INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy o f a document sent to us fo r microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The follow ing explanation o f techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1 .T h e sign or “ target” fo r pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along w ith adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you o f complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been film ed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted you will find a target note listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has follow ed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin film ing at the upper le ft hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections w ith small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have film ed the best available copy. University Microfilms International 3 00 N. Z E E B R D „ A N N A R B O R . M l 48106 8202393 B a r n e s , C a r o l E l iz a b e t h A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING FOR FULL-TIME, PROFESSIONAL STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS WITHIN MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES PH.D. 1981 Michigan State University University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M I 48106 A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING FOR FULL-TIME, PROFESSIONAL STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS WITHIN MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Carol Elizabeth Barnes A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1981 ABSTRACT A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING FOR FULL-TIME, PROFESSIONAL STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS WITHIN MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES By Carol Elizabeth Barnes The purpose of the study is to analyze through a ques­ tionnaire the nature and extent of staff development pro­ gramming for full-time, professional student services prac­ titioners within Michigan community colleges. It is also the purpose of the study to determine and describe differ­ ences: (1) among three different size categories of insti­ tutions, and (2) among four different level categories of student services practitioners. Methodology The 29 Michigan community colleges used in the study comprise a total of 38 individual campuses. Because of the differences among the many campuses, staff from the following areas are included in the sample: admissions, records, coun­ seling, student activities, financial aid, placement, housing, and dean’s office. Carol Elizabeth Barnes Using a questionnaire format, the sample surveys three different size categories of institutions: dents, (1) 1-4000 stu­ (2) 4001-8000 students, and (3) More than 8000 students The sample also surveys four different level categories of student services practitioners: Second-line administrators, (1) Guidance counselors, (2) (3) First-line administrators, and (4) Other practitioners. Descriptive Findings 1. Representing all 38 campuses to some degree, almost one-half of the 295 respondents indicate the presence of a staff development program. Large institutions and counselors are more likely than other groups to have a program. 2. The mode for the length of existence of the program is 3-5 years and the mode for the number of hours per month devoted to staff development is 1-2 hours. 3. Overall, the following objectives are ranked: first- to learn new skills and competencies related to job perfor­ mance and second--to design new programs to better meet stu­ dent needs and demands. 4. Written objectives are the exception. Although agreement exists regarding the concept of assigning specific responsibility for the program to one indi­ vidual, disagreement exists regarding the method of assigning specific responsibility to either the chief administrator or the division chairperson. 5. Overall, the barriers that decrease programming are the lack of: first--time,second--time, and third funding. Carol Elizabeth Barnes 6. Overall, the preferred incentives that would increase programming are: first— released time, second--personal growth, and third--professional growth. 7. Overall, the off-campus activities that are considered most worthwhile include: fessional meetings. first and sec.ond--conventions and pro­ The on-campus activities that are consid­ ered most worthwhile include: first--in-house continuing sem­ inars and second--short-term workshops. 8. Overall, the preferred evaluation methods are: first and second--self-reports. 9. When compared to other divisional needs, opportun­ ities, and/or problems; staff development receives highest priority from small and large institutions and second-line administrators. It receives lowest priority from medium in­ stitutions and other practitioners. 10. Overall, by size, and by level, the most popular recommended change to improve staff development is to start a planned program. Conclusions 1. Small and large institutions appear to follow similar response patterns regarding objectives, components, barriers, incentives, activities, and evaluation criteria. 2. No particular response patterns are observed among the four level categories of student services practitioners. Although some overlapping occurs, each level appears to have its own needs and opinions regarding the above criteria. