areas such as research or counseling. In conclusion, Robinson states that "the agreement between the three groups relative to desirable training for persons enter­ ing the field is remarkable" Cosby (1965) (p. 256). states that college student person­ nel professionals should function in the role of 55 "teachers of the university." "This requires that the student personnel curriculum be developed within the context of the study of higher education" (p. 17). Equally important, Cosby suggests, is the study of the sociology of student life; the study of group processes; the areas of jurisdictional responsibility of college student personnel; and supervised practice-viewed as a place for the practice of theory" Trueblood (1966) (p. 17). proposed seven core areas that should be included in preparation programs for college student personnel professionals: psychology (specifi­ cally developmental); the study of culture and change (sociology and anthropology and other behavioral sciences); the philosophy, finance, planning, and curriculum in higher education; skill courses in counseling and measure­ ment; supervised work experience; research; and ethical responsibilities. Miller (1967) proposed ten fundamental subject matter areas of knowledge and practice needed by the student in college student personnel preparation. 1. 2. 3. 4. To be introduced to the field in such a way as to obtain a meaningful orientation to, and overview of, student personnel work. To obtain a clear understanding of the context and foundations of higher education in America and elsewhere. To bridge the gaps between the academic disci­ plines, especially the behavioral sciences and practical application to work with students. To learn the psychological and sociological bases of behavior and general characteristics of the college age student. 56 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. To develop the human helping relationship con­ cepts and attitudes essential to individuals in a "helping" profession. To obtain a comprehensive grasp of research and evaluation— their value and function for college student personnel. To understand the basic principles and practices necessary to implement and coordinate student personnel programs. To become skillful in methods and approaches used by counselors and educators in working with students in formal and informal, group and indi­ vidual , situations. To assimilate and integrate the theoretical with the practical by way of supervised practicum field work experiences. To have ample opportunity to obtain a grasp of the specialized substantive areas of student personnel work. (pp. 174-175) The Interdivisional Committee of the American Personnel and Guidance Association published a statement in 1976 entitled: "The Role and Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Institutions of Higher Learning." The model preparation program proposed by the Committee included the following courses of study: 1. 2. 3. 4. Professional Orientation to the Field— the history, philosophy, purposes, problems, and issues, and professional ethics and standards of student personnel work. Multi-disciplinary Foundations for the Practice of Stucfent Personnel Work— Continuing exposure to systematic philosophy, the social sciences, the biological and natural sciences and the humanities, and a continuing attempt must also be made to relate these fields to practice. Human Development and the Nature and Needs of tri'e College Student— An understanding^bf the nature, characteristics and the needs of the college student derived from knowledge in psy­ chology, sociology, philosophy and anthropology. Context and Setting— Higher Education— The history, setting and objectives of universities and col­ leges; the college as a social institution its organization and administration and curricula. 57 5. 6. 7. 8. Methods and Techniques— Individual and group counseling t e c h niquesand practica in the coun­ seling of college students. Principles of administration and decision making including theory and practice of organization and fiscal management, selection and inservice training of staff, communication and relationships with college departments and constituencies. Substantive Knowledge— Training in the functioning specific jobs in the field. Research and Evaluation— Theories and principles, and- methods of social research and principles and procedures of educational evaluation. Integration of Knowledge and Skills— Integration of the" knowledge and skills derived from courses relating to substantive areas, methods and tech­ niques, human development and theoretical foun­ dations. Suggested means of integration are field work or supervised internship. (pp. 64-65) Rhatigan (196 8) conducted a study to establish training recommendations on the basis of consensual judg­ ments of student personnel educators and chief personnel administrators in selected institutions of 5,000 or more students. Participants in the study were asked to recommend a training program for an individual who had applied for admission to the doctoral program hoping to prepare for an eventual position as chief personnel administrator at a large four-year institution. The survey instrument listed 17 courses under the following five broad areas: background in basic disciplines, courses in higher education, business management back­ ground, specialty courses in higher education and research courses. Also a sixth area, other, gave respondents an opportunity to list additional courses 58 they would recommend. Respondents were asked to specify the appropriate number of credits for each course in the doctorate program. There was agreement among the educators and administrators that relatively little emphasis should be placed on principles of education or on courses about junior college. Most respondents suggested three to six credits in education theory and zero to three hours on the junior college. Courses on appraisal of the indi­ vidual and counseling practicum courses merited somewhat more emphasis (8-12 credits) each. Slightly heavier emphases were recommended for research practice credits). (10-15 Rhatigan states that of the 11 courses remaining the two groups agreed that preparation should include at least one three-hour course in group pro­ cesses, psychology of adjustment, higher education, the college student, counseling, administration, and research methodology. In his concluding remarks Rhatigan states that there is an urgent need for research that relates training experiences to professional effectiveness. O'Banion (1969) applied the theory of Charters (1923) and Tyler (1950) in his study to answer the question: is the core of common experiences "What essential for college and university personnel workers?" (p. 249). Their from purpose and theory states that "program is derived function" (p. 249) . O'Banion used the 59 COSPA report, "A Proposal for Professional Preparation in College Student Personnel Work" (1964) as a basic document to develop a survey form used on a selected sample of 310 leaders in the student personnel profession and an expert panel. The expert panel consisted of counselor educators and deans of students. From the findings of his study, O'Banion concluded that the core of experiences which should be common to all college student personnel professionals should include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Psychology including social psychology, develop­ mental psychology, personality theory, learning theory, and development and characteristics of young a d u l t s ; Counseling principles and techniques— theory and case studies; Practicum in student personnel w o r k — an oppor­ tunity to observe and obtain supervised practice in ongoing programs of student personnel work; An overview of student personnel work in higher education— orientation, financial aids, place­ ment, student activities, admissions, regis­ tration and records, etc.; The study of the college student— nature, char­ acteristics, needs, differing life patterns of men and women; Sociology and anthropology including processes of social and cultural change, urban society, sociometrics, and social institutions, popu­ lations, uses of leisure, and assessment of cultural mores and folkways; Higher education— history, setting, objectives, curriculum, objectives, organization and admin­ istration, finance, etc. (p. 255) McDaniels (1972) makes five recommendations regarding the structure and content of college student preparation p r o g r a m s : 1. Because of the differing leadership roles played at different levels of student personnel leader­ ship, a more explicit separation of master's 60 2. 3. 4. 5. and doctoral training programs may be required. The cognitive and affective skill requirements of available positions for master's and doctoral graduates differ in ways which indicate that the nature of the programs should be fundamen­ tally different. Emphasis should be placed on the development and use of a wide variety of experiential components for the training of student personnel workers. In particular, case study materials, gaming exercises, and situational simulation models are required to supplement the internship and prac­ ticum components. The nature of the decision making process in higher education should lead to internships and practicums outside of the traditional student personnel service areas. Emphasis on philosophical and descriptive content needs to be reduced. Increased attention should be given to the development of analytical and conceptual tools which will be valuable in a wide variety of problem identification and problem solving activities. Research in student personnel administration should become more concerned with identifying and operationalizing the cognitive and affective behaviors required for job success. There exists innumerable lists of functions, services, and definitions, but few indicators of skills required in organizationally relevant roles. (pp. 103-104) Penn (1974) suggests that the "adequate" college student personnel curriculum should include the following: . . . understanding postsecondary education; under­ standing student development theory and application; academic disciplines included in the behavioral sciences; the development of helping relationships, research and evaluation techniques; promotion of sound educational environments; the development, financing, and implementation of programs; business management and educational administration techniques, and social systems analyses. (pp. 258-259) The "Student Personnel Education Process-Outcome Model" (SPEdPOM) for the preparation of college student personnel professionals is based on student development principles (Arner, T.H., Peterson, Arner, C.A., Hawkins 61 & Spooner, 1976). The model is also a synthesis of ele­ ments of learner-centered and competency-based education. Students and faculty work closely together to assess the student's professional and personal development; estab­ lish career and personal development goals and appropriate change processes. In addition to the study of the college student, history of higher education, principles of administration, group dynamics and student personnel services the model emphasizes student development topics including: . . . theories and principles of human learning, theories and principles of human development, including person-environment interaction, consult­ ing principles and techniques, principles and techniques of milieu management and organizational change and development, and developmental and environmental assessment strategies. (p. 336) Summary of Literature Related to Suggested Areas of Study In 1968 Nygreen concluded that of the broad range of program emphases suggested there is generally basic agreement about the core of experiences necessary for most college student personnel professionals. Robinson (1966), in comparing the statements of COSPA (1966), APGA (1965), and ACPA (1965) on professional preparation for college student personnel professionals, concluded that there is basic agreement between the three groups relative to desirable training for persons enter­ ing the college student personnel field. 62 Although specific program emphases varied some­ what among the authors during the 1960s, there was general agreement that the philosophy and history of higher education, developmental psychology and counsel­ ing, leadership, management, decision-making, planning and financial management, sociology, and anthropology should be included in graduate preparation curriculums. Beginning in the 1970s, several authors began to emphasize areas of study related to student development concepts and principles as defined by writers such as Arner, 1976; Brown, 1972; Crookston, 1976; and Miller and Prince, 1977 and professional organizations such as COSPA, 1974. Specific areas of study suggested included: theories and principles of human learning, theories and principles of human development, consulting principles and techniques, principles of milieu management and organizational change and development, and developmental and environmental assessment strategies (Arner, 1976). Other authors during this period, Chandler and Cross (19 72) felt that there would be problems in implementing the student development model. (Kubit, 1973) (1973) Cross stated that: The problem in founding a profession on a science of student development, . . . is that we are not ready for it, and I predict that we won't be for at least 10 to 2 0 years. . . . We just don't know enough about it. Until we can measure the existence of personal maturity in an individual, we are in an untenable position to know how to bring such maturity about. (p. 79) 63 Chandler stated that "a change in title to student development by student affairs may be seen by . . . faculty . . . as a real or implied threat . . . " and that "full scale implementation of student develop­ ment program requires nearly complete acceptance of the concept by the vast majority of the entire academic com­ munity ." Finally, McDaniels (19 72) recommended that there should be more explicit separation of the master's and doctoral training programs because of the differing leadership roles played at different levels of responsi­ bility in the student personnel field; that there should be a wide use of a variety of experiential components including case study materials, gaming exercises, and situational simulation models to supplement internship and practicum components. Criticisms of College Student Personnel Preparation Programs Barry and Wolf (1963) criticized student person­ nel course work asserting that it consisted of a mixture of courses from various disciplines. They also contended that the field had not examined the competencies required in various student personnel positions or determined whether or not a common core of training was needed by all student personnel workers. 64 Penny (1969) was critical of the emphases in college student personnel preparation programs. He observed three approaches to the education of student personnel professionals— guidance based, human relations, and counseling. The guidance based approach appeared to Penny as the most common emphasis and that emphasis pro­ vided a generalist orientation. Penny was also critical of the COSPA (1966) document which suggested guidelines for the preparation of student personnel workers. He commented that the recommendations represented current thinking and that the proposal had not established new directions. Dewey (19 72) criticized student personnel preparation programs as having similarity of approach and focusing too much on the specificity of student services. Examination of typical programs reveals just that "typical" programs, involving human relations skills, some counseling, some overview of practice, some internship experience. . . . Within these programs one does not typically see much emphasis on organizational theory, dynamics of institutional and social change, American studies, sociology of student life and culture, futuristics, heavy research components. . . . The focus is too much on the specificity of student services and too little on the institution as a whole, an organism, a system. (p. 48) The second major criticism that Dewey makes is in the selection of candidates for graduate study. She states that "self-selection has been the primary mode for entry into the field" (p. 48). 65 Wallenfeldt and Bigelow (19 71) suggested that college student personnel preparation programs needed to be revised. They suggested that national recommen­ dations on program content be drafted, but that recommen­ dations were only a beginning and considerably more was needed in the form of quality control. They urged the profession to establish a national committee on standards and accreditation. Penn (1974) noted that while progress had been made in the development of models for the preparation of student personnel workers, little progress has been made in the implementation of recognized standards of excel­ lence for professional preparation. He suggested that the field needs to develop curriculum guidelines and implement a national accreditation body to evaluate preparation programs in the field. Rockey (1972) studied 20 doctoral preparation programs for college student personnel professionals. In discussing preparation program shortcomings, she indicated that many of the preparation programs had: inadequate student-facuity ratios; high percentage of the faculty that were part-time faculty; very few women were faculty in the programs; only one-third of the faculty were trained in college student personnel at the doctorate level; program objectives were vague and obscure; program emphases were poorly defined with 66 little agreement among faculty members as to the focus of the program; very limited course offerings in college student personnel; practical work experiences were inclined to be poorly defined, loosely organized, and haphazardly supervised. Discussion of Literature Related to Criticisms of College Student Per~ sonne1 Preparation Programs Rockey (1972) investigated a representative sample of 20 doctoral CSP preparation programs. The findings of her study address some of the criticisms of college student personnel preparation programs found in the literature. Her study revealed that the typical doctoral program included courses in college student personnel, higher education, counseling and educational psychology, administrative theory, applied administration, historical and philosophical foundations, and research. Based on these findings she concludes that just as Barry and Wolf (196 3) contend, college student personnel preparation programs do consist of a mixture of courses from various disciplines. Penny was critical of the emphases in preparation programs in college student personnel. From his obser­ vations, he pointed out three approaches to the education of student personnel professionals— guidance based, human relations, and counseling. However, Rockey's 67 study revealed that the current preparation program emphases are administration, counseling, research, and student development. Contrary to Dewey's statement (1972) that prepar­ ation programs were limited in design, repetitive, un­ imaginative, and reluctant to question themselves, Rockey found that while preparation programs were similar in design, many appeared to be staffed by innovative faculty and coordinators who were seriously questioning their programs. Barry and Wolf (1963) criticized the college student personnel field for not having determined a common core of training for all student personnel workers. However, Robinson (1966) compared the proposals for professional training of ACPA (1965) , COSPA (1966) , and APGA (1965) and concluded that they were in basic agreement as to the common core of training experiences needed by college student personnel professionals. (1967) APGA published a statement on professional preparation which listed the basic functions performed by student personnel workers regardless of their area of speciali­ zation. Inferences regarding a common core of training needed for all college student personnel professionals were made by APGA. Finally, O'Banion (1969) conducted a study among student personnel professionals and an 68 expert panel and developed a list of core training experiences which should be common to all college stu­ dent personnel professionals. Evaluation of College Student Per­ sonnel Preparation Programs Several doctoral dissertations have dealt with preparation program evaluation, Wright (1958), Keller Rockey (1972). including those by (1962), Montgomery (1971), and Wright sought to identify the status of doctoral training programs for counselors and other personnel workers in colleges and universities holding membership in the North Central Association. His sample included 100 graduates of 16 institutions and the chief prepar­ ation program trainer in each of the institutions. His findings indicated that nearly all of the basic training experiences were highly rated by the graduates of the pro g r a m s . Keller investigated the doctoral preparation program at Indiana University through a survey of its trainees. The alumni and trainees perceived their course work in college student personnel to be helpful in preparing them for student personnel work. The interest shown by the staff members in the trainees was found to be the major strength of the program. The most negative aspect of the program was reported 69 to be the limited opportunity for supervised internships. A recommendation that facilities for extended services in supervised practice by many trainees. be made available was suggested The following conclusions were drawn from the study: 1. 2. 3. 4. Most of the trainees were holding positions in college student personnel work. The acquisition of the doctor's degree in student personnel work was financially beneficial to trainees. Characteristics and skills which trainers thought to be of value in practicing student personnel work were similar to those expressed in the responses of the trainees. Course work in student personnel training was believed to be useful in helping trainees perform what was required of them as student personnel workers. (p. 120) Montgomery was concerned about the types of training that would best prepare personnel workers for the roles and functions demanded by higher education. She sought to evaluate the contributions of the course work and the practical work experiences {practicum, internships, etc.) in the master's college student personnel preparation program at Indiana University. Two hundred and eight alumni of the program who had graduated between 1959 and 1969 participated in the study. In the opinion of the graduates, the practical experience preparation surpassed the academic prepar­ ation in the program. In summary, the research recom­ mended that courses in psychology, counseling, the sociology of the university, group dynamics and human 70 relations skills, and practicum experiences in several student personnel service areas be emphasized in the future. Rockey investigated 20 college student personnel doctoral preparation programs and developed a profile of college student personnel preparation faculty. The structured interview technique was utilized to elicit information from preparation program coordinators. In developing a profile of the faculty members, a survey questionnaire was employed. The findings based on interviews with the prepar­ ation program coordinators included the following: 1. Many of the college student personnel preparation programs were recently established. Nearly two- thirds of the 20 preparation programs had been in existence less than 10 years. 2. The emphasis in preparation programs has shifted over the years from counseling to administration. 3. More of the programs had a pragmatic emphasis than a theoretical orientation. 4. Program strengths were identified by the coordi­ nators as flexibility, individuality, campus resources, opportunities for meaningful work experiences, and preparation program faculty memb e r s . 71 5. The average number of doctoral students enrolled in each of the 20 preparation programs during the 1971-72 academic year was approximately 23, and the average number of master's students was 46. 6. The average number of full-time faculty involved in the programs was 1.4, and the average number of part-time faculty was 3.2. 7. Most college student personnel doctoral programs required an average of 20 courses past the master's degree. The typical doctoral program consisted of courses in college student personnel, higher education, counseling and educational psy­ chology, administrative theory, applied adminis­ tration, historical and philosophical foundations, and research. 8. On the average, nearly 90% of the students enrolled in the doctoral college student per­ sonnel preparation programs graduated. The average completion time was slightly over three years. 9. Graduate follow-up was an informal activity in nearly all of the programs. Formal follow-up of graduates had been conducted in less than one-fourth of the programs. 72 10. The components of a quality college student per­ sonnel preparation program were identified by the coordinators as quality faculty, quality students, sufficient elaboration of the program, strong supporting departments, institutional resources, a well-conceived curriculum, and opportunities for practical work experiences. 11. The coordinators identified the leading doctoral personnel programs in college student personnel in rank order as Michigan State University, Indiana University, Florida State University, Columbia Teachers College, and the University of Minnesota. The coordinators based their selec­ tions of the leading programs on quality of the faculty, quality of the graduates, visible leadership in the field by the faculty and graduates, and on the literature and research published and reported by the leading programs. 12. Coordinators forecast a number of changes antici­ pated in their programs in the next five years. One-half of the coordinators predicted a leveling off or drop in the number of students being admitted to the preparation programs because of a reduced demand for college student personnel workers. Most foresaw the composition of the programs changing to include more women and 73 minority students. Several coordinators pr e ­ viewed new administrative structure with college student personnel joining with other education specialties. A review of curriculum, content, and quality of the college student personnel preparation programs was recommended to make them relevant to changes that occur in higher education in general. The need for administra­ tive theory and a broader curriculum were to be important requirements for the programs. Future oriented classes and open kinds of programs without courses and grades were forecast. A "new" kind of faculty member with expertise in research, analysis, and interpretation of p e r ­ sonality theory literature was anticipated. New roles for college student personnel adminis­ trators were previewed including consultative and student development roles and a combination student development and political administration role. 13. The study revealed the following inadequacies in college student personnel preparation pr o ­ grams: quate; (1) student faculty ratios were inade­ (2) there were too many part-time faculty; (3) too few women faculty members; (4) only one- third of the faculty were trained in the college 74 student personnel field at the doctorate level; (5) program objectives were vague and obscure; (6) program emphases were poorly defined with little agreement among faculty members as to the focus of their program; (7) practical work exper­ iences such as internships tended to be loosely organized and haphazardly supervised. In discussing the findings of her study and in making recommendations, Rockey stated it appears that college student personnel faculty are attempting to train far more students than their time would allow; and she recommended that either more faculty should be hired or fewer students admitted. Rockey also questioned whether the large number of part-time faculty, in the college student personnel programs she studied, could provide adequate time for student advising and program leader­ ship. She recommended that more full-time faculty be hired. Summary The purpose of this chapter was to review the available literature concerning the past, present, and future roles and functions of college student personnel professionals, recommended program emphases, suggested areas of study, criticism, and evaluations of college student personnel preparation programs. From the 75 literature on program emphases and suggested areas of study, a comprehensive list of college student personnel program learning goals and objectives was developed and used as a standard to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University from 1965 through 1977. The review of the literature established the basic framework of the present study. The purposes of the study were: 1. To investigate certain aspects of the doctoral graduates' employment, education, and professional activities 2. To determine the relevance of comprehensive col­ lege student personnel doctoral program learning objectives, as perceived by the doctoral grad­ uates, to their current professional responsi­ bilities 3. To determine the extent to which their doctoral program at Michigan State University contributed, as perceived by doctoral degree recipients, to their achievement of comprehensive college stu­ dent personnel learning objectives 4. To determine the extent to which program compo­ nents in their doctoral program at Michigan 76 State University are perceived as having con­ tributed to their professional development 5. To determine whether perceptions of relevance and contribution are differentially related to: (a) area of professional employment, professional responsibilities, (b) current (c) number of years experience in college student personnel prior to completion of doctorate, master's degree, (d) area of (e) Michigan State University doctoral program emphasis, and (f) areas of dissertation study 6. To present findings, analyze and interpret those findings, draw conclusions, and offer suggestions for strengthening the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University C H A P T E R III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND THE DESIGN OF THE STUDY The general problem of this study was to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University from fall 1965 through spring 1977. As a standard with which to appraise the preparation program, a comprehensive list of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives was developed from the theoretical propositions and empirical studies reported in the review of the literature. Research Questions To assist in accomplishing the purposes of the study the following operational research questions were developed: Research Question 1 : Will the perceived relevance, by doctoral graduates, of comprehensive college student personnel learning objectives vary with their professional roles and responsibilities, educational experiences, and other professional factors? 77 78 Research Question 2 : Will the perceived extent of achievement, by doctoral graduates, of comprehensive college student personnel learning objectives through their M.S.U. doctoral program vary with their professional roles and responsibilities, educational experiences, and other professional factors? Primary Tasks of the Study The primary tasks of the study were: (1) to develop a comprehensive list of college student personnel doctoral program learning objectives; appropriate evaluative data; the data; (2) to obtain the (3) to process and analyze (4) to summarize the findings; and (5) to present the major conclusions and recommendations. Development of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Objective¥ From a thorough review of the literature, a com­ prehensive list of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives was developed. The many goals and objectives obtained from the review of the literature were grouped into related aggregations or program goals. were identified. Eventually six broad program goals The comprehensive list of learning objectives was reviewed and critiqued by faculty and doctoral students of the Department and by college student personnel administrators at Michigan State University. Several drafts of the learning objectives were revised based on the review by faculty, doctoral 79 students, and administrators. Finally, two pilot studies with college student personnel doctoral candidates in the Department were conducted. The final list of com­ prehensive learning objectives was incorporated into the survey instrument used in the study. The comprehensive list of college student per­ sonnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives that was developed is as follows. Comprehensive Learning Objectives for College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives The following six goals and related learning objectives for graduate study in college student per­ sonnel administration were developed from a thorough review of the literature. Goal Number O n e ; To provide a professional orientation to the field of college student personnel including the history, philosophy, purposes, problems, issues, and professional ethics and standards. Related Learning Objectives: 1. To understand the philosophy, purposes, and problems of college student personnel adminis­ tration 2. To understand the role and function of each of the offices in a college student personnel program 80 3. To understand the role and function of college student personnel work as it relates to values# goals, purposes, and objectives of Higher Edu­ cation 4. To develop an understanding of the legal aspects of college student personnel administration such as due process of law and institutional liability Goal Number T w o : To understand the psychology of human development and the nature and needs of the college stu­ dent. Related Learning Objectives; 1. To develop an understanding of human development derived from knowledge in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology Goal Number T h r e e ; To develop knowledge and understanding of the history, setting, and objectives of postsecondary education. Related Learning Objectives; 1. To understand the significant political, cultural, and social forces operating in university and college environments 2. To be able to accurately interpret the values, goals, and objectives of institutions of higher education to students, parents, and alumni 3. To understand the financing and planning of higher education 81 4. To understand curriculum development in higher education 5. To understand the history, setting, and objectives of colleges and universities as social institu­ tions 6. To develop defensible positions on the major philosophical issues in higher education Goal Number F o u r ; To develop knowledge and understanding of the principles and theories of learning, counseling, and education. Related Learning Objectives: 1. To understand the process and outcome components of teaching and learning in designing student development programs 2. To develop a basic understanding of the theories and principles of learning 3. To understand the principles, concepts, and methods of counseling used in facilitating the personal development of students 4. To understand the principles, concepts, and techniques used in testing and measurement 5. To understand the human development concepts and theories implied in student development models Goal Number F i v e : To understand administrative theories, principles, concepts and methods and to develop skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, 82 interpreting, constructing, reviewing, delegating, training, staff selection, budgeting, promoting, and referring. Related Learning Obj e c t i v e s : 1. To understand principles of administration and decision making 2. To identify your personal management and adminis­ tration philosophy; one that is compatible with your personal values and life style 3. To know the principles and techniques of conflict management and be able to effectively apply them in personnel matters 4. To understand and be able to apply the principles of management by objectives in administering functional units of a college student personnel program 5. To understand the principles and techniques of organizational change and development 6. To acquire a thorough understanding of student personnel services, administration, issues, ethics, standards, and basic principles 7. To understand and be able to apply principles of evaluation to student personnel programs and services 8. To be able to communicate effectively on a pr o ­ fessional level both in writing and speaking 83 9. To develop skills in budget making and fiscal management 10. To develop a basic understanding of effective and ineffective administrator behaviors as they relate to the role and functioning of college student personnel administrators 11. To understand principles of policy formulation and implementation 12. To be able to develop and maintain job descrip­ tions stated in terms of behavioral objectives 13. To develop an understanding of principles of personnel management including staff selection, performance, evaluation, promotion, and discipline 14. To understand and be able to apply principles of accountability and program planning to the administration of college student personnel services Goal Number S i x : To understand research applicable to the field of college student personnel administration and be able to conduct basic research projects. Related Learning Objectives; 1. To understand the theories, principles, and methods used in social research 2. To be able to apply the theories, principles, and methods of social research to phenomena in college student personnel work 84 3. To understand the principles and procedures of educational evaluation 4. To understand data processing components and their application to the administration of college student personnel administration The Sample The study population consisted of 95 doctoral graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Education who were currently employed in college student personnel positions. 1965 through spring Doctoral graduates from fall 1977 were included in the study. The decision was reached that the sample population should include the entire population of 95 graduates since the size of the population was not unreasonably large and a number of valuable suggestions could be missed if only a sample of the population were used. Each study subject received: press survey instrument, (1) an offset (2) an individually typed and addressed cover letter explaining the purposes and sig­ nificance of the study, and (3) a stamped, pre-addressed return envelope. Doctoral recipients who did not respond to the initial mailing were sent a reminder of the first mailing. Eighty-seven graduates responded to the study providing a 91.5% return rate. Of the question­ naires returned, two were not usable because large 85 portions of information were not completed by two grad­ uates who were not currently employed in a college stu­ dent personnel position. The Survey Instrument The comprehensive list of college student per­ sonnel doctoral program learning objectives was used as a standard with which to appraise the doctoral preparation program of those graduates employed in college student personnel positions. The learning objectives were incor­ porated into a questionnaire which consisted of both fixed-alternative and open-ended questions. Since the data to be collected were from a widely dispersed popu­ lation, the mailed questionnaire was used. Consideration was given to the problems involved in the use of the questionnaire method, and wherever possible steps were taken to avert them. The questionnaire was critiqued by personnel in the Office of Research Consultation, faculty of the Department of Administration and Higher Education, and student personnel administrators at Michigan State Uni­ versity. Two pilot tests were conducted among doctoral candidates in the Department of Administration and Higher Education. As a result of the pilot tests and extensive evaluation and critique by members of the faculty, face validity was claimed for the instrument. 86 The questionnaire consisted of six parts. Part I gathered data on employment and career exper­ iences of doctoral graduates in the study. Parts II and III asked doctoral graduates to respond to the list of comprehensive learning objectives by answering two questions: (part II) How relevant is each objective to your current professional responsibilities and (part III) to what extent did your doctoral preparation at Michigan State University contribute to the achieve­ ment of each objective? Part IV of the questionnaire asked the doctoral graduates to rate the extent of con­ tribution to their professional development of selected program components of their doctoral preparation program. In part V graduates were asked to list three of the major strengths and three of the major weaknesses of their doctoral program and to make suggestions for strengthening the doctoral program. In part VI general information was gathered regarding the graduates1 pro­ fessional employment and educational experiences. Collecting the Data Four primary sources were used to collect the data required for the study: (1) the records of the Graduate Student Affairs Office of the College of Edu­ cation at Michigan State University, (2) faculty of the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University, (3) data from a study of 87 graduates of the Department done by Tom O'Shea in 1972, and the survey instrument returned by the respondents. The records of the Graduate Student Affairs Office provided a list of all doctoral graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Education for the period of fall 1965 through spring 1977. The term and year of each doctoral graduates program completion and his major adviser were also ascertained from the Graduate Student Affairs Office. The particular doctoral graduates of interest in the study were those graduates of the Department during the period fall 1965 through spring 1977 who were currently employed in college stu­ dent personnel positions. Tom O'Shea's study of graduates of the Department for the period fall 1965 through spring 1972 and faculty of the Department were the two sources utilized to identify the current and recent employment positions of graduates in the study. Also the mailing address file of the MSU Orient was used to identify the current addresses and employment status of doctoral graduates of the Department. Data Analysis Techniques of the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) were used to analyze and summarize the data. Several SPSS statistical procedures were utilized on the CDC 6500 in the Computing Center at Michigan 88 State University. To ascertain basic descriptive infor­ mation, the Condescriptive procedure was employed. This procedure provided measures of central tendency (mean scores, standard deviation). Contingency tables which provided frequency and percentage scores were also acquired through the SPSS Condescriptive procedure. To determine if significant differences existed in the responses of sub-populations within the study, the Crosstabs and Breakdowns procedures were utilized. The Crosstabs procedure provided chi square scores and the Breakdowns procedure provided an analysis of variance of sub-populations in the study. Differences of responses by sub-populations within the study to the learning objectives were tested. The sub-population compared consisted of doctoral program emphasis, dissertation topic, area of professional responsibility, years of experience in the college student personnel field, and area of masters degree. The responses of graduates were transposed to data processing cards to accommodate analysis on the CDC G500 computer. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Introduction The data presented in this chapter are the results of survey research undertaken with doctoral graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University from fall 1965 through spring 1977 who were employed in college student personnel positions. Purposes of the Study The focus of this study was the doctoral prepar­ ation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education during the period fall 1965 through spring 1977. The purposes of the study w e r e : 1. To investigate certain aspects of the doctoral graduates' employment, education, and profes­ sional activities 2. To determine the relevance as perceived by the doctoral graduates, of comprehensive college 89 90 student personnel doctoral program learning objectives to their current professional responsibilities 3. To determine the extent to which their doctoral program at M.S.U. contributed, as perceived by doctoral degree recipients, to their achievement of comprehensive college student personnel learn­ ing objectives 4. To determine the extent to which program compo­ nents in their doctoral program at M.S.U. are perceived by graduates as having contributed to their professional development 5. To determine the strongest and weakest aspects of the preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education, as perceived by the doctoral graduates in the study 6. To solicit suggestions from the doctoral graduates in the study for strengthening the doctoral prepar ation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University 7. To determine whether the graduates' perceptions of relevance and contribution are differently 91 related to their professional roles and responsi­ bilities, educational experiences, and other professional factors 8. To present findings, analyze and interpret those findings, draw conclusions and offer suggestions for strengthening the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University From a thorough review of relevant and related research, a comprehensive list of college student per­ sonnel learning goals and related objectives was developed which was used as a standard with which to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel admin­ istrators at Michigan State University in the Department of Administration and Higher Education. A survey ques­ tionnaire was developed which incorporated the college student personnel doctoral program learning objectives. In the survey instrument graduates were asked to respond to the learning objectives by giving their judg­ ment as to (1) the relevance of each of the objectives to their current professional responsibilities and (2) the extent to which their doctoral program at MSU contributed to their achievement of each objective. Graduates were also asked to rate the extent of contribution to their professional development of 92 selected doctoral program components, to list what they perceived to be the major strengths and weaknesses of their doctoral program, and to make suggestions for strengthening the preparation of college student per­ sonnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at MSU. The following is a report of the findings of the study. Number of Graduates Returning the Survey Questionnaire Of the 95 doctoral graduates in the study, 87 returned the survey questionnaire yielding a 91.5% rate of return. Two questionnaires were not usable since major portions had not been completed by the respondents. Characteristics of the Graduates The first stated purpose of the study was to investigate certain aspects of the doctoral graduates' employment, educational and professional activities. In conjunction with this purpose, data were gathered from the graduates regarding the following employment and professional activities: present employment position; type of employing institution; state residence; primary type of employment responsibility; percentage of time spent in administrative, counseling, teaching, research, consulting and other types of duties; area of the insti­ tution, either student affairs division or academic unit, 93 in which the graduate is employed; number of graduates employed in key college student personnel administrative positions of vice president of student affairs or deans of students; compatibility of graduate's present position with employment objectives held while working toward the doctorate; job satisfaction with present position; average salary of graduates; and number of years of experience in college student personnel prior to com­ pletion of the doctorate and number of years of exper­ ience in college student personnel since completing the doctorate. The following section of Chapter IV reports the data gathered on the graduates' employment and profes­ sional activities related to the first stated purpose of the study. Present Employment Position of Graduates The largest number of graduates, 33 or 39%, held the position of vice president of student affairs, dean, associate, or assistant dean of students. The next most frequent type of position held by graduates were those graduates who were functioning in academic units of institutions performing various student personnel duties such as coordinators of academic advising, edu­ cational consultants, and other similar types of functions. Five graduates in this latter group were performing 94 student personnel functions in medical colleges. Twelve graduates were employed as vice presidents of student affairs divisions and 10 were employed as college student personnel faculty. Eight graduates were employed as directors or associate directors of residence halls or residence hall programs and the remaining 19 graduates held positions as follows: director or associate director of admissions 3, assistant director of career planning 1, director or associate director of student activities 3, director or associate director of counseling centers 4, assistant director of placement services 1, directors of minority support programs 3, director or associate director of financial aids 2, and unemployed 2. Of the two unemployed graduates, one had recently graduated and was in the interviewing process for employment and the other had recently given birth to her second child and was devoting her energies full time to her family (see Table 4.1), Type of Employing Institution and State Residence of: Graduates Of the graduates in the study, 80 were employed by four-year colleges and universities, 5 by medical colleges, 5 by community colleges, 4 by educational institutes, and 1 by an educational consulting firm. Graduates resided in 28 states, Canada, Washington D.C. (see Table 4.2). and 95 Table 4.1 Present Employment Position of Graduates Position Number Percentage Vice President for Student Affairs 12 14 Dean or Assistant Dean of Students 21 24.7 Director or Associate Director of Residence Halls 8 9 Director or Associate Director of Admissions 3 3.5 Assistant Director of Career Planning 1 1 17 20 Student Personnel Functions in Academic Units of Institutions Director or Associate Director of Student Activities 3 3.5 Director or Associate Director of Counseling Centers 4 4.6 Assistant Director of Placement Services 1 1 College Student Personnel Faculty 10 11.7 Director of Minority Support Programs 3 3.5 Director or Associate Director of Student Financial Aids 2 2 Unemployed 2 2 85 100 Total 96 Table 4.2 Residence of Graduates Residence Number Residence Number Alabama 1 Minnesota 2 California 8 North Carolina 6 Canada 2 New York 1 Colorado 2 Ohio 3 Florida 1 Oklahoma 1 Georgia 1 Oregon 1 Idaho 1 Pennsylvania Illinois 5 South Carolina 1 Indiana 5 Texas 3 Iowa 2 Utah 1 Kentucky 4 Virginia Louisiana 1 Washington Maryland 1 Washington D.C. 1 Michigan 31 Wisconsin 1 11 97 Primary Type of Employment Responsi­ bility of Graduates Among administrative, teaching, research, coun­ seling, consulting and other types of employment responsi­ bilities, the majority of graduates indicated that admin­ istrative duties were their primary type of professional responsibility. The second most frequent primary type of professional responsibility reported by graduates was that of teaching. The number and percentage of graduates in each type of primary professional responsibility is indicated in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 Primary Type of Professional Responsibility of Graduates Primary Type of Responsibility Number Percentage Administrative 70 82 Teaching/Research 10 12 Counseling 4 5 Other 1 1 85 100 Total Mean Percentage of Time Spent by Graduates in Administrative, Teaching, Counseling, Research, Consulting, and Other Duties Graduates were asked to indicate the percentage of time that they spent in their present position in administration, counseling, research, teaching. 98 consulting, and other types of duties. Graduates reported activity in all categories of duties with the greatest percentage being devoted to administration and counseling functions. See Table 4.4 for specific percentages. Table 4.4 Mean Percentage of Time Spent by Graduates in Six Different Types of Duties Type of Duty Mean Percentage Time Administration 68 Counseling 13 Teaching/Re search 12 Consulting 4 Other 3 Total 100 aN = 85 Area of the Institution in Which Graduates Are Employed An investigation of the employment positions of graduates revealed that 67% were employed in institutional divisions of student affairs and 33% were employed in academic units of colleges and universities. See Table 4.5 for specific numbers of graduates in each category. 99 Table 4.5 Area of the Institution in Which Graduates Are Employed Area of Professional Responsibility Number Percentage Divisions of Student Affairs 57 67 Academic Units 28 33 85 100 Total Number of Graduates Employed in Key College Student Personnel Administrator Positions For the purposes of this study key college stu­ dent personnel administrators were defined as those graduates holding the position of vice president for student affairs or dean, associate or assistant dean of students. When these three positions are combined into one employment position category, this one category con­ tains the largest portion of graduates than any of the other employment position categories (see Table 4.6). Compatibility of Present Employment Position and Primary Employment Objectives Held While Working Toward the Doctorate Graduates in the study were asked, "Are you now employed in a position which is compatible with the pri­ mary employment objectives you held while working toward your doctorate?" The largest portion, and 13% answered no (see Table 4.7). 87%, answered yes 100 Table 4.6 Number of Graduates Employed in Key College Student Personnel Administrator Positions Employment Position Number Percentage Vice President for Student Affairs 12 14 Deans, Associate and Assistant Deans of Students 21 25 Key College Student Personnel Admin­ istrators (above two categories combined) 33 39 Other Positions 52 61 Table 4.7 Responses of Graduates to the Question, "Are You Now Employed in a Position Which Is Compatible with the Employment Objectives You Held While Working Toward Your Doctorate?" Number Percentage Yes 75 87 No 10 13 85 100 Is Current Position Compatible Total 101 Job Satisfaction of Graduates with Their Present Employment Positions When asked, "How satisfied are you with your cur­ rent employment position," 83% of the graduates reported that they were either very or fairly satisfied, 4% were undecided, and 13% of the graduates were either fairly dissatisfied or very dissatisfied (see Table 4.8). Table 4.8 Job Satisfaction of Graduates How Satisfied Are You with Your Current Employment Position? Very Satisfied Number Percentage 44 52 } 83 Fairly Satisfied 24 31 Undecided 4 4 Fairly Dissatisfied 9 11 Very Dissatisfied 2 2 85 100 } 13 Total Average Annual Salary of Graduates The average annual salary of graduates responding to the survey questionnaire was in the category of $22,000 to $24,999. The frequency of graduates with salaries in the other categories along with percentages are given in Table 4.9. 102 Table 4.9 Annual Salary of Graduates Salary Category Number Percentage $13,000 to 15,999 4 4.7 $16,000 to 18,999 13 15. 3 $19,000 to 21,999 13 15.3 $22,000 to 24,999— Mean Salary 20 23.5 $25,000 to 27,999 16 18.8 $28,000 to 30,999 9 10.6 10 11.8 $31,000 & Over 85 Total 100 Number of Years of Experience of Graduates in College Student Personnel Prior to the Completion of Their Doctoral Degree The mean number of years of experience in college student personnel of graduates prior to the completion of their doctoral studies was 6.05 with a standard deviation of 5.038 and a range of from less than one year to 26 years of experience (see Table 4.10). Number of Years of Experience of Graduates in College Student Personnel Since Completing Their Doctoral Degree The mean number of years of experience in college student personnel of graduates since completing their doctoral studies was 4.05 with a standard deviation of 3.02 years and a range of from less than one year to 11 years of experience (see Table 4.11). 