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS With deep love and appreciation, I dedicate this dis­ sertation to my husband, Dennis, to my son, Scott, and to my daughter, Lori. Without their love, patience, and un­ derstanding, this project could never have been completed. Special appreciation is extended to Dr. Max Raines, committee chairperson, whose patience and support contri­ buted greatly to this study and to the writer’s entire doctoral program. Appreciation is also extended to the following committee members for their valuable comments and suggestions in the preparation of both the research proposal and the final dissertation: Dr. Walter Johnson, Dr. Norman Bell, and Dr. Lawrence Lezotte. Special gratitude is offered to the following chief student services administrators for their helpful support and recommendations regarding the questionnaire format. Dean William Schaar, Lansing Community College; Dean Karl Wagner, Macomb County Community College--South Campus; and Dean Allen Jackson, Grand Rapids Junior College. Gratitude is also offered to members of the Michigan Association of Community College Student Personnel Administrators (MACCSPA) for their endorsement of and participation in the study. Appreciation is also extended to Mary Dassance for her friendly assistance in securing relevant staff development materials from the Lansing Community College Professional Development Library. Finally, I wish to express my affection and respect to my parents, Henry and Bernette Wiegand. Their love and en­ couragement provided the motivation which made this achieve­ ment possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ...................................... vii CHAPTER I. II. INTRODUCTION ............................ 1 Staff Development Programming: A New Priority ................. 1 Purpose of the Study ................... 16 Need for the Study ..................... 17 Assumptions of the Study 18 .......... Delimitations of the Study ............. 19 Terms Used in the Study ............... 21 Design of the Study ..................... 25 Organization of the Study .............. 26 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................... 27 Revitalized Definition of Staff Development .................. 27 Importance of Staff Development ........ 29 Objectives of Staff Development ........ 34 Components of Staff Development ........ 37 Barriers and Incentives to Staff Development .................. 41 Activities Involved in Staff Development ............... 47 Evaluation of Staff Development ....... 61 iv CHAPTER III. IV. V. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY .................. 70 Introduction .......................... 70 Selection of the Sample ............... 72 Development of the Instrument ........ 73 Collection of the Data ................ 76 Analysis of the Data .................. 81 ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ...................... 83 General Information ............. 83 Objectives or Purposes ................ 96 Components or Elements ................ 102 Barriers and Incentives ............... 122 Activities ............................ 133 Evaluation ............................ 153 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 168 Introduction .......................... 168 Summary of the Development of the Study ...................... 170 Descriptive Findings of the Study .... 175 Conclusions of the Study .............. 178 Recommendations for Practice ......... 180 Recommendations for Further Research .......................... 181 v APPENDICES A. B. MICHIGAN PUBLIC JUNIOR AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES ..................... 182 NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CHIEFSTUDENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS ............... 183 ........... 186 C. SIZE CATEGORIES OF INSTITUTIONS D. LEVEL CATEGORIES OF STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS ............ 187 A QUESTIONNAIRE TO ANALYZE STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING FOR STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS WITHIN MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES ................................ 190 F. MACCSPA LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT .............. 196 G. GENERAL COVER LETTER ........................ 197 H. SPECIAL COVER LETTER ........................ 198 I. RETURN POST CARD ............................ 199 J. FIRST FOLLOW-UP LETTER ............ 200 K. EARLY THANK YOU LETTER ...................... 201 L. SECOND FOLLOW-UP LETTER ..................... 202 M. LATE THANK YOU L E T T E R ....................... 203 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES ............................ 204 E. LIST OF TABLES TABLE 2.1 2.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 PAGE Suggested Objectives for Staff Development .................... 35 Recommended Components for Staff Development ............... 38 Size of Institution and Level of Practitioner ................ 86 Length of Employment Within the Student Services Division-Size .................................. 87 Length of Employment Within the Student Services Division-Level ................................. 88 Existence of the Staff Development Program--Size ........................ 90 Existence of the Staff Development Program--Level ....................... 91 Length of Existence of the Staff Development Program--Size ........... 92 Length of Existence of the Staff Development Program--Level .......... 93 Hours Per Month Devoted to Staff Development--Size .................... 94 Hours Per Month Devoted to Staff Development--Level ................... 95 Ranking of Objectives for Staff Development--Overall Tally .......... 97 Ranking of Objectives for Staff Development--Size Tally ............. 98 vii PAGE Ranking of Objectives for Staff Development--Level Tally ....... 99 Determination of Written Objectives-Size ............................ 100 Determination of Written Objectives-Level ........................... 