103 Table 4.10 Graduates' Number of Years of Experience in College Student Personnel Prior to Completing Their Doctoral Studies Category-Years of Experience Prior to Completing Doctorate Number Percentage 7 9 One to Five Years of Experience 29 37 Six or More Years of Experience 49 54 85 100 Less than One Year of Experience Total Note: Mean years of experience pre-Ph. D . = 6.05 Table 4. 11 Number of Years of Experience of Graduates in College Student Personnel Since Completing Their Doctoral Degree Category-Years of Experience Since Completing the Doctorate Number Percentage Less than One Year of Experience 13 14 One to Five Years of Experience 36 43 Six Years or More of Experience 36 43 85 100 Total 104 Total Number of Years of Experience in College Student Personnel Doctoral graduates in the study had an average of 10.1 years of experience in college student personnel at the time of the study. This completes the reporting of summary data on the graduates' employment and professional activities related to the first stated purpose of the study, ”. . . to investigate certain aspects of the doctoral graduates' employment, educational and professional activities." Educational Experiences and Activities of Graduates The following section of this chapter reports the data gathered on the graduates' educational experiences and activities primarily while in the doctoral program of study at Michigan State University. Of interest was the doctoral program emphasis of graduates in the study, the area in which graduates conducted their dissertation studies, whether the student pursued his course work and dissertation writing as a full-time or part-time student, and the area of the graduates' Masters degree. Doctoral Program Emphasis of Graduates in the Study An investigation of College Student Personnel Administration class rosters for the period fall 1965 through spring 1977 revealed that doctoral graduates in the study had taken a range of college student 105 personnel courses, seminars, practicums, and internships ranging from none to more than 21 credits. Departmental faculty indicated that doctoral candidates emphasizing college student personnel administration had generally been required to enroll in a college student personnel internship. For the purposes of this study, doctoral graduates were classified as having a doctoral program emphasis in college student personnel administration if they had taken two or more doctoral level college student personnel seminars and at least three credits of a col­ lege student personnel administration internship. The investigation of class rosters mentioned earlier revealed that 34% (29 graduates) had taken at least two doctoral level seminars and three or-more credits of college student personnel administration internship. It is noteworthy that while 34% of the doctoral graduates had a doctoral program emphasis in college student personnel administration, 73% of the graduates conducted a dissertation study in the college student personnel field and 77% of the doctoral graduates in the study either had a doctoral program emphasis in college student personnel administration or conducted a dissertation study in the college student personnel field (see Tables 4.12 and 4.13). Sixty-seven percent of the graduates in the study had doctoral program emphases in a wide range of areas 106 which included general administration, administration, community college adult and continuing education, college- university teaching, and others. Table 4.12 Doctoral Graduates with Program Emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration Doctoral Program Emphasis Number Percentage College Student Personnel Adminis­ tration 29 34 Other 56 66 85 100 Total Doctoral Graduates Conducting Dissertation Studies in College Student Personnel Using the card catalog located in the Instruc­ tional Resources Center of the College of Education, an investigation was made of the dissertation studies con­ ducted by doctoral graduates in the study. Of particular interest were the number of dissertation studies conducted in the college student personnel field. The investigation revealed that 7 3% of the graduates had conducted disser­ tation studies in the college student personnel field (see Table 4.13). 107 Table 4.13 Number of Graduates Conducting Dissertation Studies in the Field of College Student Personnel Number Percentage College Student Personnel 62 73 Other Areas 23 27 85 100 Dissertation Study Total Number of Graduates Studying Full-Time and Part- Time while Completing Their Doctoral Program Course Work The merits of requiring students to pursue graduate programs full time have been debated by faculties for some time. Advantages of more contact with faculty and other students in the discipline, the many and varied resources such as the library and other facilities on campus, and a more intimate contact with the intellectual community were discussed. However, others have discussed the advantages of combining the class room with the real work situation as a laboratory. pose of this study, While it was not a pur­ it was thought that it would be sig­ nificant to determine the number of students who pursued their doctoral studies full time and those that pursued them part time and determine if one group rated their doctoral program experiences more highly than the other. It was later determined that much more detailed informa­ tion would be required to make a valid comparison between 108 these two groups; for example, how much time did parttime and full-time students actually spend on campus; did the student work full time or part time; was his employ­ ment, while pursuing his doctorate, related to higher education; how many credits per term for how many terms defines a full-time student; and how long did it take for the graduates to complete their doctorates? Therefore, these data are reported only as descriptive information and no comparisons were made between graduates who clas­ sified themselves as full time and those that classified themselves as part time. Table 4.14 Number of Graduates Studying Full-Time and Part-Time While Completing Their Doctoral Program Course Work Student Status While Completing Doctoral Program Course Work Number Percentage Primarily Full-Time Student 42 49 Primarily Part-Time Student 43 51 85 100 Total Number of Graduates Writing Their Dissertations While Holding Full-Time Employment Seventy-two percent indicated that they were holding full-time employment while writing their disser­ tation, and 27% indicated that they had not held full­ time employment while writing their dissertation (see Table 4.15). 109 Table 4.15 Number of Graduates Writing Their Dissertations While Holding Full-Time Employment Employment Status While „ .. . „■ . .. Writing Dissertation M . Number _ , Percentage ^ Primarily Full-Time 62 72 Primarily Part-Time 23 27 85 100 Total Mean Age of Graduates Graduates were asked to give the date of their birth on the survey questionnaire. From this information a mean age for all graduates at the time of the study was computed to be 37.16 years with a standard deviation of 6.8 years. This concludes the report of the findings on the graduates' employment, educational and professional activities. The next section of this chapter reports the findings of the study on the relevance of college student doctoral program learning objectives as perceived by the graduates. Relevance of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives to Graduates' Current P ro fe s s iona1 Re spon s ib i1it ies The second stated purpose of this study was, "To determine the relevance as perceived by the doctoral graduates, of comprehensive college student personnel 110 doctoral program learning objectives to their current professional responsibilities." In the survey instrument doctoral graduates were asked to respond to college stu­ dent personnel doctoral program learning objectives in the following manner: "Please give your judgment about the relevance of each of these objectives of graduate study in college student personnel." "Using the scale below, please circle the number which best represents the relevance of each objective to your current profes­ sional responsibilities." 4-Very Relevant 3-Relevant 2-Somewhat Relevant The graduates' 1-Not Particularly Relevant 0-Not At All Relevant responses to the relevance of the learning goals and objectives are reported in this section of Chapter IV. Responses to the learning goals and objec­ tives are reported (with an N of 85) giving the percentage of graduates rating each objective and each learning goal; and the rank of each objective within its respective goal and the rank of each goal among the six goals. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal~I College student personnel doctoral program goal I read as follows: To provide the graduate student with a professional orientation to the field of college student personnel administration including the history, philosophy. Ill purposes, problems, issues, and professional ethics and standards of the college student personnel field. Four program objectives were considered representative of program goal I . 1. They w e r e : To understand the philosophy, purposes, and problems of college student personnel adminis­ tration 2. To understand the role and function of each of the offices in a college student personnel program 3. To understand the role and function of college student personnel work as it relates to the values, goals, purposes and objectives of higher education 4. To develop an understanding of the legal aspects of college student personnel administration, such as due process of law and institutional liability The combined responses {see Table 4.16) to all four program objectives of program goal I indicated that 45.3% of the graduates considered program goal I to be very relevant to their primary professional responsibility, 35.9% to be relevant, 14.7% to be somewhat relevant, and 3% not particularly relevant, and 1% not at all relevant. The g r a d u a t e s 1 weighted mean response to the four program objectives of program goal I was 3.2 02 which ranked third among the relevance mean ranking assigned to the six 112 program goals. The weighted relevance mean rankings of the four program objectives of program goal I varied from 3.325, objective number 3, to 3.036, objective number 2. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal II College student personnel doctoral goal II was as follows: To understand the psychology of human develop­ ment and the nature and needs of the college student. The following program objective was considered represen­ tative of program goal II: 1. To develop an understanding of human development derived from knowledge in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology Responses to program goal II {see Table 4.16) indicated that 50.6% of the graduates considered program goal II to be very relevant, 31.8% to be relevant, 15.3% somewhat relevant, 1% not particularly relevant, and 1% not at all relevant. Program goal II had a mean weighted ranking of 3.265 and ranked second among the other pro­ gram goals. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal III College student personnel doctoral program goal III read as follows: To develop knowledge and understand the history, setting, philosophy, and objectives of 113 higher education. The following six program objectives were considered representative of program goal III: 1. To understand the significant political, cultural, and social forces operating in university and college environments 2. To be able to accurately interpret the values, goals, and objectives of institutions of higher education to students, parents, and alumni 3. To understand the financing and planning of higher education 4. To understand curriculum development in higher education 5. To understand the history, setting, and objec­ tives of colleges and universities as social institutions 6. To develop defensible positions on the major philosophical issues in higher education The combined responses {see Table 4.16) indicated that 36.3% of the graduates considered program goal III to be very relevant, 38.3% to be relevant, 19.6% somewhat relevant, 4% not particularly relevant, and 2% not at all relevant. The graduates' mean weighted mean responses to the six program objectives of program goal III was 3.014 which ranked fourth among the six program goals. The 114 weighted relevance mean rankings of the six program objectives of program goal III ranged from 3.410, objec­ tive one, to 2.675, objective six. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal IV College student personnel doctoral program goal IV read as follows: To develop knowledge and understand­ ing of the principles and theories of learning, counsel­ ing, and education. The following five program objectives were considered representative of program goal IV: 1. To understand the process and outcome components of teaching and learning in designing student development programs 2. To develop a basic understanding of the theories and principles of learning 3. To understand the principles, concepts, and methods of counseling used in facilitating the personal development of students 4. To understand the principles, concepts, and tech­ niques used in testing and measurement 5. To understand the human development concepts and theories implied in student development models The combined responses (see Table 4.16) to all five program objectives of program goal IV indicated that 30% of the graduates considered program goal IV to be 115 very relevant to their primary professional professional responsibility, 38% to be relevant, 23.1% somewhat rele­ vant, 5.9% not particularly relevant, and 2.8% not at all relevant. The graduates' weighted mean response to the five program objectives of program goal IV was 2.85 8 which was fifth among the relevance mean ranking assigned to the six program goals. The weighted relevance mean rankings of the five program objectives of program goal IV varied from 3.084, objective five, to 2.470, objective four. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal V College student personnel doctoral program goal V read as follows: To understand administrative theories, principles, concepts and methods, and to develop skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, interpreting, constructing, reviewing, delegating, training, staff selection, budgeting, promoting, and referring. The fourteen program objectives considered to be representative of program goal V were as follows: 1. To understand principles of administration and decision making 2. To identify your personal management and adminis­ tration philosophy; one that is compatible with your personal values and life style 116 3. To know the principles and techniques of conflict management and be able to effectively apply them in personnel matters 4. To understand and be able to apply the principles of management by objectives in administering functional units of a college student personnel program 5. To understand the principles and techniques of organization change and development 6. To acquire a thorough understanding of student personnel services, administration, issues, ethics, standards, and basic principles 7. To understand and be able to apply principles of accountability and program planning to the administration of college student personnel services 8. To understand and be able to apply principles of evaluation to student personnel programs and services 9. To be able to communicate effectively on a pro­ fessional level both in writing and speaking 10. To develop skills in budget making and fiscal management 117 11. To develop a basic understanding of effective and ineffective administrator behaviors as they relate to the role and functioning of college student personnel administrators 12. To understand principles of policy formulation and implementation 13. To be able to develop and maintain job descrip­ tions stated in terms of behavioral objectives 14. To develop an understanding of principles of personnel management including staff selection, performance evaluation, promotion, The combined responses and discipline (see Table 4.16) to all fourteen program objectives of program goal V indicated that 49.7% of the graduates considered program be very relevant to bilities, goal V to their primary professional responsi­ 3 3% to be relevant, 12.7% somewhat relevant, 3.2% not particularly relevant, and 1.3% not at all rele­ vant. The graduates weighted mean response to the four­ teen program objectives of program goal V was 3.280 which was first among the relevance mean ranking assigned the other program goals. The weighted relevance mean rankings of the fourteen program objectives of program goal V varied from 3.747, objective number one, to 2.817, objective number thirteen. 118 College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal vT College student personnel doctoral program goal VI read as follows: To understand research applicable to the field of college student personnel administration and be able to conduct basic research projects. The following four program objectives were considered repre­ sentative of program goal VI: 1. To understand the theories, principles, and methods used in social research 2. To be able to apply the theories, principles, and methods of social research to phenomena in college student personnel work 3. To understand the principles and procedures of educational evaluation 4. To understand data processing components and their application to the administration of college student personnel administration The combined responses (see Table 4.16) to all four program objectives of program goal VI indicated that 19.7% of the graduates considered program VI to be very relevant to their primary professional responsibility, 38.8% to be relevant, 34.7% somewhat relevant, 6% not particularly relevant, and 1% not at all relevant. The graduates' weighted response to the four program objec­ tives of program goal VI was 2.714 which ranked sixth Table 4.16 Relevance of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives to Graduates' Current Professional Responsibilities Perception by Graduates of the Relevance of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Objectives of Program Goal I to Their Primary Professional Responsibility Program Goal I : To provide the graduate student with a professional orientation to the field of college student personnel administration including the history, philosophy, purposes, problems, and issues, and professional ethics and standards of the college student personnel field. Relevance 1 2 3 4 Total Program Goal I N % Not Particularly Relevant Not At All Relevant Very Re levant Relevant Somewhat Relevant 38 29 40 47 25 37 36 24 19 15 7 9 3 2 1 3 0 2 1 2 154 122 50 9 5 14.7 3 1 45.3 35.9 Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 3.157 3.036 3.325 3.289 3 4 1 2 13 19 6 8 3.202 3 Mean 119 Program Objective Table 4.16— Continued Perception by Graduates of the Relevance of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Objectives of Program Goal II to Their Primary Professional Responsibility Program Goal I I : To understand the psychology of human development and the nature and needs of the college student. Relevance Program Objective Very Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Particularly Relevant Not At All Relevant 43 27 13 1 1 N 43 27 13 1 1 % 50.6 31.8 15.3 1 1 1 Total Program Goal II Rele­ vant Mean Rank (Within Goal) 3.265 1 3.265 2 Rank Among the 34 Objectives 9 Perception by Graduates of the Relevance of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Objectives of Program Goal III to Their Primary Professional Responsibility Program Goal III: To develop knowledge and understanding of the history, setting, philosophy, and objectives of higher education. Table 4.16— Continued Relevance Program Objective Not At All Relevant Rele­ vant Somewhat Relevant 49 33 40 18 20 25 25 37 27 33 36 36 9 11 15 25 24 16 1 3 2 7 2 6 1 1 1 2 3 2 185 194 100 21 10 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Program Goal III Not Particularly Relevant Very Relevant N % 36.3 38.3 19.6 Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 3.410 3.145 3.193 2.675 2.783 2.880 1 3 2 6 5 4 4 14 12 28 25 21 3.014 4 Mean Perception by Graduates of the Relevance of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Objectives of Program Goal IV to Their Primary Professional Responsibility Program Goal I V ; To develop knowledge and understanding in the principles and theories of learning, counseling, and education, and to develop helping and enabling skills in counseling and educating. Table 4.16— Continued Relevance Program Objective Rele­ vant Somewhat Relevant Not Particularly Relevant 28 19 31 17 33 29 39 33 29 32 21 21 16 23 17 3 3 5 13 1 4 3 0 3 2 N 128 162 98 25 12 % 30 38 1 2 3 4 5 Total Program Goal IV Not At All Relevant Very Relevant 23.1 5.9 Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 2.904 2.795 3.036 2.470 3.084 3 4 2 5 1 20 23 19 30 16 2.858 5 Mean 2.8 Perception by Graduates of the Relevance of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Objectives of Program Goal V to Their Primary Professional Responsibility Program Goal V : To understand administrative theories, principles, concepts and methods, and to develop skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, budgeting, promoting, and referring. Table 4.16— Continued Relevance Program Objective Not At All Relevant Somewhat Relevant 65 57 47 31 39 34 34 45 63 47 36 37 19 38 18 20 25 32 29 32 31 25 18 20 35 38 39 31 1 6 10 16 15 13 12 10 3 14 9 9 21 12 1 1 2 6 1 4 6 4 1 2 3 1 4 2 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 592 393 151 38 16 N % 49.7 33 12.7 3.2 Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 3.747 3.542 3.386 3.072 3.253 3.108 3.060 3.301 3.711 3.289 3.157 3.289 2.817 3.195 1 3 4 11 7 10 12 5 2 6 9 6 13 8 1 3 5 17 10 15 18 7 2 8 13 8 22 11 3.280 1 Mean 1.3 Perception by Graduates of the Relevance of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Objectives of Program Goal VI to Their Primary Professional Responsibility Program Goal V I : To understand research applicable to the field of college student personnel administration and to be able to conduct basic research projects. 123 Rele­ vant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total Program Goal V Not Particularly Relevant Very Relevant Table 4.16— Continued Relevance Program Objective Very Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Particularly Relevant Not At All Relevant Mean Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 27 29 26 24 35 27 35 35 31 30 31 26 4 9 2 4 1 1 0 1 2.683 2.598 2.780 2.793 3 4 2 1 N 67 132 118 19 3 2.714 6 % 19.7 6 1 2.714 6 38.8 34.7 124 14 17 17 19 1 2 3 4 Total Program Goal VI Rele­ vant 125 among the program goals. The weighted relevance mean rankings of the four program objectives of program goal VI varied from 2.793, objective number four, to 2.598, objective number two. This concludes the section on the relevance of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. The next section discusses the contri­ bution of the doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel learning goals and objectives. Contribution of Doctoral Program to the Achievement of College Student Personnel Learning Goals and Objectives The third stated purpose of the study was, "To determine the extent to which their doctoral program at M.S.U. contributed, as perceived by doctoral degree recipients, to their achievement of comprehensive college student personnel learning objectives." In the survey instrument graduates were asked to, "Please give your judgment of the extent to which your doctoral program at M.S.U. contributed to your achievement of each objective." 4-To a Great Extent 3-To a Considerable Extent The graduates' 2-To a Moderate Extent 1-To Some Extent O-Not At All responses to the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college stu­ dent personnel learning goals and objectives are reported in this section of Chapter IV. 126 College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal 7 The statement of program goals I through VI and their related learning objectives were stated on pages and are not repeated here. responses (see Table 4.17) The graduates' combined to program goal I revealed that 33.2% considered that their doctoral program con­ tributed to a great extent to their achievement of the four program objectives of program goal I, 4 3.2% to a considerable extent, 15% to a moderate extent, and 4.4% to some extent, and 4.1% not at all. The graduates' weighted mean response of the contribution of their doc­ toral program to their achievement of the four program objectives of program goal I was 2.940 which was first among the contribution mean rankings assigned each program goal. The weighted contribution mean rankings of the four program objectives of program goal I ranged from 3.171, objective number one, to 2.747, objective number four. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal II The graduates' combined responses (see Table 4.17) to program goal II revealed that 22.4% considered that their doctoral program contributed to a great extent to their achievement of the program objective of program goal II, 34.1% to a considerable extent, 32.9% to a moderate extent, 9.4% to some extent, and 1.1% not at all. The graduates' weighted mean response of the contribution 127 of their doctoral program to their achievement of the program objectives of program goal II was 2.646 which was second among the program goals. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal III The graduates' combined responses (see Table 4.17) to program goal III revealed that 14.9% considered that their doctoral program contributed to a great extent to their achievement of the six program objectives of program goal III, 35.5% to a considerable extent, 30.6% to a moderate extent, 13.7% to some extent, and 5.3% not at all. The graduates' mean weighted mean response of the contribution of their doctoral program to their achieve­ ment of the program objectives of program III was 2.380 which was third among the program goals. The contribution mean rankings of the six program objectives of program goal III ranged from 2.892, objective number five, to 1.902, objective number three. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal IV The graduates' combined responses (see Table 4.17) to program goal IV revealed that 12.2% considered that their doctoral program contributed to a great extent to their achievement of the five program objectives of pro­ gram goal IV, 36.5% to a considerable extent, 28.7% to a moderate extent, 14.4% to some extent, and 8.2% not at all. The graduates' weighted mean response of the 128 contribution of their doctoral program to their achieve­ ment of the five program objectives of program goal IV was 2.303 which was fifth among the program goals. The weighted contribution mean rankings of the five program objectives of program goal IV ranged from 2.566, objective number five, to 1.964, objective number one. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal V The graduates' combined responses (see Table 4.17) to program goal V revealed that 17.7% considered that their doctoral program contributed to a great extent to their achievement of the program objectives of program goal V, 28.6% to a considerable extent, 28.6% to a moderate extent, 15% to some extent, and 10.3% not at all. The graduates' weighted mean response of the con­ tribution of their doctoral program to their achievement of the 14 program objectives of program goal V was 2.263 which ranked sixth among the program goals. The weighted contribution mean rankings of the 14 program objectives of program goal V ranged from 2.854, objective number six, to 1.402, objective number ten. College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Goal VI The graduates' combined responses to program goal VI (see Table 4.17) revealed that 17.6% considered that their doctoral program had contributed to a great Table 4.17 Contribution of Doctoral Program to the Achievement of College Student Personnel Learning Goals and Objectives Perception by Graduates of the Contribution of Their Doctoral Program to the Achieve­ ment of College Student Personnel Learning Objectives of Program Goal I Program Goal I : To provide the graduate student with a professional orientation to the field of college student personnel administration including the history, phil­ osophy, purposes, problems, and issues, and professional ethics and standards of the college student personnel field. Contribution Program Objective 1 2 3 4 Total Program Goal I N % To a Considerable Extent To a Moderate Extent 36 28 26 23 37 38 38 34 6 13 13 19 4 0 5 6 2 6 3 3 3.171 2.939 2.902 2.747 1 2 3 4 113 147 51 15 14 2.940 1 33.2 43.2 15 To Some Extent Rank (Within Goal) To a Great Extent 4.4 Not at All 4.1 Mean Rank Among the 34 Objectives 1 2 3 7 Table 4.17 — Continued Perception by Graduates of the Contribution of Their Doctoral Program to the Achieve­ ment of College Student Personnel Learning Objectives of Program Goal II Program Goal I I : To understand the psychology of human development and the nature and needs of the college student. Contribution rrogram Objective To a Considerable Extent To a Moderate Extent To Some Extent 19 29 28 8 1 2.646 1 N 19 29 28 8 1 2.646 2 % 22.4 34.1 32.9 9.4 1.1 1 Total Program Goal II Not at All Mean Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 9 Perception by Graduates of the Contribution of Their Doctoral Program to the Achieve­ ment of College Student Personnel Learning Objectives of Program Goal III Program Goal III: To develop knowledge and understanding of the history, setting, philosophy, and objectives of higher education 130 To a Great Extent Table 4.17— Continued Contribution Program Objective To a Great Extent To a Considerable Extent To a Moderate Extent 13 9 8 7 24 15 33 32 20 24 38 34 32 30 24 28 18 24 6 8 25 17 3 11 1 6 8 9 2 1 N 76 181 156 70 27 % 14.9 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Program Goal III 35.5 30.6 To Some Extent 13.7 Not at All Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 2.573 2.317 1.902 2.000 2.892 2.573 2 3 5 4 1 2 12 19 27 25 4 12 2.380 3 Mean 5.3 Perception by Graduates of the Contribution of Their Doctoral Program to the Achieve­ ment of College Student Personnel Learning Objectives of Program Goal IV Program Goal I V : To develop knowledge and understanding in the principles and theories of learning, counseling and education, and to develop helping and enabling skills in counseling and educating. Table 4.17— Continued Contribution Program Objective To a Great Extent To a Considerable Extent To a Moderate Extent TO Some Extent Not at All 7 6 13 12 14 19 37 39 28 32 32 19 17 26 28 17 15 10 11 8 10 8 6 8 3 1.964 2.217 2.446 2.325 2.566 N 52 155 122 61 35 2.303 % 12.2 1 2 3 4 5 Total Program Goal IV 36.5 28.7 14.4 8.2 Mean Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 5 4 2 3 1 26 21 15 18 5 Perception by Graduates of the Contribution of Their Doctoral Program to the Achieve­ ment of College Student Personnel Learning Objectives of Program Goal V Program Goal V : To understand administrative theories, principles, concepts, and methods, and to develop skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, budgeting, promoting, and referring. Table 4.17— Continued Contribution Program Objective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Total Program Goal V N % To a Great Extent To a Considerable Extent To a Moderate Extent To Some Extent Not at All 22 25 17 12 16 27 10 12 19 6 15 9 11 10 33 25 16 15 27 31 22 25 34 12 30 32 14 24 23 20 29 24 22 20 31 32 19 22 21 30 24 23 5 9 13 18 15 3 16 12 9 20 14 8 16 18 2 6 10 16 5 4 6 4 4 25 5 6 20 10 2.795 2.663 2.195 1.841 2. 390 2.854 2.122 2. 305 2.622 1.402 2.402 2.317 1.720 2.049 2 3 9 12 6 1 10 8 4 14 5 7 13 11 211 340 340 179 123 2.263 6 17.7 28.6 28.6 15 10.3 Mean Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 6 8 22 29 17 5 23 20 11 31 16 19 30 24 Table 4.17— Continued Perception by Graduates of the Contribution of Their Doctoral Program to the Achieve­ ment of College Student Personnel Learning Objectives of Program Goal VI Program Goal V I : To understand research applicable to the field of college student personnel administration and to be able to conduct basic research projects Contribution Program Objective To a Considerable Extent To a Moderate Extent To Some Extent Not at All 17 13 14 16 33 29 30 16 24 30 27 17 11 11 11 16 0 2 3 20 N 60 108 98 49 25 % 17.6 28.8 14.4 1 2 3 4 Total Program Goal VI 31.8 7.4 Rank (Within Goal) Rank Among the 34 Objectives 2.627 2.463 2.463 1.892 1 2 2 3 10 14 14 28 2.361 4 Mean 134 To a Great Extent 135 extent to their achievement of the four program objec­ tives of goal VI, 31.1% to a considerable extent, 28.8% to a moderate extent, 14.4% to some extent, and 7.4% not at all. The graduates' weighted response to the four program objectives of program goal VI was 2.361 which ranked fourth among the program goals. Rankings of the four program objectives of program goal VI ranged from 2.6 27, objective number one, to 1.892, objective number four. This concludes the reporting of data on the perceived contribution of the doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. The next section of this chapter reports the data on the graduates' evaluation of components of their doctoral program. Graduates' Evaluation of Components of Their Doctoral Program The fourth stated objective of the study was, "To determine the extent to which program components in their doctoral program at M.S.U. are perceived by doc­ toral graduates as having contributed to their profes­ sional development. In conjunction with this purpose, in part four of the survey questionnaire graduates were asked to rate " . . . the extent of contribution of each component to your professional development." Graduates were provided with the following scale to rate each program component. 136 4-To A Great Extent 3-To A Considerable Extent 2-To A Moderate Extent 1-To Some Extent O-Not At All NA-Did Not Participate Twenty-two doctoral program components were listed for the graduates to evaluate. The 22 program components were grouped into eight categories for the purpose of analyzing and reporting the findings related to graduates' evaluation of their doctoral program components Table 4.18). (see The eight categories were as follows: (1) Courses, Seminars, Independent Study, and Practical Experiences, (2) Comprehensive Exams, (4) Residency, (3) Dissertation, (5) Informal Study Groups, with Participants in the Doctoral Program, (6) Association (7) Specific Course and Seminar Areas, and (8) Doctoral Program Cog­ nates. In Table 4.18 the combined percentage of graduates rating each category on each point of the scale, the mean weighted rank of each category, and each component within the category are given. Courses, Seminars, Independent Study, and Practical Experiences— Category I Components included in category I were course work, seminars and colloquims, independent study, and practical experiences. The graduates' combined ratings of components in category I revealed that 29.1% considered these components to have contributed to their professional development to a great extent, 4 0.9% to a considerable 137 extent, 21.4% to a moderate extent, 8% to some extent, and less than 1% not at all. Weighted mean ratings of components in category I ranged from 3.205, practical experiences, to 2.675, independent study. The mean weighted ratings of components in category I was 2.899 which ranked second among the eight categories of pro­ gram components. Comprehensive Exams— Category II Components included in category II were prepar­ ation for comprehensive exams and completion of compre­ hensive exams. ' The graduates’ combined ratings of com­ ponents in category II revealed that 17.1% considered these components to have contributed to their profes­ sional development to a great extent, 30.6% to a con­ siderable extent, 27.6% to a moderate extent, 14.1% to some extent, and 10.6% not at all. Weighted mean ratings of components in category II ranged from 2.537, prepar­ ation for comprehensive exams, to 2.036, completion of comprehensive exams. The mean weighted ratings of com­ ponents in category II was 2.287 which ranked sixth among the eight categories of program components. Dissertation— Category III Components in category III were development of the dissertation proposal, conducting research for the dissertation, writing the dissertation, and defense of 138 the dissertation. The graduates' combined ratings of components in category III revealed that 36.2% considered components in category II to have contributed to their professional development to a great extent, 30.9% to a considerable extent, 20% to a moderate extent, 9.4% to some extent, and 3.5% not at all. The weighted mean ratings of components in category III ranged from 3.205, conducting research for the dissertation, to 2.496, development of the dissertation proposal. The mean weighted ratings of components in category III was 2.496 which was fifth among the eight program component cate­ gories. Residency— Category IV Category IV of the program components consisted solely of residency. The graduates' ratings of this com­ ponent revealed that 18% considered this component con­ tributed to their professional development to a great extent, 13% to a considerable extent, 14% to a moderate extent, 13% to some extent, and 19% not at all. The mean weighted rating for residency was 1.974 which ranked eighth among the eight program component categories. Informal Study Groups— Category V Category V of the program components consisted solely of informal study groups. The graduates' (N=66) ratings of this component revealed that 7% considered informal study groups contributed to their professional 139 development to a great extent, extent, 19% to a considerable 21% to a moderate extent, and 8% not at all. 11% to some extent, The mean weighted rating for informal study groups was 2.091 which ranked seventh among the eight program component categories. Association with Participants in the Doctoral Program— Category VI Components included in category VI included association with major professor, association with other committee members, association with other department faculty, and association with other graduate students. The graduates' combined ratings of components in category VI revealed that 25.6% considered components in category VI contributed to their professional development to a great extent, 38.5% to a considerable extent, 22.4% to a moderate extent, 8.5% to some extent, 5% not at all. The weighted mean ratings of components in category VI ranged from 3.108, association with major professor to 2.265, association with other departmental faculty. The mean weighted ratings of components in category VI was 2.710 which ranked third among the eight program component categories. Specific Course and Seminar Areas— Category VII Components in category VII were college student personnel administration courses, higher education 140 administration courses, courses, adult and continuing education community college courses, philosophy courses, history of higher education courses, crucial issues in education courses, and educational research methodology and design courses. The graduates’ combined ratings of components in category VII revealed that 23.7% considered components in category VII contributed to their profes­ sional development to a great extent, siderable extent, some extent, 36.8% to a con­ 24.4% to a moderate extent, and 5% not at all. 10.1% to The weighted mean ratings of components in category VII ranged from 3.012, higher education administration courses, continuing education courses. to 2.029, adult and The mean weighted ratings of components in category VII was 2.594 which ranked fourth among the eight program component categories. Doctoral Program Cognates— Category VIII Thirteen graduates had management cognates, indisciplinary cognates, 30 sociology cognates, 14 7 psy­ chology cognates, 4 computer science or data processing, 4 communication cognates, 1 labor and industrial relations cognate, and 12 other cognates. The combined rating of all cognates by graduates revealed that 40% considered their cognate contributed to their profes­ sional development to a great extent, considerable extent, 30.6% to a 23.5% to a moderate extent, and Table 4.18 E xtent of Contribut i o n of Prog r a m Components to Graduates' Professional Development C ontribution P r o gram C o m p onent ------------a. Extent I. Courses, Seminars, I n depen­ dent Study and Practical Experiences Total N & % Comprehensive Exams Dissertation V. Residency Informal Study Groups Not At 8 .006 21.4 17 20 22 35 46 33 30 23 18 19 22 10 4 12 5 5 17.1 30.6 27.6 14 .1 85 19 31 20 85 10 21 27 36 .2 30.9 20 9.4 85 24 36 16 85 85 85 41 43 15 27 24 18 Total N & % 77 18 Total N & % 66 7 323 85 85 80 73 Total N & % Total N & % Development of Disser­ tation Proposal Conducting Research for Dissertation Writing Dissertation Defense of Dissertation IV. To Some Extent 40.9 Preparation for C o m p r e ­ hensive E x a m Completion of C o m p r e ­ hensive Exam III. a Moderate Extent 29.1 Course Work Seminars and Colloquims Independent Study Practical Experiences II. To ^ considerable Extent 170 340 ^ M Mean (Withrn Category) 2.899 2 0 1 1 0 2.880 2.675 2.837 3.205 2 4 3 1 10.6 2.287 6 9 6 2.537 1 15 12 2.036 2 3.5 2.496 5 6 3 2.289 2 11 11 30 4 6 16 2 1 6 3.205 2.232 2.256 1 4 3 13 14 13 19 1.974 8 19 21 11 8 2.091 7 Table 4.18— Continued Contribution Program Component A ssociation with P a r t i c ­ ipants in P r ogram Total N & % Association with Major Professor Association with Other Committee Members Association with Other Department Faculty Association with Other Graduate Students Specific Course and Seminar Areas College Student Personnel Administration Higher Education Admin­ istration Adult and Continuing Education Community College Philosophy of Education History of Higher Education Crucial Issues in Education Educational Research M e t h o d ­ ology and Design Total N & % .. N _ great Extent To a Considerafale Extent u , , Moderate Extent 340 25.6 38.5 22.4 8.5 5 2.710 3 85 41 25 11 3 5 3.108 1 85 19 36 20 7 3 2.723 3 85 8 33 25 13 6 2.265 4 85 19 37 20 6 3 2.980 2 23.7 36.8 24.4 10.1 5 2.594 4 82 20 31 18 9 4 2.637 4 85 28 38 14 3 2 3.012 1 34 45 79 79 76 1 8 13 26 15 11 13 25 27 28 13 17 24 13 23 6 5 12 9 6 3 2 5 4 4 2.029 2.444 2. 367 2.785 2.579 8 6 7 2 5 82 22 34 15 7 4 2.750 3 562 To Some Extent Not At Mean . /it-j-u(Wrthrn Category) Table 4.18— Continued Contribution P r ogram Component To a Great Extent N VIII. Doctoral Program Cognates To a Moderate Extent To Some Extent Not At All Mean Rank (Within Category) 85 40 30.6 23.5 5.9 0 3.016 1 13 30 10 4 3 12 0 11 0 3 0 0 3.791 2.427 1 6 4 4 1 0 1 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 2.500 2.000 5 7 1 7 14 12 1 1 8 9 0 2 5 3 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 4.000 2.563 3.222 3.623 a 4 3 2 aOnly one participant in L IR cognate. 143 Management Sociology Computer Science (Data Processing) Communication Labor and Industrial Relations3 Psychology Indisciplinary Other Total N S % To a Consider­ able Extent 144 3.9£ to some extent. None of the graduates indicated that their doctoral program cognate had not contributed at all to their professional development. The cognate receiving the highest rating by graduates was management which had a weighted mean rating of 3.791. Management was also the cognate to which most graduates indicated that they would change. The mean weighted ratings of doctoral program cognates in category VIII was 3.016 which was the highest rating given any of the eight pro­ gram component categories. This concludes the reporting of data on the con­ tribution of components of the doctoral program to pro­ fessional development as perceived by the graduates. The next section of Chapter IV summarizes the written responses of graduates to the open-ended questions about their doctoral program experiences and their suggestions for strengthening the preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Adminis­ tration and Higher Education. Graduates' Responses to Open-ended Questions About Their Doctoral Program Experiences at Michigan State University Findings of the study relative to the first four stated purposes of the study have been reported thus far. This next section reports the graduates' responses to open-ended questions about their doctoral program experiences at Michigan State University. This includes 145 findings of the study related to the fifth and sixth stated purposes of the study; namely, the graduates' perceptions of the strongest and weakest aspects of their doctoral preparation and their suggestions for strengthen­ ing the preparation of college student personnel adminis­ trators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education. Would the Graduate Return to Michigan State University? Doctoral graduates were asked, "If you were to begin your doctoral program again, would you attend Michigan State University?" Eighty-eight percent of the graduates responded that they would return to MSU Table 4.19). Of the 10 students (12%) (see who indicated that they would not return to MSU, one graduate indicated that his career plans had changed and he would not pursue a doctoral degree at any institution; one female graduate indicated that she would attend an institution where women were encouraged to achieve; another female graduate indicated that she had earned her Masters degree at MSU and would attend Stanford University or the University of California; one graduate indicated that he felt the doc­ toral program lacked viable content; one graduate indi­ cated that the doctoral program was not comparable to his Masters degree course work; two graduates stated that they would attend other institutions, the Universities 146 of Indiana and Illinois, respectively; one graduate responded that advising loads were too heavy. Table 4.19 Responses of Graduates to the Question, "If You Were to Begin Your Doctoral Program Again, Would You Attend Michigan State University?" Would You Attend MSU Again? Graduates Number Percentage Yes 75 88 No 10 12 85 100 Total Of the 11 students who indicated that they would not return to MSU, three had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration and seven had doctoral program emphases in other areas. Changes Graduates Would Make in Their Doctoral Program Doctoral graduates were asked, "What changes would you make in your doctoral program if you were to begin it again?" could reply were: cognate, The options to which the graduates (1) none, (4) other changes. (2) change major, (3) change Graduates were asked to explain any changes, if any, they would make. Thirty- six percent of the graduates indicated that they would make no changes, 13% would change their major, 32% would 147 change their cognate, and 19% of the graduates indicated that they would make other changes (see Table 4.20). Table 4.20 Responses of Graduates to the Question, "What Changes Would You Make in Your Doctoral Program if You Were To Begin It Again?" Graduates Program Change Number Percentage None 31 36 Change Major 11 13 Change Cognate 27 32 Other Changes 16 19 85 100 Total Of the 13% (11 graduates) who indicated that they would change their majors, 4 would major in psy­ chology or counseling, 3 in business administration, 1 each in educational psychology, labor and industrial relations, and law. Of the 32% (27 graduates) who indicated that they would change their doctoral program cognate, 10 would change their cognate to management, 6 to business admin­ istration, 5 to interdisciplinary emphasizing labor and industrial relations, management and communication, data processing and educational law, or communication and research; and 1 each to research, labor and industrial relations, law, public administration, psychology and counseling psychology. 148 Of the 19% (16 graduates) indicating they would make other changes, 2 indicated that they would get more practical experiences through internships and the remain­ ing 14 indicated that they would take additional course work in either a cognate or Departmental area as follows: budget and finance 3, statistics and research 3, computer usage 3, personnel management 2, educational evaluation 2, and psychology and sociology 1 each. Of the 29 graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration, 13 (45%) indicated that they would make no changes in their doctoral program, 2 (7%) would change their major, 7 (24%) would change their cognate, and 7 (24%) would make other changes. Most Valuable Learning Experiences in the Doctoral Program In the survey questionnaire, graduates were asked to list what they considered to be the most valuable learning experiences of their doctoral program. There were 16 8 responses by graduates which were placed in the following categories: relationship with major professor 39, the dissertation experience in general 26, associ­ ation with faculty in the Department 21, employment in student affairs at MSU while pursuing the doctorate, including residence hall staff positions 15, association with other graduate students in the Department 14, college 149 student personnel courses and seminars 12, preparation for comprehensive exams 12, study in cognate area 11, higher education administration courses and seminars 10, work in academic units at MSU while pursuing the doctorate 9, writing the dissertation 8, research for the disser­ tation 8, educational research, methodology, and design courses 6, course work in general 4, graduate assistantships 4, NDEA institute 3, community college courses 3, philosophy of education courses 1, and history of edu­ cation courses 1. Major Strengths of Doctoral Preparation Program at MSU Doctoral graduates were asked, "In your opinion what were two or three of the major strengths of the preparation program in College Student Personnel Admin­ istration at the time you pursued your doctoral degree at MSU? A total of 146 responses were obtained. were categorized as follows: Responses the flexibility of the program 28, the quality of the faculty 25, specific faculty members 22, major professor or advisor 14, positive and helpful attitude of faculty toward students in the program 13, opportunity to work in student person­ nel field at MSU while pursuing doctorate 13, the quality and diversity of students in the doctoral program 10, internship and practicum experiences 10, the reputation 150 of the faculty and graduates 8, college student personnel courses and seminars 8, higher education administration courses and seminars 8, the campus as a learning labora­ tory 6, educational research, methodology, and design courses 5, comprehensive exams 4, informational atmos­ phere in the Department 2, student-to-student relation­ ships in the Department 2, Departmental assistance in securing a professional position 1, courses in educational evaluation 1, and the Student Personnel Services Library 1. Major Weaknesses of the Doctoral Preparation Program at MSU Doctoral graduates were asked what were two or three of the major weaknesses of their doctoral prepar­ ation at MSU. A total of 107 responses was obtained. Twenty- seven graduates did not indicate any program weaknesses and six graduates specifically stated that in their opinion the program had no major weaknesses. There were 42 comments made about the lack of or inadequate course content in the following areas: budgeting 7, finance of higher education 6, computer usage or data processing 5, fiscal management 3, admin­ istration and management theory 3, educational law 3, administrative skill development 3, organizational development and behavior 2, program evaluation 2, and human development theory, research design, counseling, 151 case studies, problem solving, decision making, the politics of higher education, labor and industrial relations, and the medieval university one each. There was a total of 11 comments about the size of the Department and faculty advising loads. Typical of these comments was that "the size of the Department is too large for adequate individual attention and that faculty advisors are greatly overloaded." Five graduates had comments about the process of career goal setting, self-assessment, or program planning. Typical of these comments were the following: There is a "lack of emphasis by faculty on assisting students in self-assessment and program planning to improve defi­ ciencies"; or there is "not enough career planning for candidates"; and there is "insufficient information regarding the possible career paths and alternatives especially for women." Four graduates had comments about the quality of instruction as follows: "... poor teaching outside of college student personnel courses"; "one or two poor instructors in the Department"; "the quality of some of the seminars was often poor— perhaps too much student teaching without faculty leadership, in a few cases"; and finally one graduate commented that "there is an inappropriate balance between theory and practice." This student did not specify in which direction the imbalance occurred. 152 There was a total of four comments about faculty in the Department. Comments were as follows: "Faculty are not actively engaged in research” ; "more full-time faculty should be hired"; there is a "lack of current knowledge of the field by some faculty"; and "there is a lack of adequate assistance from major professors on dissertations." There were three comments about financial assis­ tance as follows: There is "too much dependence on resi­ dence hall system for assistantships"; there is a "lack of assistantships available for graduates in the Depart­ ment"; and there is a "lack of financial assistance for b l a c k s ." There were two miscellaneous comments as follows: there is a "lack of coherent student development philosophy in the Department"; and the "dissertation was a useless hu r d l e ." Areas of Inadequate Preparation Doctoral graduates were asked if they had pro­ fessional responsibilities for which their doctoral pro­ gram at MSU provided inadequate preparation. Forty-nine percent of the graduates responded "yes," and 51% responded "no" (see Table 4.21). Of the 42 graduates who mentioned inadequacies in their doctoral program, 22 mentioned fiscal management including budgeting, accounting, and finance. Three mentioned financial aid 153 administration, 3 counseling, education planning, 3 data processing, 3 higher 3 conflict management, 3 staff selection and evaluation, 2 the politics of higher edu­ cation, 2 management information systems, 2 career plan­ ning, 2 the administration of residence halls, 2 learning theory, 1 student development administration, 1 adolescent development, 1 personnel management, 1 legal issues in higher education, 1 working with secretarial staff. Table 4.21 Responses of Graduates to the Question, "Do You Have Pro­ fessional Responsibilities in Your Present Position for Which Your Doctoral Program at MSU Provided Inadequate Preparation?" Graduates Number Percentage Yes 42 49 NO 43 51 85 100 Total Suggestions for Improving the Doctoral Preparation of College Student Personnel Administrators Doctoral graduates were asked, "What suggestions do you have for improving the doctoral program in Col­ lege Student Personnel Administration at Michigan State University?" There was a total of 70 responses obtained. The largest number of responses (45) was related to providing course content in the following areas: fiscal 154 management including budgeting, accounting, and finance 22, data processing 6, legal aspects of college student personnel administration 4, the politics of higher edu­ cation 3, more internship and practicum experiences 2, more labor and industrial relations 2, higher education planning 2, organizational behavior 1, conflict manage­ ment 1, principles of accountability, administrative theory 1, and student development administration 1. There were 25 other miscellaneous comments as follows: hire more full-time faculty 3, recruit quality students 4, encourage more student interaction 1, reward the faculty for outstanding teaching 2, reduce the size of the program to improve student advising 2, provide supervised field work experience for students such as assisting professor on consulting projects 1, be tougher in requiring quality dissertations 1, provide more assistantships for women 1, rotate faculty every 3 years between practice in the field and teaching in the Depart­ ment 1, retain the practice of comprehensive exams 1, put more emphasis on research and faculty-student inter­ action 2, place greater emphasis on management skills 1, provide more skill building experiences 1, and provide more assistantships so students can participate in the program full time. 155 Differences in the Perceptions of Graduates within Subpopulations as to the Relevance and Contribution of College Student~Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objective's' The seventh stated purpose of this study was, "To determine whether the graduates' perceptions of relevance and contribution (of college student personnel learning goals and objectives) are differently related to their professional roles and responsibilities, educational experiences, and other professional factors." To deter­ mine if significant differences existed in the responses of sub-populations within the study as to the relevance and contribution of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives, the Crosstabs sta­ tistical procedure which yielded chi square scores and the Breakdowns statistical procedure which provided an analysis of variance were utilized. Tests of significant differences between the following sub-populations were analyzed: program emphasis, (1) doctoral (2) area of dissertation study, (3) area of professional responsibility, type of professional responsibility, (4) primary (5) years of exper­ ience in the college student personnel field prior to completion of the doctorate, (6) key college student personnel administrators, and (7) area of the graduate's Masters degree. Differences in the responses of sub-populations to relevance and contribution were stated to exist if 156 chi square scores were significant at the .01 level. This level was chosen to minimize the error rate involved in making a considerable number of chi square analogies and to prevent a type II error of accepting a false hypothesis. Hypotheses For the purposes.of this study, the following hypotheses were developed. Hypothesis l a : Doctoral graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration and doc­ toral graduates who had doctoral program emphases in other areas will perceive no significant differences in the relevance of college student personnel doc­ toral program learning goals and objectives. Hypothesis l b ; Doctoral graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration and doc­ toral graduates who had doctoral program emphases in other areas will perceive no significant differences in the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. Hypothesis 2 a : Doctoral graduates who conducted dissertation studies in the area of college student personnel and doctoral graduates who conducted dissertation studies in other areas will perceive no significant differences in the relevance of college student personnel doc­ toral program learning goals and objectives. 157 Hypothesis 2 b : Doctoral graduates who conducted dissertation studies in the area of college student personnel and doctoral graduates who conducted dissertation studies in other areas will perceive no significant differences in the contribution of their doctoral program to the achieve­ ment of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. Hypothesis 3 a : Doctoral graduates employed in college student per­ sonnel positions in divisions of student affairs and doctoral graduates employed in college student per­ sonnel positions in academic units of institutions will perceive no significant differences in the rele­ vance of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives to their professional responsibilities. Hypothesis 3 b : Doctoral graduates employed in college student per­ sonnel positions in divisions of student affairs and doctoral graduates employed in college student per­ sonnel positions in academic units of institutions will perceive no significant differences in the con­ tribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. Hypothesis 4 a ; Doctoral graduates employed primarily as administra­ tors and doctoral graduates employed in other types of primary responsibility (teaching, counseling, consulting, research, and other) will perceive no significant differences in the relevance of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objective to their primarily professional responsibilities. 158 Hypothesis 4 b ; Doctoral graduates employed primarily as administra­ tors and doctoral graduates employed in other types of primary responsibility (teaching, counseling, con­ sulting, research, and other) will perceive no sig­ nificant differences in the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college stu­ dent personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. Hypothesis 5 a : Doctoral graduates employed as vice presidents of student affairs, deans, associate and assistant deans of students, and doctoral graduates employed in other college student personnel positions will perceive no significant differences in the relevance of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives to their professional responsibilities. Hypothesis 5 b ; Doctoral graduates employed as vice presidents of student affairs, deans, associate and assistant deans of students, and doctoral graduates employed in other college student personnel positions will perceive no significant differences in the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objec­ tives . Hypothesis 6 a : Doctoral graduates who have less than one year of experience in the college student personnel field, from one to five years of experience in the college student personnel field or six or more years of experience in the college student personnel field will perceive no significant differences in the relevance of college student personnel learning goals and objectives to their professional responsibilities. 159 Hypothesis 6 b : Doctoral graduates who have less than one year of experience in the college student personnel field, from one to five years of experience in the college student personnel field or six or more years of experience in the college student personnel field will perceive no significant differences in the con­ tribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. Hypothesis 7 a : Doctoral graduates who earned a Masters degree in Col­ lege Student Personnel or Counseling and doctoral graduates who earned a Masters degree in other areas will perceive no significant differences in the rele­ vance of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. Hypothesis 7 b ; Doctoral graduates who earned a Masters degree in Col­ lege Student Personnel or counseling and doctoral graduates who earned a Masters degree in other areas will perceive no significant differences in the con­ tribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. Differences on Ratings of Relevance Using the Crosstabs statistical procedure on the CDC 6500 chi square tests for significant differences were computed between the seven sub-populations. nificant differences at the Sig­ .01 level between sub­ populations on ratings of the relevance of six program goals and 34 related learning objectives for doctoral study in the college student personnel field were found to exist as follows. 160 Hypothesis 4 a ; It was hypothesized that "Doctoral graduates employed primarily as administrators and doctoral graduates employed in other types of primary responsibility (teaching, counseling, consulting, and research) will perceive no significant differences in the relevance of college student personnel doctoral program learn­ ing goals and objectives to their primary professional responsibility." No significant differences on ratings of relevance were found and the null hypothesis was not rejected with the following exceptions: Objective 1-1. To understand the philosophy, purposes, and problems of college student personnel administration. Doctoral graduates employed as adminis­ trators tended to rate this learning objective as more relevant to their current professional responsibilities than doctoral graduates employed in other types of primary responsibilities. Objective IV-1. To understand the process and outcome components of teaching and learning in designing student development programs. Doctoral graduates employed as administrators tended to rate this learning objective as more relevant to their current professional responsi­ bilities than doctoral graduates employed in other types of primary professional responsibilities. Objective IV-3. To understand the principles, concepts, and methods of counseling used in facilitating the personal development of students. Doctoral graduates employed in the positions of teaching and counseling as 161 their primary professional responsibility tended to rate this learning objective as more relevant to their current professional responsibilities than doctoral graduates employed as administrators. Objective V - 5 . To understand the principles and techniques of organizational change and development. Doctoral graduates employed as administrators tended to rate this learning objective as more relevant to their current professional responsibilities than doctoral graduates employed in other types of primary responsi­ bilities . Objective V-14. To develop an understanding of principles of personnel management including staff selection, performance evaluation, promotion, and disci­ pline. Doctoral graduates employed in administrative positions tended to rate this objective as more relevant to their current professional responsibilities than doc­ toral graduates employed in other types of primary responsibilities. Hypothesis 3a: It was hypothesized that "Doctoral graduates employed in college student personnel positions in divisions of student affairs and doctoral graduates employed in college student personnel positions in academic units of institutions will perceive no significant differences in the relevance of college student per­ sonnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives to their current professional responsibilities." 162 No significant differences were found and the null hypothesis was not rejected with the following exceptions: Objective 1-1. To understand the philosophy, purposes, and problems of college student personnel administration. Doctoral graduates employed in divisions of student affairs tended to rate this learning objective as more relevant to their current professional responsi­ bilities than doctoral graduates employed in academic units of institutions. Objective 1-4. To develop an understanding of the legal aspects of college student personnel adminis­ tration such as due process of law and institutional liability. Doctoral graduates employed in divisions of student affairs tended to rate this learning objective as more relevant to their current professional responsi­ bilities than doctoral graduates employed in academic units of institutions. Objective III-4. To understand curriculum development in higher education. Doctoral graduates employed in positions in academic units of institutions tended to rate this learning objective as more relevant to their current professional responsibilities than doc­ toral graduates employed in divisions of student affairs. 163 Hypothesis 5 a : It was hypothesized that "Doctoral graduates employed as vice presidents of student affairs, deans, associ­ ate or assistant deans of students and doctoral graduates employed in other college student personnel positions will perceive no significant differences in the relevance of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives to their current professional responsibilities." No significant differences were found and the null hypothesis was not rejected with the following exceptions: Objective IV-1. To understand the process and outcome components of teaching and learning in designing student development programs. Doctoral graduates employed as vice presidents for student affairs, deans, associate, or assistant deans of students tended to rate this learn­ ing objective as more relevant to their current profes­ sional responsibilities than doctoral graduates employed in other college student personnel positions. Learning Goal V . To understand administrative theories, principles, concepts, and methods and to develop skills in organizing, administering, planning, interpreting, constructing, financing, reviewing, delegating, train­ ing, staff selection, budgeting, promoting, and referring. Doctoral graduates employed as vice presidents for student affairs, deans, associate or assistant deans of students tended to rate this learning goal as more relevant to 164 their current professional responsibilities than doctoral graduates employed in other college student personnel positions. Objective V - 6 . To acquire a thorough understand­ ing of student personnel services, administration and issues, ethics and standards, and basic principles. Doc­ toral graduates employed as vice presidents for student affairs, deans, associate or assistant deans tended to rate this learning objective as more relevant to their current professional responsibilities than doctoral graduates employed in other college student personnel posit i o n s . Objective V - 7 . To understand and be able to apply principles of accountability and program planning to the administration of college student personnel ser­ vices. Doctoral graduates employed as vice presidents of student affairs, deans, associate or assistant deans of students tended to rate this learning objective as more relevant to their current professional responsi­ bilities than doctoral graduates employed in other college student personnel positions. Hypothesis 7 a : It was hypothesized that "Doctoral graduates who earned a Masters degree in college student personnel or counseling and doctoral graduates who received a Masters degree in other areas will perceive no sig­ nificant differences in the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college stu­ dent personnel doctoral program learning goals and obj e c t i v e s ." 165 No significant differences were found and the null hypothesis was not rejected with the following exceptions: Objective 1-2. To understand the role and function of each of the offices in a college student personnel program. Doctoral graduates who had earned Masters degrees in areas other than college student personnel and counseling tended to rate the relevance of this learning objective to their current professional responsibilities higher than doctoral graduates who had earned their Masters degrees in college student personnel or counseling. Objective II-l. To develop an understanding of human development derived from knowledge in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology. Doctoral graduates who had earned Masters degrees in areas other than college student personnel and counseling tended to rate the relevance of this learning objective to their current professional responsibilities than doctoral graduates who had earned their Masters degree in college student personnel or counseling. Objective III-3. To understand the financing and planning of higher education. Doctoral graduates who had earned Masters degrees in areas other than col­ lege student personnel and counseling tended to rate the relevance of this learning objective to their current Table 4.22 Differences on Ratings of Relevance of College Student Personnel Learning Goals and O bjectives to Respondents' Current Professional R esponsib i l i t i e s — Means, Standard Deviations, Significant Chi Square, and Variable Effects of All College Student Personnel Doctoral Pro g r a m Learning Goals and Objectives Learning Goals and Objectives Goal I To provide a professional o r i e n t a t i o n to the field of college student p e r ­ sonnel including the history, p h i l ­ osophy, purposes, problems and issues Mean Rank S.D. Chi Square Significance Found at .01 Level Significant Variables 3.202 III .714 No 3.157 3 .890 Yes Primary Type Resp.-Adm. A r e a of Responsibility CSPS .917 Yes Area of Masters Degree Other Learning Objectives Related to Goal Number I To understand the philosophy, purposes, and problems of college student p e r ­ sonnel administration 2. To unders tand the role and function of each of the offices in a college st u ­ dent personnel program 3.036 3. To understand the role and function of college student personnel work as it relates to the values, goals, p u r ­ poses and objectives of higher e d u ­ cation 3.325 1 .783 No 4. To develop an understanding of the legal aspects of college student personnel administration, such as due process of law and institutional liability 3.289 2 .969 Yes 3.265 II .857 No Goal II To understand the psycholo g y of human development and the nature and needs of the college student Area of Responsibility CSPS 166 1. Table 4.22— Continued Learning Goals and Objectives Mean Rank S.D. Chi Square Significance Found at .01 Level Significant Variables Learning Objectives Related to Goal Numb e r II 1. To develop an understanding of human d evelopment derived from knowledge in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology Goal III To develop knowledge and understanding of the history, setting, and objectives of postsecondary e d u ­ cation 3.265 3.014 1 .857 Yes IV .649 No Area of Masters Degree Other Learning O bjectives Related to Goal N u mber III 1. To understand the significant political, cultural, and social forces o p e rating in university and college environments 3.410 1 .827 No 2. To be able to accurately interpret the values, goals, and objectives of institutions of higher education to students, parents, and alumni 3.145 3 .871 No 3. To unders t a n d the financing and p l anning of higher education 3.19 3 2 .903 Yes Ar e a of Masters Degree Other 4. To understand curric u l u m development in higher education 2.675 6 .977 Yes A r e a of Responsibility Academic 5. To understand the history, setting, and objectives of colleges and universities as social institutions 2.783 5 .951 No 6. To develop defensible positions on the major philosophical issues in higher education 4 .99 3 No 2.880 Table 4.22— Continued Goal IV Learning Goals and Objectives Mean To develop knowledge and understanding of the principles and theories of learning, c o u n s e l ­ ing and education 2.858 Rank S.D. V .651 Chi Square Significance Found at .01 Level Significant Variables No Learning Objectives Related to Goal N u mber IV Yes 1. To u nderstand the process and outcome components of teaching and learning in designing student development programs 2.904 3 1.043 2. To develop a basic understanding of the theories and principles of learning 2.795 4 .947 No 3. To understand the principles, concepts, and methods of counseling used in facilitating the personal development of students 3.036 2 ,890 Yes 4. To understand the principles, concepts, and techniques used in testing and m e asurem ent 2.470 5 1.063 NO 5. To understand the human development concepts and theories implied in student development models 3.084 .927 No 3.280 ,611 Yes Goal V To understand administrative theories, principles, concepts and methods and to develop skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, interpreting, co n s t r u c t ­ ing, reviewing, delegating, train­ ing, staff selection, budgeting, promoting and referring Primary Type Resp.-Adm. Vice Pres.-Deans of Stu. P rimary Type Resp.-Other Vice Presidents of Students & Deans Table 4.22— Continued Learning Goals and Objectives Mean Rank S.D. Chi Square Significance Found at .01 Level Significant Variables Learning Objectives Related to Goal Number V 1. To understand principles of administration and decision making 3.747 1 .560 No 2. To identify your personal management a n d administration philosophy; one that is compatible with your p e r ­ sonal values and life style 3.542 3 .786 No 3. To know the principles and techniques of conflict management and be able to effectively apply them in p er­ sonnel matters 3.386 4 .881 No 4. To understand and be able to apply the principles of management by objectives in administering func­ tional units of a college student personnel program 3.072 11 .947 No 5. To understand the principles and techniques o f organizational change and development 3.253 7 .881 Yes Primary Type Resp.-Adm. 6. To acquire a thorough understanding of student personnel services, adminis­ tration, issues, ethics, standards, and basic principles 3.108 10 1.00 Yes Vice Presidents & Deans of Students 7. To understand and be able to apply principles of accountability and pr ogram planning to the admini s ­ tration o f college student personnel services 3.060 12 1.052 Yes Vice Presidents of Students & Deans Table 4.22— Continued Learning Goals and Objectives Mean Rank S.D. Chi Square Significance Found at .01 Level 8. To understand a n d be able to apply p rinciples of evaluation to st u ­ dent personnel programs and services 3.301 .959 No 9. To be able to communicate effec t i v e l y on a professional level both in w r iting and speaking 3.711 .654 No 10. To develop skills in b u dget making and fiscal m anagement 3.289 .982 Yes 11. To develop a basic understanding of effective and ineffective adm i n i s ­ trator behaviors as they relate to the role and functioning of college stu­ dent personnel administrators 3.157 .943 No 12. To understand principles of policy formulation and implementation 3.289 .75 8 No 13. To be able to develop and m a i n t a i n job descriptions stated in terms of behavioral objectives 2.817 13 .918 No 14. To develop an understanding of p r i n ­ ciples of personnel m anagemen t includ­ ing staff selection, performance e v a l ­ uation, promotion, and discipline 3.195 8 .935 Yes 2.714 VI .761 No Goal VI To understand research applicable to the field of college student personnel administration and be able to conduct basic research projects Significant Variables Area of Masters DegreeOther Primary Type Resp.-Adm. Table 4.22— Continued Chi Square Learning Goals and Objectives Mean Rank S.D. SlF ^ d C atCS Significant Variables .01 Level L e a rning Objectives Related to Goal N u mber VI T o understand the theories, principles and methods used in social research 2.683 3 .859 No 2. T o be able to apply the t h e o r i e s , p r i n ­ ciples, and methods o f social research to phenomena in college student p e r ­ sonnel work. 2.598 4 .980 No 3. To understand the principles and p r o ­ cedures of educational evaluation 2.780 2 .861 No 4. To understand data processing c o m p o ­ nents and their application to the administration of college student personnel administration 2.793 1 .899 No 171 1. 172 professional responsibilities higher than doctoral graduates who had earned their Masters degrees in college student personnel or counseling. Objective V-10. To develop skills in budget making and fiscal management. Doctoral graduates who had earned a Masters degree in areas other than college student personnel or counseling tended to rate the rele­ vance of this learning objective to their current pro­ fessional responsibilities higher than graduates who had earned a Masters degree in college student personnel or counseling. Differences on Ratings of Contribution Hypothesis l b ; It was hypothesized that "Doctoral graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in college student per­ sonnel administration and doctoral graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in other areas will per­ ceive no significant differences in the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of col­ lege student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives." No significant differences were found and the null hypothesis was not rejected with the following exceptions: Objective V - l . To understand the principles of administration and decision making. Doctoral graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in college student personnel administration perceived that their doctoral 173 program contributed to a greater extent to the achieve­ ment of this learning objective than did doctoral graduates with other doctoral program emphases. Objective V - 6 . To acquire a thorough understand­ ing of student personnel services, administration, issues, ethics, standards, and basic principles. Doctoral graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in college student personnel administration perceived that their doctoral program contributed to a greater extent to the achievement of this learning objective than did doctoral graduates with other doctoral program emphases. Hypothesis 4 b : It was hypothesized that "Doctoral graduates employed primarily as administrators and doctoral graduates employed in other types of primary responsibility (teaching, counseling, consulting, and research) will perceive no significant differences in the contri­ bution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel doctoral program learn­ ing goals and objectives." No significant differences were found and the null hypothesis was not rejected with the following exception: Objective V - 1 3 . To be able to develop and main­ tain job descriptions stated in terms of behavioral objectives. Doctoral graduates employed as adminis­ trators tended to rate the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of this learning objective Table 4.23 Differences on Ratings of Contribution of Doctoral Program to the Achievement of College Student Personnel Learning Goals and Object i v e s — Means, Standard Deviations, Significant Chi Square, and Variable Effects of All College Student Personnel Doctoral Program L e arning Goals and Objectives Chi Square Learning Goals and Objectives Goal I To provide a professional orientation to the field of college student p e r ­ sonnel including the history, p h i l ­ osophy, purposes, problems and issues Me a n 2.9 39 Rank I S.D. Found at .01 Level .936 No Learning Objectives Related to Goal Number I 1. To understand the philosophy, purposes, and problems of college student personnel administration 3.171 1 .940 No 2. To understand the role and function of each of the offices in a college student personnel p r ogram 2.939 2 1.070 No 3. To understand the role and function of college student personnel work as it relates to the values, goals, purposes and objectives of higher education 2.902 3 1.014 No 4. To develop an understanding of the legal aspects of college student personnel administration, such as due process of law and institutional liability 2.747 4 1.046 No .973 No Goal II To understand the psychol o g y of h uman development and the nature and needs of the college student 2.646 II Significant Variables Table 4.23— Continued Learning Goals and Objectives Mean Rank S.D. Chi Square Significance Found at .01 Level Learning Objectives Related to Goal N u mber II 1. To develop an understanding of human development derived from knowledge in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology Goal III To develop knowledge and u n d erstanding of the history, setting, and o bjectives of postsecond a r y e d u ­ cation 2.646 2.380 1 .973 No III .702 No Learning Objectives Related to Goal N u mber III 1. To understand the significant political, cultural, and social forces operating in university and college environments 2.573 2 .861 No 2. To be able to accurately interpret the values, goals, and objectives of i n s t i ­ tutions of higher education to students, p a r e n t s , and alumni 2.317 3 1.017 No 3. To u nderstand the financing and p lanning of higher education 1.902 5 1.017 No 4. To understand curric u l u m development in higher education 2.000 4 1.104 No 5. To understand the history, setting, and o bjectives of colleges and universities as social institutions 2.892 1 .924 No 6. T o d e v elop defensible positions on the m a j o r philosophical issues in higher education 2.573 2 .956 No Significant Variables Table 4.23— Continued Learning Goals and Objectives Goal IV To develop knowledge and under s t a n d ing of the principles and theories of learning, counseling a nd e d u ­ cation Mean Rank. S.D. Chi Square Significance Found at .01 L e v e 1 2.303 IV .735 No Learning Objectives Related to Goal N u m b e r IV 1. To understand the process and outcome components of teaching and learning in designing student development programs 1.964 5 1.120 No 2. To develop a basic understandi n g of the theories and principles of learning 2.217 4 1.105 No 3. To understand the principles, concepts, and methods of counseling used in facilitating the personal development of students 2.446 2 1.140 No 4. To understand the principles, concepts, and techniques used in testing and measurem ent 2.325 3 1.221 No 5. To u nderstand the human develop m e n t concepts and theories implied in student d evelopment models 2.566 1 1.095 No .833 NO Goal V To understand administrative theories, principles, concepts and met h o d s and to develop skills in organizing, a d ­ ministering, planning, financing, interpreting, constructing, r e v i e w ­ ing, delegating, training, staff selection, budgeting, promoting and referring 2.26 3 VI Significant Variables Table 4.23— Continued Learning Goals and Object i v e s Mean Rank S.D. Chi Square Significance Found at .01 Level Significant Variables Learning Objectives Related to Goal N u m b e r V 1. To understand principles of a d m i n i s ­ tration and decision making 2.795 .947 Yes 2. To identify your personal m an a g e m e n t and administration philosophy? one that is compatible w i t h your personal values and life style 2.66 3 1.202 No 3. To k n o w the principles and techniques of conflict m a n a g e m e n t and be able to effectively apply them in personnel matters 2.195 1.242 No To understand and b e able to apply the principles of m a n a g e m e n t b y objectives in administering functional units of a college student personnel prog r a m 1.841 12 1.152 No To u nderstand the principles and techniques of organizational change and d evelopment 2.390 6 1.152 No 2.854 1 1.202 Yes 2.122 10 1.070 No 6 . To acquire a thorough understanding of student personnel services, a d m i n i s ­ tration, issues, ethics, standards, and b a s i c principles 7. To understand and be able to apply principles of accountability and p r o ­ g r a m planning to the administration of college student personnel services Doctoral Program Emphasis CSPA Doctoral P r o g r a m Emphasis CSPA Table 4.2 3— Continued Learning Goals and Objectives Mean Rank S.D. Chi Square Significance Found at .01 Level Significant Variables To understand and be able to apply principles of evaluation to stu­ dent personnel programs and services 2.305 8 1.027 No 9. To be able to communicate effectively o n a professional level both in w r i t ­ ing and speaking 2.622 4 1.085 No 10. T o develop skills in budget m a k i n g and fiscal management 1.402 14 1.206 No 11. T o develop a basic understanding of effective and ineffective administrator behaviors as they relate to the role and functioning of college student personnel administrators 2.402 5 1.142 No 12. To understand principles of policy formulation and implementation 2.317 7 1.017 Yes Area of Masters Degree Other 13. To be able to develop and m a i n t a i n job descriptions stated in terms of behavioral objectives 1.720 13 1.308 Yes Primary Type Responsibility-Adm. 14. To develop an understanding of p r i n ­ ciples of personnel managemen t i n c l u d ­ ing staff selection, performance e v a l u ­ ation, promotion, and discipline 2.049 11 1.164 No 2.361 V .861 No Goal VI To understand research applicable to the field of college student personnel administration and be able to conduct basic research projects 178 8. Table 4.23— Continued Learning Goals and Objectives Mean Rank S.D. Chi Square Significance Found at .01 Level Significant Variables Learning Objectives Related to Goal N u mber VI To understand the theories, principles and methods used in social research 2.627 1 .933 No 2. To be able to apply the theories, principles, and methods of social research to phenomena in college student personnel work 2.463 2 1.097 No 3. To understand the principles and.procedures of educational evaluation 2.463 2 1.119 No 4. To understand data processing components and their application to the adminis­ tration of college student personnel administration 1.892 3 1.414 No 179 1. 