101 Current Status of Concepts and Methods--Overall ................ 103 Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods--Overall ................ 104 Current Status of Concepts and Methods--Size ................... 105 Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods--Size ................... 106 Current Status of Concepts and Methods--Level ........ ......... 107 Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods--Level .................. 108 Current Status of Concepts and Methods--Overall ................ 109 Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods--Overall ................ 110 Current Status of Concepts and Methods--Size ................... 111 Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods--Size ................... 112 Current Status of Concepts and Methods--Level .................. 113 Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods--Level .................. 114 Current Status of Concepts and Methods--Overall ................ 116 Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods--Overall ................ 117 viii PAGE Current Status of Concepts and Methods--Size ................ 118 Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods--Size ................ 119 Current Status of Concepts and Methods--Level ............... 120 Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods--Level ............... 121 Ranking of General Barriers-Overall Tally ................ 123 Ranking of General Barriers-Size Tally ................... 124 Ranking of General Barriers-Level Tally .................. 125 Ranking of General Incentives-Overall Tally ................ 127 Ranking of General Incentives-Size Tally ................... 128 Ranking of General Incentives-Level Tally .................. 129 Presently Used Incentives-Overall Tally ................ 130 Presently Used Incentives-Size Tally ................... 131 Presently Used Incentives-Level Tally .................. 132 Ranking of Off-Campus Activities-Overall Tally ................ 134 Ranking of Off-Campus Activities-Size Tally ................... 135 Ranking of Off-Campus Activities-Level Tally .................. 136 Ranking of On-Campus Activities-Overall Tally ................ 138 ix PAGE Ranking of On-Campus Activities-Size Tally ..................... 139 Ranking of On-Campus Activities-Level Tally .................... 140 Frequency of Off-Campus Activities-Overall ........................ 141 Frequency of Off-Campus Activities-Size .......................... 142 Frequency of Off-Campus Activities-Level .......................... 143 Frequency of On-Campus Activities-Overall ...................... 145 Frequency of On-Campus Activities-Size ....... .................... 146 Frequency of On-Campus Activities-Level .... ...................... 147 Outstanding Topics--Size .......... 148 Outstanding Topics--Level ......... 149 Future Topics--Size ................ 151 Future Topics--Level ............... 152 Ranking of Evaluation Methods-Overall Tally .................. 154 Ranking of Evaluation Methods-Size Tally ..................... 155 Ranking of Evaluation Methods-Level Tally .................... 156 Presently Used Evaluation Methods-Overall Tally .................. 157 Presently Used Evaluation Methods-Size Tally ..................... 158 Presently Used Evaluation Methods-Level Tally .................... 159 x TABLE PAGE 4.64 Priority Given to Staff Development-Size ............................... 4.65 Priority Given to Staff Development-Level .................... ......... 162 Recommended Changes to Improve Programming--Overall .............. 164 Recommended Changes to Improve Programming--Size ................. 165 Recommended Changes to Improve Programming--Level ................ 166 4.66 4.67 4.68 161 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In Chapter I, the primary topic of Staff Development Programming--A New Priority is introduced. The presentation also includes the following secondary topics directly related to the design and implementation of the study: of the Study, (b) Need for the Study, (a) Purpose (c) Assumptions of the Study, (d) Delimitations of the Study, (e) Terms Used in the Study, (f) Design of the Study, and (g) Organization of the Study. Staff Development Programming--A New Priority The demands on community colleges have been tremendous. Community colleges have proclaimed their mission to be ex­ tremely broad in scope, including the familiar litany of university parallel programs, career curricula, short-term training, continuing education, community service, compen­ satory education, and guidance and counseling. According to Claxton (1976, p. 1), "all of these programs were to meet the educational needs of an extremely diverse clientele whose ability levels ranged from the well prepared to those who had had little, if any, success in their previous educational endeavors." 