180 higher than doctoral graduates employed in other types of primary responsibility. Hypothesis 7 b : It was hypothesized that "Doctoral graduates who earned a Masters degree in college student personnel or counseling and doctoral graduates who earned a Masters degree in other areas will perceive no sig­ nificant differences in the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college stu­ dent personnel doctoral program learning goals and o b j e c t i v e s ." No significant differences were found and the null hypothesis was not rejected with the following exception: Objective V - 1 2 : To understand principles of policy formulation and implementation. Doctoral graduates who had earned Masters degrees in areas other than col­ lege student personnel and counseling tended to rate the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of this learning objective higher than doctoral graduates who earned a Masters degree in college student personnel or counseling. Summary The central focus of this study was the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University during the period fall 1965 through spring 1977. The following section is a summary of the findings of the study. 181 Characteristics of the Graduates Employment and Professional Activities 1. Present Employment Position— The largest number of graduates, 39%, held the position of vice president for student affairs, dean, associate or assistant dean of stu­ dents . 2. Type of Employing Institution and State of Residence— Eighty-two percent of the graduates were em­ ployed by four-year colleges and universities and resided in 2 8 states, Canada, and the District of Columbia. 3. Primary Type of Employment Responsibility— Among administrative, teaching, research, counseling, con­ sulting, and other types of employment responsibilities, the majority of graduates, 82%, indicated that adminis­ trative duties were their primary type of professional responsibility. 4. Area of the Institution in which Graduates Are Employed— Sixty-seven percent of the graduates were employed in institutional divisions of student affairs while 3 3% were employed in academic units of colleges and universities. 5. Compatibility of Present Employment and Primary Employment Objective— Eighty-seven percent of the graduates indicated that their present position was com­ patible with the primary employment objectives they held while working toward the doctorate. 182 6. Job Satisfaction— Eighty-three percent of the graduates indicated that they were either very or fairly satisfied with their present employment position. 7. Average Annual Salary--The average annual salary of graduates was in the category of $22,000 to $24,999. 8. Number of Years of Experience— Graduates had an average of 10.1 years of experience in the college student personnel field. Educational Experiences and Activities of Graduates 1. Doctoral Program Emphasis— Thirty-four per­ cent of the graduates had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration. 2. Dissertation Studies Conducted in College Student Personnel— Seventy-three percent of the graduates conducted dissertation studies in the College Student Personnel field. Other Characteristics of Graduates 1. Mean Age at the Time of the Study— The mean age of graduates at the time of the study was 37.16 years. Relevance of Program Learning Goals and Objectives to Graduates* Current Professional Responsibilities The combined mean weighted score for all of the 34 college student personnel doctoral program learning 183 objectives was 2.966 which fell just below relevant on the rating scale. Program Goal V, understanding adminis­ trative theories, principles, concepts and methods and development of administrative skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, budgeting, promoting, and referring, was rated as the most relevant to graduates' current professional responsibilities. The combined mean weighted score by graduates for objectives in program goal V was 3.280 which fell between very relevant and relevant on the rating scale. Contribution of the Doctoral Program to the Achievement of Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objective¥ Doctoral graduates rated the contribution of their doctoral program toward the achievement of each learning objective on a scale which extended from 4.0 to 0.0. The mean possible score, 2.0, was designated as the low, acceptable score. However, the total mean score on the contribution of the doctoral program toward the achieve­ ment of the learning objectives was 2.4 82. Doctoral graduates perceived that their doctoral program had con­ tributed most toward the achievement of program goal I, to provide the graduate student with a professional orien­ tation to the field of college student personnel adminis­ tration. The combined mean weighted score for objectives in program goal I was 2.940 which fell just below to a considerable extent on the contribution rating scale. 184 Graduates' Evaluation of Components of Their Doctoral Program Another criteria used to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators was the graduates' evaluation of the components of their doctoral program. Graduates rated the contribution of each program component toward their professional develop­ ment on a scale which extended from 4.0 to 0.0. The mean possible score, 2.0, was designated as the low, acceptable score. However, the total mean score on the contribution of program components toward the professional development of graduates was 2.51. Doctoral program cognates ranked highest with a combined mean score of 3.108 which fell just above to a considerable extent on the contribution to professional development scale. Differences in the Perceptions of Graduates within Sub-Populations as to the Relevance and Contri­ bution of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives The analysis of variance and the chi square test of independence statistical procedures were computed on the six college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and 34 related learning objectives. The sub-popu­ lations compared consisted of doctoral program emphasis, dissertation topic, area of professional responsibility, years of experience in college student personnel, and area of the Masters degree. Of 560 chi square tests of independence that were conducted, 20 significant 185 differences at the .01 level were found between subpopulations on their ratings of the relevance and con­ tribution of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. Most significant dif­ ferences found were that graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in college student personnel adminis­ tration perceived that their doctoral program contributed to a greater extent to the achievement of some of the learning objectives than did graduates with other doctoral program emphases. G r a d u a t e s 1 Responses to Open-ended Questions about Their Doctoral Program Experiences A third criteria used to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators were open-ended questions which asked graduates to evaluate aspects of their doctoral preparation and to make suggestions for improvement. Graduates' responses to their doctoral program experiences were most compli­ mentary with 88% indicating that they would return to Michigan State University if they were to repeat their doctoral program and only two graduates who had ... doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Adminis­ tration indicating they would change their major. The questions regarding weakness and suggestions indicated that some students felt that more preparation in the area of fiscal management, budgeting, and finance 186 should be provided for doctoral students either by course work in the Department or through their doctoral program cognate. Suggestions generally were offered to enhance certain phases of the program. Therefore, Chapter IV indicates general support of the program by graduates during the period from fall 1965 through spring 1977. However, there are some areas which can be improved upon, as noted in the following chapter. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction A large portion of doctoral graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University have pursued careers in the college student personnel field. The doctoral preparation of college student personnel professionals in the Depart­ ment has been recognized as one of the outstanding pro­ grams in the country (Rockey, 1972). Graduates of the program have made valuable contributions in broad areas of higher education and they practice their profession in all parts of the country and world. However, excellence in graduate education is essential and as a society evolves, so must educational process. Historically, the preparation of college student personnel professionals has been controversial and pre­ sently some of the traditional college student personnel service functions are being challenged by professionals in the field as well as by others in the higher education 187 188 community. It is said that college student personnel professionals face new challenges that require new com­ petencies . It is possible that traditional college student personnel preparation programs are not completely con­ sistent with the problems and competency needs of today's practitioner of college student personnel. To date, doctoral graduates of the Department of Administration and Higher Education who have pursued careers in the col­ lege student personnel field have not formally appraised their doctoral preparation at Michigan State University. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the doctoral preparation of college student personnel profes­ sionals at Michigan State University as viewed by the graduates of the program during the period between fall 1965 and 1977. Chapter V presents a summary of the development of the study, its conclusions, and recommendations. Summary of the Development of the Study Chapter I The purpose of this study was to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel admin­ istrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University during the period from fall 1965 to spring 1977. The specific purposes of 189 the study were to investigate aspects of doctoral grad­ uates' educational and professional activities; to deter­ mine the relevance, as perceived by graduates, of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives to the graduates' current professional respon­ sibilities; to determine the extent of contribution, as perceived by graduates, of their doctoral program toward the achievement of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives; to determine the extent that graduates perceive that program components of their doctoral program contributed to their professional development; to determine the strongest and weakest aspects of the doctoral program, as perceived by doctoral graduates; to solicit suggestions from graduates for strengthening the preparation of college student personnel administrators; to determine whether graduates' perceptions of relevance and contribution are differently related to graduates' professional roles and responsibilities and educational experiences; and to analyze the findings, draw conclusions, and offer suggestions for strengthening the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University. Chapter II Chapter II provided a review of the college stu­ dent personnel literature related to the preparation of 190 college student personnel administrators and included material relating to historical themes of student per­ sonnel work, the present and future roles of college stu­ dent personnel professionals; program emphases, recommended preparation suggested areas of study, criticisms of college student personnel preparation programs, and evaluation of college student personnel preparation pro­ grams . The review of literature revealed several trends in the college student field. First, many writers in the field are calling for more emphasis on planning, budgeting, evaluation, and accountability. Secondly, many writers believe that the challenge and direction of the future for the college student personnel field is the student development movement. Chapter III Chapter III presented the research methodology and design of the study. From a thorough review of the literature, a comprehensive list of college student per­ sonnel learning goals and objectives were developed and used as one standard with which to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators at MSU. The many goals and objectives obtained from the review of the literature were grouped into related aggregations or program goals. Eventually, six broad program goals were identified. The comprehensive list 191 of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives that were developed is as follows: College Student Personnel Doctoral Program LVarnTng" "Goals' and Objectives Goal Number O n e : To provide a professional orientation to the field of college student personnel including the history, philosophy, purposes, problems, and issues, and professional ethics and standards. Related Learning Objectives: 1. To understand the philosophy, purposes, and problems of college student personnel adminis­ tration 2. To understand the role and function of each of the offices in a college student personnel program 3. To understand the role and function of college student personnel work as it relates to values, goals, purposes, and objectives of higher education 4. To develop an understanding of the legal aspects of college student personnel administration such as due process of law and institutional liability Goal Number T w o : To understand the psychology of human development and the nature and needs of the college student. Related Learning Objective: 1. To develop an understanding of human development derived from knowledge in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology 192 Goal Number T h r e e ; To develop knowledge and understanding of the history, setting, and objectives of postsecondary education. Related Learning Objectives 1. To understand the significant political, cultural, and social forces operating in university and college environments 2. To be able to accurately interpret the values, goals, and objectives of institutions of higher education to students, parents, and alumni 3. To understand the financing and planning of higher education 4. To understand curriculum development in higher education 5. To understand the history, setting, and objec­ tives of colleges and universities as social institutions 6. To develop defensible positions on the major philosophical issues in higher education Goal Number F o u r : To develop knowledge and understanding of the principles and theories of learning, counseling, and education. Related Learning Objectives: 1. To understand the process and outcome components of teaching and learning in designing student development programs 193 2. To develop a basic understanding of the theories and principles of learning 3. To understand the principles, concepts, and methods of counseling used in facilitating the personal development of students 4. To understand the principles, concepts, and techniques used in testing and measurement 5. To understand the human development concepts and theories implied in student development models Goal Number F i v e : To understand administrative theories, principles, concepts and methods and to develop skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, inter­ preting, constructing, reviewing, delegating, training, staff selection, budgeting, promoting, and referring. Related Learning Objectives: 1. To understand principles of administration and decision making 2. To identify your personal management and admin­ istration philosophy; one that is compatible with your personal values and life style 3. To know the principles and techniques of conflict management and be able to effectively apply them in personnel matters 4. To understand and be able to apply the principles of management by objectives in administering functional units of a college student personnel program 194 5. To understand the principles and techniques of organizational change and development 6. To acquire a thorough understanding of student personnel services, administration, ethics, 7. issues, standards, and basic principles To understand and be able to apply principles of evaluation to student personnel programs and services 8. To be able to communicate effectively on a pro­ fessional level both in writing and speaking 9. To develop skills in budget making and fiscal management 10. To develop basic understanding of effective and ineffective administrator behaviors as they relate to the role and functioning of college student personnel administrators 11. To understand principles of policy formulation and implementation 12. To be able to develop and maintain job descrip­ tions stated in terms of behavioral objectives 13. To develop an understanding of principles of personnel management including staff selection, performance evaluation, promotion, and discipline 14. To understand and be able to apply principles of accountability and program planning to the admin­ istration of college student personnel services 195 Goal Number Six: To understand research applicable to the field of college student personnel administration and be able to conduct basic research projects. Related Learning Objectives: 1. To understand the theories, principles, and methods used in social research 2. To be able to apply the theories, principles, and methods of social research to phenomena in college student personnel work 3. To understand the principles and procedures of educational evaluation 4. To understand data processing components and their application to the administration of col­ lege student personnel administration Chapter IV— Summary of the Findings of the Study Characteristics of the Graduates.— A series of questions in the survey instrument provided information about the graduates' employment, professional, and edu­ cational experiences and activities. Graduates in the study were functioning primarily in key student personnel positions as administrators within divisions of student affairs in institutions of higher education. The largest number of graduates, 39%, held the position of vice president for student affairs, dean, associate or assistant dean of students. Eighty-two percent of the 196 graduates were employed by four-year colleges and uni­ versities. The graduates resided in 28 states, Canada, and the District of Columbia. Among administrative, teaching, research, counseling, and consulting types of employment responsibilities, the largest percentage of graduates, 82%, indicated that administrative duties were their primary type of responsibility. Eighty-seven percent of the graduates were employed in positions that were compatible with the primary employment objectives they held while working toward their doctorate and 83% of the graduates were either very satisfied or satisfied with their present employment positions. Graduates in the study had an average of six years of experience in the college student personnel field prior to completing their doctorate and an average overall number of years of experience in the college student personnel field of 10 years. Graduates' annual salary fell between $22,000 and $24,000. Education Experiences and Activities.— Graduates were also asked about their educational experiences and activities at Michigan State University. Thirty-four percent of the graduates had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration while 73% of the graduates conducted dissertation studies in the area of college student personnel. 197 Mean Age of Graduates.--The mean age of graduates at the time of the study was 37.16 years. Relevance of CSP Doctoral Program Learning Objec­ tives to Graduates' Current Professional Responsibili­ ties.— Graduates were asked to rate the relevance of college student personnel doctoral program learning objectives to their current professional responsibilities. Ninety-four percent of the graduates rated the relevance of college student personnel learning objectives to their current professional responsibilities at or above the mean possible score of 2.0, established as the low acceptable score. The mean ratings for the relevance of all 34 learning objectives was 2.966 which fell just below relevant on the rating scale. Program goal V— understanding administrative theory, principles and methods and development of administrative skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, and budgeting, promoting and referring— was rated as the most relevant to the graduates' current professional responsibilities. The combined mean weighted score by graduates for objectives in program goal V was 3.280 which fell between very relevant and relevant on the relevance rating scale. Contribution of the Doctoral Program to the Achievement of CSP Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives.— A concern in evaluating educational programs 198 is whether to assess a program against its stated learn­ ing objectives or against a total range of possibilities in the program area--knowing that the program will probably fail to be effective in meeting some of them. The latter approach was used for this study. Six col­ lege student personnel doctoral program learning goals and 34 related learning objectives were developed from a review of college student personnel literature and related research and used as one criteria upon which to appraise the doctoral preparation of college student administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education during the period of fall 1965 through spring 1977. Doctoral graduates rated the contribution of their doctoral program the achievement of each learning objective on a scale which extended from 4.0 to 1.0 (from to a great extent to not at al l) . The mean pos­ sible score, 2.0, was designated as the low acceptable score. However, the total mean score on the contribution of the doctoral program toward the achievement of the learning objectives was 2.482. Doctoral graduates per­ ceived that their doctoral program had contributed most toward the achievement of program goal I, to provide the graduate student with a professional orientation to the field of college student personnel administration. The combined mean weighted score for objectives in program 199 goal I was 2.940 which fell just below to a considerable extent on the contribution rating scale. The highest ratings for contribution of the doc­ toral program were given to the following 10 learning objectives: 1. (highest to lowest mean score) To understand the philosophy, purposes, and problems of college student personnel adminis­ tration 2. (Goal I, Objective 1) To understand the role and function of each of the offices in a college student personnel pro­ gram 3. (Goal I, Objective 2) To understand the role and function of college student personnel work as it relates to values, goals, purposes, cation 4. and objectives of higher edu­ (Goal I, Objective 3) To understand the history, setting, and objec­ tives of colleges and universities as social institutions 5. (Goal III, Objective 5) To acquire a thorough understanding of student personnel services, administration, ethics, issues, standards, and basic principles (Goal V, Objective 1) 6. To understand the principles of administration and decision making (Goal V, Objective 1) 200 7. To develop an understanding of the legal aspects of college student personnel administration such as due process of law and institutional liability (Goal I, Objective 4) 8. To identify your personal management and adminis­ tration philosophy; one that is compatible with your personal values and life style (Goal V, Objective 2) 9. To develop an understanding of human development derived from knowledge in psychology, sociology, philosophy, and anthropology (Goal II, Objective 1) 10. To understand the theories, principles, and methods used in social research (Goal VI, Objective 1) Graduates rated the contribution of their doc­ toral program to the achievement of all six learning goals highly. However, there were six learning objec­ tives that received ratings below the 2.0 minimum acceptable score and these should be reviewed by faculty in the department and program adjustments made, if deemed necessary. There are six learning objectives receiving mean scores below 2.0 as follows: 1. To understand the process and outcome components of teaching and learning in designing student development programs (Goal IV, Objective 1) 201 2. To understand the financing and planning of higher education (Goal III, Objective 3) 3. To understand data processing components and their application to the administration of college student personnel administration (Goal VI, Objective 4) 4. To understand the principles and techniques of organizational change and development (Goal V, Objective 5) 5. To develop and understanding of principles of personnel management including staff selection, performance evaluation, promotion, and discipline (Goal V, Objective 13) 6. To develop a basic understanding of effective and ineffective administrator behaviors as they relate to the role and functioning of college student personnel administrators (Goal V, Objective 10) Contribution of Doctoral Program Components to Professional Development.— Doctoral graduates rated the contribution of 22 doctoral program components toward their professional development. The total mean score on the contribution of program components to the pro­ fessional development of graduates was 2.51, considerably higher than the mean possible score of 2.0 designated as the low acceptable score. The doctoral program cognate 202 ranked the highest among the 22 doctoral program cognates with a combined mean score of 3.108 which fell just above to a considerable extent on the contribution to profes­ sional development scale. Differences in the Perceptions of Graduates within Sub-populations as to the Relevance and Contri­ bution of College Student Personnel Doctoral Program Learning Goals and Objectives.— The analysis of variance and the chi square test of independence statistical pro­ cedures were computed on the six college student person­ nel doctoral program learning goals and 34 related learn­ ing objectives. Using the CDC 6500 computer at MSU, these statistical procedures were conducted to determine if significant differences in perceptions of graduates within sub-populations existed as to the relevance and contribution of college student personnel doctoral pro­ gram learning goals and objectives. The sub-populations compared consisted of doctoral program emphasis (College Student Personnel Administration and other), dissertation topic (College Student Personnel and other), area of professional responsibility (divisions of student affairs and academic units of the institution), years of exper­ ience in the college student personnel field and area of Masters degree ing and other). (college student personnel or counsel­ Of 560 chi square tests of independence that were conducted, 20 significant differences at the 203 .01 level were found between sub-populations on their ratings of the relevance and contribution of college student personnel doctoral program learning goals and objectives. Most significant among differences found were that graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration perceived that their doctoral program contributed to a greater extent to the achievement of several of the learning objectives. Graduates' Responses to Open-ended Questions about Their Doctoral Program Experiences.— A third cri­ teria used to appraise the doctoral preparation of col­ lege student personnel administrators were open-ended questions which asked graduates to evaluate aspects of their doctoral preparation and to make suggestions for improvement. Eighty-eight percent of the graduates responded that they would return to MSU if they had to begin their doctoral program over again, and 11 graduates indicated that they would change their major. Of the 11 graduates who would change their major, only two had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Adminis­ tration . When asked what changes graduates would make in their doctoral program if they were to begin their doc­ toral program again, most graduates (32%) indicated that 204 they would change their cognate. Most changes of cognate indicated by graduates would be to management then busi­ ness administration and then interdisciplinary emphasiz­ ing, in many cases, labor and industrial relations. Also, in responding to open-ended questions about suggestions for improving the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators and weaknesses of the program as well as areas of inadequate preparation, one of the most frequently mentioned areas was fiscal management, budgeting, and finance. When asked what they considered to be the most valuable learning experiences in their doctoral program, graduates most frequently responded that their relation­ ship with their major professor was the most valuable learning experience. The next most frequently mentioned responses were the dissertation experience, association with faculty in the department, employment in student affairs while pursuing the doctorate, association with other graduate students in the Department, college stu­ dent personnel courses and seminars, preparation for comprehensive exams, study in the cognate area, higher education administration courses and seminars, work in academic units at MSU while pursuing the doctorate, writing the dissertation, research for the dissertation, educational research, methodology and design courses, and other responses. 205 When asked, "In your opinion what were two or three of the major strengths of the preparation program in College Student Personnel Administration at the time you pursued your doctoral degree at MSU," graduates most frequently responded that the flexibility of the program was a major strength of the program. The next most fre­ quent responses were the quality of the faculty, specific faculty members, major professor, positive and helpful attitude of faculty toward students in the program, opportunity to work in student affairs at MSU while pursuing the doctorate, the quality and diversity of students in the doctoral program, the reputation of faculty and graduates, college student personnel courses and seminars, higher education administration courses and seminars, the campus as a learning laboratory, and other responses. Doctoral graduates were asked what were two or three of the major weaknesses of the doctoral program. Thirty-two percent of the graduates indicated that in their opinion the program had no major weaknesses. The most frequently mentioned weakness was cited by 44 graduates as the lack of or inadequate course content in several areas. The most frequently mentioned course area was finance and budgeting (16 graduates), The second most frequently mentioned weakness of the doc­ toral program was related to the size of the Department 206 (11 graduates). Graduates commented that doctoral advisors were overloaded or that the Department was too large for adequate individual attention. Doctoral graduates were asked if they had pro­ fessional responsibilities for which their MSU doctoral program provided inadequate experiences. percent (42 graduates) responded yes. Forty-nine Twenty-two graduates who mentioned inadequate preparation in the area of fis­ cal management (budgeting and finance). Doctoral graduates were asked for suggestions for improving the doctoral preparation program. Of 70 suggestions, the largest number were related to improving course content with 22 graduates indicating a need to improve course offerings in the area of fiscal manage­ ment including budgeting, accounting, and finance. Conclusions The following are the major conclusions of the study: Ninety-eight percent of the respondents were employed in college student personnel administrator or educator positions, and 39% of the respondents were employed as key college student personnel administrators as vice presidents of student affairs, deans, associate or assistant deans of students. Of those graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration, 93% were employed as college 207 student personnel administrators or educators. It is reasonable to conclude that the reputation of the Depart­ ment of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University and the image that the graduates portray was favorable enough to assist them in securing college student personnel positions as administrators or edu­ cators, a significantly large portion of which were key college student personnel administrator positions. If the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University had not been effectively preparing college student personnel profes­ sionals, it is difficult to conceive that 98% of the respondents would have been able to secure positions as college student personnel administrators or educators. Even if it was assumed that none of the nonrespondents were employed as college student personnel administrators or educators, the total number of college student person­ nel administrators or educators in the population would have equaled 89%. It is significant that the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University was appraised by doctoral graduates who are actively engaged as college student personnel practitioners and educators. Eighty-seven percent of the respondents indicated that they were presently employed in positions which are 208 compatible with the employment objectives that they held while working toward the doctorate and 8 3% of the graduates indicated that they were very satisfied or satisfied with their current college student personnel position. It was concluded that the major thrust of the doctoral preparation of college student personnel professionals in the Department coincides with the career objectives, professional interests, and preparation needs of college student personnel administrators and educators. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that 8 8% of the respondents indicated that they would return to Michigan State University if they were to begin their doctorate program again; that 8 7% indicated that they would not change their major if they were to begin their doctoral program again; and that 9 8% of the respondents who had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration indicated that they would not change their major if they were to begin their doctoral program again. The highest ratings by graduates of the contri­ bution of the doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel learning objectives were given to those objectives taught in the college student per­ sonnel seminars. Thus, it was concluded that graduates perceived that their doctoral preparation in college student personnel administration seminars was excellent. 209 Doctoral graduates in the study were functioning primarily as college student personnel administrators. Their responses as to the relevance of college student personnel doctoral program learning objectives to their current professional responsibilities indicated rele­ vance to a broad range of college student personnel learning goals and objectives particularly those learning goals and objectives related to administrative theories, principles, concepts and methods, and the development of administrative skills in organizing, administering, planning, financing, interpreting, constructing, review­ ing, delegating, training, staff selection, budgeting, promoting, and referring. The highest ratings on the contribution of the doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel learning objectives were given to those objec­ tives related to "providing a professional orientation to the field of college student personnel including the history, philosophy, purposes, problems, and issues. Chi square tests of significant differences among the sub-populations on their ratings of the contribution of their doctoral program to the achievement of college student personnel doctoral program learning objectives revealed that graduates who had a doctoral program emphasis in College Student Personnel Administration tended to rate the contribution of their doctoral 210 program to the achievement of the above learning objec­ tives higher than doctoral students who had other doc­ toral program emphases. There were six learning objectives that received contribution ratings below the 2.00 minimum acceptable score. Some of these objectives do not necessarily fit into the goals and objectives of the Department while some clearly do. These six objectives are presented below so that faculty may review them and make any cur­ riculum changes they deem necessary. 1. To understand the process and outcome components of teaching and learning in designing student development programs (Goal IV, Objective 1) 2. To understand the finance and planning of higher education (Goal VI, Objective 4) 3. To understand data processing components and their application to college student personnel administration (Goal VI, Objective 4) 4. To understand the principles and techniques of organizational change and development (Goal V, Objective 5) 5. To develop an understanding of principles of personnel management including staff selection, performance evaluation, promotion, and discipline (Goal V, Objective 13) 211 6. To develop a basic understanding of effective and ineffective administrator behaviors as they relate to the role and functioning of college student personnel administrators (Goal V, Objective 10) The lack of or inadequate course content in the area of fiscal management including budgeting, accounting, and finance was the most frequently mentioned item on the following parts of the survey questionnaire: of inadequate preparation, (1) areas (2) major weaknesses of the program, and (3) suggestions for improving the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department. It was concluded that more course content or other doctoral program learning experiences should be provided for doctoral students either through courses in the Department or through doctoral program cognates in business administration which would provide learning experiences in budgeting, accounting, and finance. In rating the contribution of 22 doctoral program components to their professional development, graduates gave high ratings to all program components with highest ratings going to the doctoral program cognate, associ­ ation with their major professor, and conducting research for the dissertation. The management cognate received the highest rating by graduates and it was the most 212 frequently mentioned cognate to which graduates indicated they would change. Therefore, it was concluded that the graduates considered doctoral program components to be a valuable part of their doctoral program experiences. Doctoral graduates perceived that faculty advis­ ing loads in the Department are too great to allow faculty to provide adequate individual guidance to their advisees. Doctoral program weaknesses in the area of fiscal management could be improved by (1) providing more course work and other doctoral program learning experiences in the area of fiscal management including budgeting, accounting, and finance, or (2) encouraging doctoral students who are preparing to become college student personnel administrators to take their doctoral program cognate in business administration with an emphasis in fiscal management including budgeting, accounting, and finance. While doctoral graduates rated the relevance of student development learning goals and objectives highly, the overall responses of graduates on all sections of the questionnaire support the conclusion that graduates view their primary role and function as that of adminis­ trators of college student personnel services. Doctoral graduates view the major strengths of their doctoral program as (1) the flexibility in program planning to meet individual career interest and preparation 213 needs, (2) the quality of the faculty, faculty members, (3) specific (4) their major professor, (5) positive and helpful attitude of faculty toward students in the program, (6) opportunity to work in student personnel field at Michigan State University while pursuing the do c ­ torate, (7) the quality and diversity of students in the doctoral program, iences, (10) (8) internship and practicum exper­ (9) the reputation of the faculty and graduates, college student personnel courses and seminars, (11) higher education administration courses and seminars and the campus as a learning laboratory. Recommendations The findings and conclusions of the study suggest that the doctoral preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University is generally perceived by the doctoral graduates as effectively p r e ­ paring them for administrative positions in the college student personnel field. Several recommendations for continuing the success of the program were gleened from the study and are presented as follows: 1. The present college student personnel doctoral program which provides a broad-based, flexible program with a core of courses in administrative theory and practice should be continued. 214 2. Departmental faculty and/or the appropriate com­ mittee should review the learning experiences provided for doctoral students in the area of fiscal management and give consideration to providing additional learning experiences in the fiscal management of college student personnel programs including budgeting, accounting, and finance. These learning experiences could be provided through administrative internships and courses in the Department and/or through doctoral cognates in business administration or management. 3. The comprehensiveness and flexibility provided in the preparation of college student personnel administrators in the Department are viewed as major strengths of the doctoral program by graduates. However, more faculty advising may be required in assisting students in exercising the most appropriate program options and in con­ ducting dissertation studies in a wide range of areas. Some graduates indicated that faculty advising loads may be too great and that addi­ tional faculty are needed to provide adequate individual attention in advising students. Departmental faculty advising loads should be reviewed and steps taken to improve the situation if necessary. Each doctoral student's program of study should address his career objectives, competency strengths and weaknesses, and the necessary learning experiences needed to strengthen weak competency areas. Varied learning experiences which match the candidate's learning style and preparation needs should be incorporated into his doctoral program. Doctoral graduates rated practical learning experiences in their doctoral program such as internships, practicums, and related part-time employment as a valuable part of their doctoral program experiences. These types of experiences should be continued and efforts made to expand administrative internships at Michigan State University and other colleges and universities in the area. The Department's Curriculum Committee should review the six learning objectives receiving doctoral program contribution scores below 2.00 and make program adjustment if they are deemed necessary. Faculty of the Department should review the find­ ings of this study. The implications of the respondents' appraisals may encourage suggestions for improvements from faculty in the Department. 216 8. The program is not in need of radical alterations. The commentary offered by respondents indicates areas where improvements may be undertaken, but major changes are not needed. 9. This study should be periodically updated via periodic follow-up studies of graduates of the program. 10. Comparisons should be made between the findings of this study and the findings of other studies of college student personnel doctoral preparation programs before generalizations regarding the entire college student personnel field are made. APPENDICES APPENDIX A LETTERS APPENDIX A LETTERS M IC H IG A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y FAST LANSING • M IC H IG A N • 481121 COLLEGE OF E D U C A TIO N DE P AR TM E N T OF A D M IN IS T R A T IO N A N D HIG H E R E D U C A TIO N ERICKSON II A L I July 27, 1977 Dear D r . The enclosed questionnaire, as the last part of my Ph.D. program, is an attempt to assess the value of doctoral preparation in the Depart­ ment of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State Univer­ sity as it relates to College Student Personnel Administration. As a doctoral-level graduate of the Department currently or recently employed in a College Student Pe rsonnel/related position, you have an excellent vantage point from which to assist the Department in evaluat ing its doctoral preparation program. By part icipat ing in this study, you will be making a valuable contri­ bution to your profession and the Department of Administration and Higher Education at Michigan State University. Your comments and s uggestions for strengthening the doctoral program will be treated anonymously. We urge you to take the 20 to 25 minutes necessary to complete the e nclosed questionnaire. A summary of the "esults will be sent to you upon your request. Thank you for your assistance in this project. Sincerely, John D. Marler, Jr. Doctoral Candidate Department of Adm inist ration and H i g h e r Education Van C. Johnson Chairman Department of Administration and Higher Education J D M :RAM 217 Walter F. Johnson Professor Department of Administration and Higher Education 218 M I C H I G A N STA T E U N I V E R S I T Y t.tlL l K . r OK 1 D U C A TIO N (■AM LANHINO • M IC H U .A N • l*K2( D K P A R T M K N I OF A D M IN IS T H A I K IN A N D IUG M FR H IH H 'A I'lO N FKU.KSO N H A U August 19, 1977 Dr. David Marler Curric ulum Consultant College of V eterinary Medicine Michiga n State University East Lansing, Michigan 48824 Dear D a v i d : I am sorry I haven't heard from you! I know you meant to mai l your questionnaire but didn't get a chance because of work, vacation trips or other activities. I would appreciate it if you could fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it to me by August 30. I need your responses to complete this area of my research. All infor­ m a t i o n will be treated professionally and confidentially. Thank you for your assistance in this project. Sincerely, John D. Marler, Jr. Doctoral Candidate Department of Adminis tratio n and Higher Education APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE DOCTORAL RECIPIENT SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS: THIS INSTRUMENT WILL BE USED TOR AN APPRAISAL BY GRADUATES 01 THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1961-77. RESPONSES WILL BE TREATED AS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL. PLEASE RESPOND TO EACH ITEM. MOST ITEMS REQUIRE ONLY A CHECK (X) OR SHORT PHRASE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE. I . EMPLOYMENT AND CAREER INFORMATION 1.1 PRESENT EMPLOYMENT:__ TITLE____________________________________________________________________ l.i? EMPLOYER CORGANIZATION OR INSTITUTION)________________________________________________________ 1.1 LOCATION OF EMPLOYMENT CCITY £ STATE)_________________________________________________________ I.'I WHAT IS THE NATURE OF YOUR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN YOUR PRESENT POSITION? PRIMARILY ADMINISTRATION PRIMARILY COUNSELING PRIMARILY TEACHING PRIMARILY RESEARCH _____ PRIMARILY CONSULTING OTHER (PLEASE EXPLAIN) _____________________________ _____________________________ l.‘> HOW MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL WORK DID YOU HAVE PRIOR TO COMPLETING THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY?_______________________________ I. 6 HOW MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL WORK HAVE YOU HAD SINCE COMCOMPLETING THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY?_______________________________ J.7 ARE YOU NOW EMPLOYED IN A POSITION WHICH IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT 08JECTTIVES YOU HELD WHILE WORKING TOWARD YOUR DOCTORATE? ________________________________________ J.H HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT POSITION? PLEASE CHECK (X) BELOW. VERY SATISFIED FAIRLY SATISFIED UtOEClDED _____ FAIRLY DISSATISFIED VERY DISSATISFIED 1 I■ RELEVANCE OF COLLEGE STUOENT PERSONNEL DOCTORAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PLEASE GIVE YOUR JUDGEMENT ABOUT THE RELEVANCE OF EACH OF THESE OBJECTIVES OF GRADUATE STUDY IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL. USING THE SCALE BELOW, PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER WHICH BEST REPRESENTS THE RELEVANCE OF EACH OBJECTIVE TO YOUR CURRENT PROFESSIQNAL RESPONSIBILITIES. M--VERY RELEVANT IRRELEVANT ?--SOMEWHAT RELEVANT 1— NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO UFDERSTAND Tl-E PHILOSOPHY, PURPOSES, AND PROBLEMS OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 0— NOT AT ALL RELEVANT 'i ■j ■J TO UNDERSTAND THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF EACH OF THE OFFICES IN A COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAM. TO UFOERSTAF© THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF COLLEGE STUDENT P E R S O N A L WORK AS IT RELATES TO VALUES, GOALS, PURPOSES, AND OBJECTIVES OF HI. ED. ."’.'I TO DEVELOP AN UFOER STAND ING OF HLMAN DEVELOPMENT DERIVED FROM KNOWLEDGE IN PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, AND ANTHROPOLOGY TO UNDERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL, CULTURAL, AND SOCIAL FORCES OPERATING IN UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE ENVIROMENTS. J.F TO BE ABLE TO ACCURATELY INTERPRET THE VALUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO STUDENTS, PARENTS, AND ALUMNI. 219 ' n 1 ii 1 it 1 0 ii 7 ? 1 0 'i 7 'I 1 1) 3 ? 1 0 220 RELEVANCE OF bACH O B JE C TIV E 4--VERY RELEVANT T--RELEVANT TO YOUR CUR RENT P R O F E S S IO N 2--SOMEWHAT RELEVANT R E S P O N S IB IL IT IE S 1— NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT 0--NOT AT ALL RELEVANT TO UNDERSTAND THE FINANCING AND PLAM4ING OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 2 TO UNDERSTAND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION. 2 TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY, SETTING, AND OBJECTIVES Ob COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS. 2 0 0 n TO DEVELOP DEFENSIBLE POSITIONS ON THE MAJOR PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION. o TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND OUTCOME COMPONENTS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING USED IN DESIGNING STUOENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. o TO DEVELOP A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF THE THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING. o TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES, CONCEPTS, AND METHODS OF COUNSELING USED IN FACILITATING THE PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS. 0 TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES, CONCEPTS, AND TECHNIQUES USED IN TESTING AND MEASUREMENT. 0 TO DEVELOP AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, SUCH AS DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND INSTITU­ TIONAL LIABILITY. 0 TO UNDERSTAND THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS AND THEORIES IMPLIED IN STUDENT DEVELOPMENT MODELS. 0 TO UNDERSTAND PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION AND DECISION MAKING. 0 0 TO IDENTIFY YOUR PER50NAL MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION PHILOSOPHY; ONE THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR PERSONAL VALUES AND I IFE STYLE. TO KNOW THE PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY APPLY THEM IN PERSONNEL MATTERS. 0 TO UNDERSTAND AND BE ABLE TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES IN ADMINISTERING FUNCTIONAL UNITS OF A COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAM. I) TO UNDERSTAMJ THE PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT. 0 TO ACQUIRE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES, ADMINISTRATION, ISSUES, ETHICS, STANDARDS, AND BASIC PRINCIPLES. 0 TO UNDERSTAND AND BE ABLE TO APPLY PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROGRAM PLANNING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES. 0 TO UNDERSTAND AND BE ABLE TO APPLY PRINCIPLES OF EVALUATION TO STUDENT PERSOM'IEL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. 0 TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY ON A PROFESSIONAL LEVEL BOTH IN WRITING AND SPEAKING. 0 TO DEVELOP SKILLS IN BUDGET MAKING AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT. 0 TO DEVELOP A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATOR BEHAVIORS AS THEY RELATE TO THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONING OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS. 0 221 RFLFVANCE OF EACH OBJECTIVE TO YOUR CURRENT PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES 4— VERY RELEVANT 3— RELEVANT -SOMEWHAT RELEVANT 1— NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT 2 .2 8 TO UNDERSTAND PRINCIPLES OF POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION. 2.29 TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN JOB DESCRIPTIONS STATED IN TERMS OF BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES. 2.30 TO DEVELOP AN UNDERSTANDING OF PRINCIPLES OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT INCLUDING STAFF SELECTION, PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, PROMOTION, AND DISCIPLINE. 2.31 TO UNDERSTAND THE THEORIES, PRINCIPLES AND METHODS USED IN SOCIAL RESEARCH. 2.32 TO BE ABLE TO APPLY THE THEORIES, PRINCIPLES, AND METHODS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH TO PHENOMENA IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSOMCL WORK. 2.33 TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES OF EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION. 2.39 TO UNDERSTAND DATA PROCESSING COMPONENTS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSOWJEL ADMINISTRATION. 0— NOT AT ALL RELEVANT 111. CONTRIBUTION OF YOUR DOCTORAL PROGRAM TO ATTAINMENT OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSOWEL DOCTORAL PROGRAM OBJECTIVES PLEASE GIVE YOUR JUDGEMENT OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH YOUR DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT MSU CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR ACHIEVEMENT OF EACH OF THESE OBJECTIVES. PLEASE CIRCLE THE NUMBER WHICH BEST REPRESENTS THE EXTENT OF YOUR PROGRAM'S CONTRIBUTION TO YOUR ACHIEVEMENT OF EACH OBJECTIVE: 9— TO A GREAT EXTENT 3— TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 2— TO A MODERATE EXTENT 1— TO SOME EXTENT 3.1 TO UNDERSTAND THE PHILOSOPHY, PURPOSES, AND PROBLEMS OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 3.2 TO UNDERSTAND THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF EACH OF THE OFFICES IN A COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAM, 3.3 TO UNDERSTAND THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL WORK AS IT RELATES TO THE VALUES, GOALS, PURPOSES, AND OBJECTIVES OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 3.9 TO DEVELOP AN UNDERSTANDING OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT DERIVED FROM KNOWLEDGE IN PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIOLOGY, PHILOSOPHY, AND ANTHROPOLOGY. 3-5 TO UDNERSTAND THE SIGNIFICANT POLITICAL, CULTURAL, AND SOCIAL FORCES OPERATING IN UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTS. 3.6 TO BE ABLE TO ACCURATELY INTERPRET THE VALUES, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION TO STUDENTS, PARENTS, AND ALUMNI. 3.7 TO UNDERSTAND THE FINANCING AND PLANNING OF HIGHER EDUCATION. 3.8 TO UNDERSTAND CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION. 3.9 TO UNDERSTAND THE HISTORY, SETTING, AND OBJECTIVES OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AS SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS. 3.10 TO DEVELOP DEFENSIBLE POSITIONS ON THE MAJOR PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION. (1--NOT AT All 222 EXTENT TO WHICH YOUR PH.D. PROGRAM CONTRIBUTED TO ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE 0 — TO A GREAT EXTEN T 3--TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 2— TO A MODERATE EXTENT 1— TO SOME EXTENT 0--NOT AT ALL 3.11 TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND OUTCOME COMPONENTS OF TEACHING AND LEARNING USED IN DESIGNING STUDENT DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. 0 3. 12 TO DEVELOP A HAS 1C UNDERSTANDING OF THE THEORIES AND PRINCIPLES OF LEARNING. 0 3.15 TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES, CONCEPTS, AM) METHODS OF COUNSELING USED IN FACILITATING THE PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS. 0 5 . 14 TO UNDERSTAND THF PRINCIPLES, CONCEPTS, AND TECHNIQUES USED IN TESTING AM) MEASUREMENT. 0 5.1'1 TO DEVELOP AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL ASPECTS OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION, SUCH AS DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND INSTITU­ TIONAL LIABILITY. 0 3.16 TO UNDERSTAND THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS AND THEORIES IMPLIED IN STUDENT DEVELOPMENT MODELS. 6 3.17 TO UNDERSTAND PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION AND DECISION MAKING. 6 3.18 TO IDENTIFY YOUR PERSONAL MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION PHILOSOPHY; ONE THAT IS COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR PERSONAL VALUES AND LIFE STYLE. 4 0 [) 3 . 10 TO KNOW THE PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY APPLY THEM IN PERSOMslEL MATTERS. 4 0 3.20 TO UNDERSTAND AND BE ABLE TO APPLY THE PRINCIPLES OF MANAGEMENT BY4 OBJECTIVES IN ADMINISTERING FUNCTIONAL UNITS OF A COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAM. 0 3.21 TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES AND TECHNIQUES OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT. 4 n 5.22 TO ACQUIRE A THOROUGH UNDERSTANDING OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES, ADMINISTRATION, ISSUES, ETHICS, STANDARDS, AND BASIC PRINCIPLES. 4 0 5-23 TO UNDERSTAND AND BE ABLE TO APPLY PRINCIPLES OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND PROGRAM PLAMI1NG TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES. 4 0 3.20 TO UNDERSTAND AND BE ABLE TO APPLY PRINCIPLES OF EVALUATION TO STUDENT PERSONNEL PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. 4 0 5. 2 6 TO BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY ON A PROFESSIONAL LEVEL BOTH IN WRITING AND SPEAKING. 4 0 0 0 3. 26 TO DEVELOP SKILLS IN BUDGET MAKING A6D FISCAL MANAGEMENT, 4 5.27 10 DEVELOP A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF EFFECTIVE AND INEFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATOR BEHAVIORS AS THEY RELATE TO THE ROLE AND FUNCTIONING OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATORS. 4 5.28 TO UNDERSTAND PRINCIPLES OF POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION. 4 5.70 TO BE ABLF TO DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN JOB DESCRIPTIONS STATED IN TERMS Or BEHAVIORAL OBJECTIVES. 4 0 0 3 . 30 TO DEVELOP AN UNDERSTANDING OF PRINCIPLES OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT INCLUDING STAFF SELECTION, PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, PROMOTION, AND DISCIPLINE. 4 1 0 223 IXTENI TO WHICH YOUR PH.D. PROGRAM CONTRIBUTED TO ACHIEVEMENT OF THE OBJECTIVE 4--TO A GREAT EXTENT 3--TO A CONSIDERABLE FXTENT 1---TO SOME EXTENT 2--TO A MODERAIE EXTENT 0 -NOT Al Al 1 ' , . ’,1 TO UNDERSTAND THE THEORIES, PRINCIPLES AND METHODS USED IN SOCIAL RESEARCH. 4 3 7 1 0 3. 32 TO BE ABLE TO APPLY THE THEORIES, PRINCIPLES, AND METHODS OF SOCIAL RESEARCH TO PHENOMENA IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL WORK. 4 3 2 1 0 3-33 TO UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES OF EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION 4 3 2 1 n 3. 34 TO UNDERSTAND DATA PROCESSING COMPONENTS AND THEIR APPLICATION TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION. 4 3 2 1 n IV. EVALUATION OF SELECTED COMPONENTS OF YOUR DOCTORAL PROGRAM INSTRUCTIONS: PLEASE RATE BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER WHICH BEST REPRESENTS THE EXTENT OF CONTRIBUTION OF EACH COMPONENT TO YOUR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT. USE SCALE BELOW. 4— TO A GREAT EXTENT 3— TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 2— TO A MODERATE EXTENT 1--TO SOME EXTENT 0— NOT AT ALL NA— DID NOT PART 1C. 1PATE EXTENT OF CONTRIBUTION TO YOUR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 4 (J NA 1 (1 NA I 9 NA 3 2 1 4 3 2 4 3 2 3 ? 1 1) NA 1 0 NA 4. I COURSE WORK ------------------------------------------------------ 4.2 SEMINARS AND COLLOQUIMS------------------------------------------- ‘1.3 INDEPENDENT STUDY AND READINGS----------------------------------- 4.<4 PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES SUCH AS ASSISTANTSH1PS, INTERNSHIPS, PRACTICUMS, FIELD STUDY, ETC.------------------------------------ 4 4.5 PREPARATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATIONS---------------------- 4 3 2 4.6 COMPLETION OF COMPREHENSIVE EXAMINATIONS------------------------- 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.7 DEVELOPMENT OF DISSERTATION RESEARCH PROPOSAL------------------- 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.8 CONDUCTING RESEARCH FOR DISSERTATION----------------------------- 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.9 WRITING DISSERTATION---------------------------------------------- 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.10 DEFENSE OF DISSERTATION------------------------------------------ 4 3 2 I 4 NA 4.11 RESIDENCY (ATTENDANCE AS A FULL-TIME STUDENT)------------------- 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4. 12 INFORMAL STUDY GROUPS--------------------------------------------- 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.13 ASSOCIATION WITH MAJOR PROFESSOR (ADVISOR)---------------------- 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.14 ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF YOUR COMMITTEE---------------- 4 3 2 1 4 NA 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.15 ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER DEPARTMENT FACULTY----------------------- 4.16 ASSOCIATION WITH FELLOW GRADUATE STUDENTS----------------------- 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.17 COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION COURSES AND SEMINARS— 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.18 HIGHER EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION COURSES AND SEMINARS------------ 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.19 OTHER COURSES AND SEMINARS IN THE DEPARTMENT: ADULT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION COURSES AND SEMINARS-------COMMUNITY COLLEGE COURSES AND SEMINARS--------------------OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY AND RATE) 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 I 0 0 NA NA 224 EXTENT OF CONTRIBUTION OF EACH COMPONENT TO YOUR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT 4— TO A GREAT EXTENT 3— TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT 4.20 2— TO A MODERATE EXTENT 1— TO SOME EXTENT 0— NOT AT ALL NA— DID NOT PARTICIPATE COURSES AND SEMINARS IN THE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL AREA PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION-------------------------HISTORY OF HIGHER EDUCATION---------------------CRUCIAL ISSUES IN EDUCATION ----------------OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY AND RATE)__________________ 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 NA NA NA 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4.21 COURSES AND SEMINARS IN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH DESIGN A: METHODOLOGY------------------------------------------- 4 3 2 1 (1 NA 4.22 COURSES IN YOUR COGNATE AREA. CHECK (X) YCHJR COGNATE BELCM AND RATE ITS CONTRIBUTION. INTERDISCIPLINARY (IN WHAT AREAS)________________ MANAGEMENT------------------------------- -------SOCIOLOGY---------------------------------------COMMUNICATION-----------------------------------PSYCHOLOGY--------------------------------------COMPUTER SCIENCE--------------------------------LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS-----------------OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY AND RATE)__________________ 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA V. 5.1 PROGRAM IF YOU WERE TO BEGIN YOUR DOCTORAL PROGRAM AGAIN, WOULD YOU ATTEND MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY? (PLEASE CHECK (X) BELOW) YES 5.2 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE _____ NO (IF NO, WHY?) _________________ _______________ __ WHAT CHANGES WOULD YOU MAKE IN YOUR DOCTORAL PROGRAM IF YOU WERE TO BEGIN IT AGAIN? (PLEASE CHECK (X) OR COFWENT BELOW AS APPROPRIATE) NONE CHANGE MAJOR. TO WHAT?__________________________________________________________ CHANGE COGNATE TO WHAT?__________________________________________________________ OTHER_______________________________________________ ._________ 5.3 PLEASE LIST WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST VALUABLE LEARNING EXPERIENCES OF YOUR DOCTORAL PROGRAM AND BRIEFLY GIVE THE REASONS. 1.______________________________________________________ REASON:_________________ _____________________________________________________________ 2 .____ REASON: 3._____ reason: 5.4 IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT WERE TWO OR THREE OF THE MAJOR STRENGTHS OF THE PREPARATION PROGRAM IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONAL ADMINISTRATION AT THE TIME YOU PURSUED YOUR DOCTORAL DEGREE AT MSU? 225 OTHER ASPECTS OF THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM 5.5 IN YOUR OPINION, WHAT WERE TWO OR THREE OF- THE MAJOR WEAKNESSES OF THE PREPARATION PROGRAM IN (.01 LEGI STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMI Nl STRAY ION AT THE TIME rf0U PURSULO YOl'W IYHTOKAI DEGREE AT MSU? 5.6 DO YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES IN YOUR PRESENT POSITION FOR WHICH YOUR UOC.TORAI PROGRAM AT MSU PROVIDED INADEQUATE PREPARATION? 5.7 IF YES, PLEASE SPECIFY_______ __________________________________________________________ __ 5.8 WHAT MAIN SUGGESTIONS 00 YOU HAVE FOR IMPROVING-THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSOKNEL ADMINISTRATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY? PLEASE COMMENT BELOW. YES NO VI. b.l ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PLEASE INDICATE THE APPROXIMATE PERCENTAGE OF TIME WHICH YOU SPEND IN YOUR PRESENT POSITION IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES: ADM INISTRAT ION--------------------------- " ........... .......... ..... COUNSELING RESEARCH---------------------------- ----- " TEACHING---------------------------- ----- ' CONSULTING-------------------------OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)------------- --- ? 100 % b.2 WERE YOU PRIMARILY A FULL-TIME OR PART-TIME STUDENT DURING MOST OF YOUR DOCTORAL PR(X.RAM? ("PLEASE CHECK (X) BELOW PRIMARILY FULL-TIME f).i NO WHAT IS YOUR PRESENT SALARY (12 MONTHS EQUIVALENT)? RANGE BELOW. BELOW $9,999 $10,000-12,999 $11,000-15,999 6.6 PLEASE CHECK (X) THE APPROPRIA1I $16,000-18,yq9 $19,000-21,999 $22,000-29,999 $25,000-27,999 $78, 000- HJ, 999 '$31,000 AND OVER DATE OF BIRTH: MONTH 6.6 * DIO YOU WRITE YOUR DISSERTATION WHILE HOLDING FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT? YES 6.8 PR 1MAR ILY PART-TJME DAY YEAR PLEASE CHECK BELOW THE AREA IN WHICH YOU EARNED YOUR MASTER1S DEGREE: COLLEGE STUDENT PERSOFNEL COUNSELING THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY. RETURN THE QUESTTOFNAIRE. OTHER (PLEASE DESCRIBE) ~ PLEASE USE THE ENCLOSED REPLY ENVELOPE TO SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY American College Personnel Association. "The Function and Preparation of College Student Personnel Workers. ACPA, 1965. American Council on Education. "The Student Personnel Point of View: A Report of a Conference on the Philosophy and Development of Student Personnel Work in College and University." American Council on Education Studies, series 1, vol. 1, no. 3. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1937. APGA Inter-Divisional Committee. "The Role and Prepar­ ation of Student Personnel Workers in Institutions of Higher Learning." APGA, Washington, D.C.: 1966. The American Personnel and Guidance Association, Interdivisional Committee. "The Role and Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Institutions of Higher Learning." Journal of College Student Personnel 8 (1967): 62-65. Anderson, G. V. "Professional Standards and Training for College Personnel Workers." Educational and Psychological Measurement 8 (19487! 451-59. Arner, T. D.; Arner, G. A.; Hawkins, L. T.; Peterson, W. D.; and Spooner, S. E. "Student Personnel Education: A Process-Outcome Model." Journal of College Student Personnel 17 (1976) : 334-41. Association for Counselor Education and Supervision, Commission on Standards and Accreditation. R. 0. Stripling, Chairman. "Standards for the Preparation of Counselors and Other Personnel Services Specialists." 1973. Ayers, A. R . ; Tripp, P. A.; and Russel, J. H. Student Services Administration in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.! Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1966. 226 227 Barry, R . , and Wolf, B. Modern Issues in Guidance Personnel Work. New Y o r k : Teachers College Press, 1957. Barry, R . , and Wolf, B. Modern Issues in Guidance Per­ sonnel W o r k . New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1963. Bathurst, J. E. "What Is Student Personnel Work?" cational Record 19 (October 1938): 502-15. Edu­ Blackburn, J. L. "Perceived Purposes of Student Personnel Programs by Chief Student Personnel Officers as a Function of Academic Preparation and Experience." Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, 1969. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 30, no. £, March 19 70. Bolmon, F. W. "Can We Prepare Better College and Uni­ versity Administrators?" Educational Record 3 (1964) : 272-84 . Brown, R. D. "Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher Education— A Return to the Academy." ACPA Monograph 16 (Washington 1972). Chandler, E. M. "Student Affairs Administration in Transition." Journal of College Student Per­ sonnel 14 (1973) : 392-401. Charters, W. W. Curriculum Construction. Macmi 11 an"i 1923. Chickering, A. W. Education and Identity. Jossey-Bass Inc., 1969. New York: San Francisco: Cosby, B. "Professional Preparation for Student Person­ nel Work in Higher Education." Journal of NAWDC 29 (1965): 14-18. Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Edu­ cation, Commission on Professional Development. "A Proposal for Professional Preparation in Col­ lege Student Personnel Work." COSPA, 1964. Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Edu­ cation, Commission on Professional Development and American Personnel and Guidance Association, Interdivisional Committee. "Guidelines for Graduate Programs in the Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Higher Education." Personnel and Guidance Journal 48 (1969): 493-98. 228 Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education, Commission on Professional Develop­ ment. "Student Development Services in Higher Education." Journal of College Student Personnel 15 (1974) : 74^Tin Crookston, B. B. "An Organizational Model for Student Development." NASPA Journal 10 (1972): 3-13. Crookston, B. "Student Personnel— All Hail and Farewell." Personnel and Guidance Journal 55 (1976) : 26-29. Cross, P. K. "New Roles for Deans and Counselors." Journal of NAWDC 36 (1972): 19-26. Dewey, M. E. "The Student Personnel Worker Journal of NAWDC 35 (1972): 47-48. of 198 0." _________ . "Student Services for Significant Survival." New Directions for Higher Education 3 (1975): 77-84. _________ . "Systems Philosophy as Professional Prepar­ ation Base." Paper presented at the American College Personnel Association National Convention in Denver, Colorado, April 1977. Dressel, P. L. Editorial Comment. Psychology 4 (1957): 182. Journal of Counseling _________ . "Measuring the Benefits of Student Personnel Work." Journal of Higher Education 44 (1973): 15-26. Dutton, T. B. "Research Needs and Priorities in Student Personnel Work." NASPA Journal 5 (1969): 339. Fitzgerald, L. E . , ed. "Association News--Analysis of Three Statements Relative to the Preparation of College Student Personnel Workers." Journal of College Student Personnel 7 (1966) : 254-56. _________ , ed. "Association News— The Role and Prepar­ ation of Student Personnel Workers in Institutions of Higher Education." Journal of College Student Personnel 8 (January 1967) : 62-65. Fitzgerald, L. E.; Johnson, W. F.; and Norris, W . , eds. College Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliog­ raphies . Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970. 229 Grant, H. W. "Higher Education and Student Personnel Work in the Year 2000." Journal of NAWDC 31 (1968): 140-43. Grant, H. W . , and Foy, J. W. "Career Patterns of Per­ sonnel Administrators." NASPA Journal 10 (1972): 106-13. Harvey, T. R. "Some Future Directions for Student Per­ sonnel Administration." Journal of College Student Personnel 15 (1974): 24 3-47. Hedlund, D. E. "Preparation for Student Personnel: Implications of Humanistic Education." Journal of College Student Personnel 12 (1971): 324-28. Hodinko, B. A. "The Student Personnel Role: Curricular Catalyst." NASPA Journal 11 (1973): 53-58. Hoyt, D. P. "Trends in Student Personnel Work: Impli­ cations for Graduate Education." Paper read at conference on designing new doctoral programs in education, June 1968, Kansas State University at M a n h a t t an. Hoyt, D. P., and Tripp, P. A. "Characteristics of ACPA Members." Journal of College Student Personnel 8 (1967) : 32-39. Johnson, W. F. "Student Personnel Work in Higher Edu­ cation: Philosophy and Framework." College Student Personnel: Readings and Bibliographies. Chapter I. Edited by Walter F. Johnson and Willa Norris. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970. Jones, A. J. "Preparation of Guidance and Personnel Workers." Review of Educational Research 18 (1948) : 205-TTT Kauffman, J. F . "Student Personnel Administration." Educational Record 45 (1964): 291-98. Keller, L. I . "Evaluation of Student Personnel Training Programs." Doctoral dissertation, Indiana Uni­ versity, 1962. Kelley, J. A. "The Look Ahead in Student Personnel W o r k : New Dimensions and Directions--The Chal­ lenge to the Student Personnel Workers." The Role of the Student Personnel Worker in Teacher Education, Monograph No. T~. Washington, D.C. : SPATE, 196 2. 230 Knowles, M. S. "A General Theory of the Doctorate in Education," Adult Education Journal 12 (1962): 136-41. Kubit, D. E. "Student Development in Tomorrow's Higher Education: The Beginning of a Dialogue." Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (1973) : 77-86. Lilley, G. W . , Jr. "Functions of Chief Student Personnel Officers in Selected Colleges." NASPA Journal 11 (1974): 7-15. Lipsetz, A. "Student Personnel Work and Organizational Development." NASPA Journal 11 (1973): 36-41. Lloyd-Jones, E. "How To Prepare for the Unknown." Journal of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators 6 (July 1968): 24-28. McConnel, T. R. "Student Personnel Services Central or Peripheral." NASPA Journal 8 (1970): 55-63. McDaniel, R. R . , Jr. "Organization Theory and the Preparation of Student Personnel Workers." NASPA Journal 10 (1972): 101-05. Miller, T. K. "College Student Personnel Preparation: Present Perspective and Future Directions." NASPA Journal 4 (1967): 171-76. Miller, T. K., et al. A Student Development Model for Student Affairs in Tomorrow's Higher Education. Washington, d Tc TI American College Personnel Association, 1974. Miller, T. K., and Prince, J. S. Affairs. San Francisco: The Future of Student Josey Bass, 1976. Minetti, R. H. "An Analytical Description of the Relation­ ship between the Academic Training and Assistantship Experiences of Master's Degree Programs in Student Personnel Administration." Ph.D. disser­ tation, Michigan State University, 1977. Montgomery, P. A. "An Evaluation of the Indiana Uni­ versity Master's Degree Program in College Student Personnel Administration from 1959 to 1969." Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1971. Dissertation Abstracts International, vol. 32, 1472,'"TOY a"----------------------- 231 Newton, F. B . , and Hellenga, G. "Assessment of Learning and Process Objectives in a Student Personnel Training Program." Journal of College Student Personnel 15 (1974): 492-97. Nie, N. H.; Bent, D. H.; and Hull, C. H. Package for the Social Sciences. McGraw Hill, 1970. Statistical New York: Nyqreen, G. T. "Professional Status for Student Personnel Administrators?" The Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of Student Affairs 5 (January 1968): 283-91. O'Banion, T. "Program Proposal for Preparing College Student Personnel Workers.11 Journal of College Student Personnel 7 (1969) : 249-53. ________ . "Purposes of College and University Student Personnel Work." NASPA Journal 8 (1971) : 206-11. Ostroth, D. D. "Master's Level Preparation for Student Personnel Work." Journal of College Student Personnel 16 (19751! 319-22. Parker, C. A. "Institutional Self-Renewal in Higher Education." Journal of College Student Per­ sonnel 12 (1971): 405-09. Penn, R. J. "Professional Accreditation: A Key to Excellence." Journal of College Student Per­ sonnel 15 (1974): 257-59. Penny, J. F. "Student Personnel Work: A Profession Stillborn." Personnel and Guidance Journal 4 7 (1969) : 958-63. Rhatigan, J. J. "Professional Preparation of Student Personnel Administrators as Perceived by Prac­ titioners and Faculty." Journal of College Student Personnel 9 (19687! 17-23. Robinson, D. W. "Analysis of Three Statements Relative to the Preparation of College Student Personnel Workers." Journal of College Student Personnel 7 (1966): 254-56. Rockey, M. C. "Doctoral Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel in Selected Universities in the United States." Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. 232 Sanderson, R. L. "An Appraisal of the Doctoral Program in Continuing (Adult) Education at Michigan State University, 1956-1974, Based on an Analysis of the Perceptions of Its Doctoral Degree Recip­ ients and Advanced Doctoral Candidates." Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Shaffer, R. H. "An Emerging Role of Student PersonnelContributing to Organizational Effectiveness." Journal of College Student Personnel 14 (1973): 386-91. Silverman, R. J. "The Student Personnel Worker on the Boundary." Journal of College Student Personnel 12 (1971) : 3^~. Stripling, R. 0. "Professional Preparation for Student Personnel Service." NASPA Journal 3 (July 1965) 45-47. Sturtevant, S. M. "What Is a Professional Course for Deans of Women?" School and Society 28 (1928). Super, D. E. Comment. 9 (1962): 236. Journal of Counseling Psychology Tracy, J. L. "The Current Status of Master's Programs in Colleqe Student Personnel." NASPA Journal 9 (1971): 106-10. Trueblood, D. L. "The Educational Preparation of the College Student Personnel Leader of the Future." In "College Student Personnel Work in the Years Ahead," pp. 7 7-84. ACPA Monographs. By G. J. Klopf, 1966. Tyler, R. B. Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, T95TT. Unseem, R. H. "Profession and Academic Occupation: The Case of Student Personnel Work." Journal of NAWDC 27 (1964): 19-106. Upcraft, M. L. "Does Training Make a Difference?" Journal 9 (1971): 134-37. NASPA Wallenfeldt, E. C., and Bigelow, G. S. "Status of the Internship in Student Personnel Studies." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors 34 (Summer 1971): 180-S4, 233 Warnath, C. F. "Ethics, ''raining, Research: Some Problems for Counseling Psychologists in an Institutional Setting." Journal of Counseling Psychology 3 (Winter 1956T~: 282. Williamson, E. G. "Essentials of Professional Training for Student Personnel Workers in the South." Southern College Personnel Association Report of the Work Conference. Warren Wilson College, Swannonoa, N.C., 1952. ________ . "Professional Preparation of Student Personnel Workers." School and Society 1 (1958): 3-5. ________ . Student Personnel Services in Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961. Wright, W. L. "An Analysis of Doctoral Programs in Guidance and Personnel Work in Colleges and Universities of the North Central Association." Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1958.