1 2 Community colleges had accepted a monumental task. It is surprising, however, how little attention has been given to the development of the staff, especially the staff of stu­ dent services practitioners. Prior to 1970, staff develop­ ment usually consisted of staff attendance at conferences, an occasional sabbatical, and the familiar one- or two-day workshop at the beginning of the fall term. Often, most of the fall workshops were devoted to procedural matters rather than to substantive staff development. One reason for the lack of attention given to staff de­ velopment for student services practitioners was the fact that, with enrollment increases straining the capacity of the institutions to accommodate the steady flow of students, educators did not see staff development as a high priority item. It was assumed that new ideas and techniques would come from the regular influx of new student services prac­ titioners who joined the ranks annually. In recent years, staff development programming for stu­ dent services practitioners has begun to come to the fore­ front of attention in community colleges. With the added emphasis, there has also come a new view. Whereas staff development previously referred to such practices as pro­ viding sabbatical leaves or travel money, the term now generally refers to an entire range of activities. This new emphasis on staff development programming for student services practitioners results from the following significant forces of change impinging on community colleges: 3 Steady State Environment Community colleges have entered a period of slow growth, no growth, or in many instances declining growth. The euphe­ mistic term for this stress condition is "steady state." According to Priest, Alphenaar, and Boer (1980, p. 3), college enrollments are not expected to increase or even stabilize for at least another decade. They support their belief with the following data: 1. The U.S. Census Bureau projects an 187o decline in the college-age population by 1990 (Centra, 1979). 2. The college going rate has stabilized since 1967. The ratio of first-time enrollments (in college) to high school graduates has remained around .60. During this period the ratio has been applied to an increasing population, thus preventing any noticeable effects on campus enrollments (ACE, 1978). 3. Many of higher education's "new" nontraditional students already seem to be on college campuses. There are two fundamental consequences of this nongrowth imperative: (1) it has made community colleges more sensitive to the need for adaptability, and (2) accretion has had to give way to displacement (Harvey, 1976). Displacement creates much more stress than accretion, and stress is a fundamental precondition for change (Frohman, 1970). Thus, the overall result is that community colleges are now more open to funda­ mental change than ever before. Students will be one of the major forces to influence this change. As fiscal stability begins to rest more fully 4 on tuition income, community colleges are becoming more attuned to the individual needs of students. Harvey (1976, p. 91) claims that "student-centeredness is no longer a philosophical imperative but a fiscal one." Leach (1979, p. 41) also maintains that "in the scramble for students as the supply diminishes, institutions will be forced to give greater attention to consumers1 needs if they are to remain competitive." As consumers begin to gather greater degrees of fiscal importance for community colleges, they will also begin to gather greater degrees of significance in defining institu­ tional purpose and program. This phenomena is likely to create new demands for community colleges and their student services practitioners. Thus, staff development programming can assist student services practitioners in meeting these new demands. Decreased Staff Mobility With stabilizing enrollments and less income from tui­ tion and state subsidies, there are fewer new staff entering community colleges each year. Staff mobility, so long a char­ acteristic of higher education, has now diminished substan­ tially. According to Schultz (1973, p. 22), "all of a sudden there is almost no staff turnover in community colleges. After more than a decade of rapid growth, community college staffs have stabilized." It is expected that a high percentage of staff will remain in their current positions for an extended period of time. With less turnover and less new blood, community col­ leges can no longer depend on new staff to help keep them v i ­ tal; nor can staff broaden perspective simply by changing jobs. The interest in staff development programming probably arises from the stark realization that current staff will be a community college's primary asset (sources of energy, ideas, and innovation) into the 21st century. Schultz (1973, p. 22) emphasizes that "instead of being focused on orienting and amalgamating a large number of new staff into the institution each year, in-service development now needs to be focused on keeping the staff on the cutting edge or at least from losing their professional vitality." Claxton (1977) stresses that new talents and strengths needed to meet the changing demands of college students will have to be developed within the present staff. Gross (1976) also emphasizes that programs designed to stimulate ongoing staff growth will have to be a matter of first priority if the inherent disadvantages of "quota-restricted" and "tenuredin" stable staffs are to be minimized. Effective staff de­ velopment can facilitate this process. Staff development programming is one creative approach to revitalization. Accountability and Fiscal Crunch In response to enrollment and staffing problems; stu­ dents, parents, administrators, legislators, and the public in general are stressing accountability to cope with the complications of inflation, fiscal hard times, and the steadystate environment. Although the long-range picture for sup­ port of higher education appears to be positive, Ellison (1977) notes that the short-range impact of state and national ad­ justments to current economic conditions will require that most institutions chart new directions with less money and, indeed, make budget reductions through retrenchment. With increasing competition for local, state, and fed­ eral funds; accountability and cost effectiveness will con­ tinue to be the evidence of the right to continue as valid institutionally supported programs. This has prompted a call for accountability measures for both programs and personnel. Ellison (1977, p. 417) stresses that "for student affairs programs which are normally funded as one element of instruc­ tional program cost models with a direct link to the student credit hour generation concept, efforts must be made to prove the value-added worth of such programs as expendable." Beeler (1977a, p. 38) also emphasizes that "student affairs especially is being asked to justify its professional staff­ ing patterns." Student services no longer can afford to be regarded as special or extra services. They must be seen by all decision makers as an integral part of the students' educational and developmental experiences. Staff development programming should be strongly supported because it provides the oppor­ tunity to renew and revitalize student services staff and programs. Increased Litigation and External Regulation The emergence of greater legislative, judicial, and bureaucratic involvement has complicated the administration and operation of community colleges. Greater control by planning commissions, coordinating councils, state agencies, and governing boards has made the management of community colleges more difficult. Dutton and Correnti (1978) contend that it seems likely that this trend will continue and even intensify in the future as there is increased emphasis on accountability, external regulation, litigation, and protection of the rights of the individual. Dutton and Correnti (1978, pp. 33-35) list sev­ eral causes of increased litigation and external regulation: First, there has been greater recognition by the courts that the restraints imposed upon students are to be measured by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution-freeedom of speech and the press and the right to due process and privacy. The courts have declared that students retain their civil rights when they enroll in a community college. Second, more federal and state legislation has been de­ signed to protect student rights. include: Examples of such legislation The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (Buckley Amendments), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title IX. The growing interest in civil rights has resulted in these and other legislative actions. Third, students are being viewed more and more as con­ sumers; and their "consumer rights" should be protected by the 8 government. This development has implications for the tradi­ tional view of student-institutional relationships and how institutions carry out their educational mission. Fourth, student concern regarding due process in rela­ tion to grading, course content, and academic standing has also led to increased external monitoring. This concern has intensified as education has achieved greater significance toward employment, graduate school, and professional study. Fifth, greater concern about fairness is related to an intensification of distrust of authority and a growing unwill­ ingness on the part of students to accept the judgment of faculty and administrators. Students have demanded greater protection against anticipated abuse of institutional deci­ sions and authority. Sixth, there is the reality of reduced public confidence that community colleges will protect or be responsive to the public interest in the conduct of their affairs and the ex­ penditure of tax dollars. The "confidence problem" has mani­ fested itself in the form of more legislative hearings on institutional direction and behavior and audits by local, state, and federal agencies. Increased scrutiny by external bodies has resulted in: (1) more formal, specific operating policies and procedures, (2) considerable growth in workload, and (3) serious encroach­ ment on autonomy. For student services practitioners, speci­ fication means more formal student-institutional relationships and less flexibility and informality in coping with human conflicts. Staff development programming can assist in sen­ sitizing staff to the problem, initiating corrective action, and participating in the process of response to pressures. Changing Clientele Cheek (1975, p. 26) asserts that "there also has been a shift from the education of the elite to universal access, with greater attention given to achieving equity and parity for blacks, women, and other minorities." In both academic policies and curriculums, racism and sexism continue to be the objects of attack. Open enrollment and the push toward equity require profound adjustments in academic life. The clientele of the community college continues to change rapidly. A striking change in recent years is the tremendous increase in part-time students. Harcleroad (1975) reports that in 750 two-year institutions in one national study, part-time students comprise no less than 52 percent of the entire enrollment. Cross (1973) identifies four primary groups of people who are being brought into the educational mainstream under pressures for egalitarianism--those who have suffered dis­ crimination with respect to race, sex, age, or academic ability. These four primary groups include: ethnic minorities, women, adults, and persons with poor records of academic achievement. Chickering (1973) classifies three types of "new students" as: (1) adults pursuing new careers and interests, (2) young persons from lower socio-economic levels with poor academic 10 backgrounds, and (3) middle and upper class high school graduates who traditionally have been college bound, but now are more mature in their orientation toward education. Hodgkinson (1976) notes that the "new students" actually enrolling are male, Caucasian, and middle class, with an em­ phasis in managerial and professional backgrounds. They are employed full time and have some previous college experience. In other words, the "new student" comes from the adult seg­ ment of society. Thus, the increase in older students has a definite impact on the demand for lifelong learning. The college-age student population is changing. Cheek (1975, p. 25) emphasizes that "the student constituency is becoming more diversified as older persons, employees, par­ ents, husbands, and wives are enrolling in large numbers." The number of traditional 18 to 20 year old students is going to drop in the early 1980's, due to the declining birth rate and the passing of the World War II "baby boom." Jones (1978, p. 4) stresses that "this suggests that there will be a radi­ cal change in the average age of the American college student during the next quarter century." What are the implications of these "new students" for the future of student services? Obviously, student services programs must be redesigned to accommodate an entirely dif­ ferent type of clientele. Jones (1978, p. 4) claims that "unless student personnel administrators recognize the needs of 'new students' and make effective responses, the profes­ sion is going to be in great trouble." 11 The challenge of the "new student" in community colleges is a continuing one. Adequate models of educational support programs must be developed to assure the maximum opportunity for success of both students and colleges. Staff development programming can assist student services practitioners in coor­ dinating the aspirations of individuals and institutions. Attrition Rates and Compensatory Programs Student services practitioners have begun to realize that what their community colleges delivered did not always equal what was promised. By adopting an open admissions policy, community colleges seemed to be saying that they could meet the demands of all students--those who came well prepared as well as those who came unprepared for college work. Claxton (1976, p. 4) maintains that "in terms of meeting the needs of the well prepared students, the community colleges have done very well. But the record of meeting the needs of the more poorly prepared students is uneven." Attrition rates are particularly high in community col­ leges. Monroe (1972) estimates that for large community colleges only 30 to 50 percent of the students return after the first year. Claxton (1976) maintains that although many students are "stopping out" for good reasons, rather than dropping out because of failure, the fact remains that many students who enter community colleges each year are not able to use it effectively as a means of achieving their objectives. Compensatory or "developmental" programs have been 12 established to deal with the problem of high attrition rates. Hodgkinson (1976) suggests that students who have inadequate preparation and are not ready to do college-level work can increase their skills through compensatory programs. Claxton (1976, p. 4) contends, however, that "while some programs have been successful, in general the compensatory programs have not been effective enough to remedy the deficiencies of the marginal students." Universal access to higher education and emphasis upon equity for minorities will require new attitudes and learning strategies. Cheek (1975, p. 27) declares that "students who have suffered the neglect of a closed society require a new kind of humanism which emphasizes not just access, but which, in fact, realistically promotes success." Through staff de­ velopment programming, student services practitioners can become instrumental in promoting this success by establishing new attitudes and strategies. Staff development programming can offer new potential and opportunity to the entire student services division. Changing Technologies and Delivery Systems The revolution in teaching technologies and delivery systems is beginning to rearrange the lives and relation­ ships of students and teachers. The traditional means of teaching and the traditional college structure no longer meet the needs of community college students. "Teaching" has traditionally referred to the interaction between the 13 teacher and the student through lectures in the college cam­ pus classroom. Now, however, interaction may result through several different methods in many different locations. Instructional technology has and will continue to revo­ lutionize the educational system. Claxton (1976) stresses that students may learn not only from a teacher giving a lec­ ture before the class, but also from multi-media learning materials both inside and outside the learning resource cen­ ter. Cheek (1975) also emphasizes that dial access retrieval systems, video and audio cassettes, closed circuit TV, Cable TV, all of these new systems, and others, will transform the classroom and free both the student and the teacher from the domination of lecture-note taking relationships. Delivery systems, too, have and will continue to revo­ lutionize the educational system. Off-campus learning, credit by examination, external degrees, cooperative education, the use of mass media, life experience, and other learner-centered and experimentally based approaches embrace a larger popula­ tion as well as develop and utilize a more comprehensive in­ ventory of resources. Cheek (1975, p. 26) explains that "in some instances the campus is becoming the city, the home, the work site, or wherever the student may be located." What constitutes a legitimate learning experience? According to Harvey (1976, p. 91), "both social policy and public attitudes have begun to assert the desirability of strong competition to traditional higher education." competition is coming from a wide range of alternative This 14 institutions: proprietary schools, military programs, cor­ porations, correspondence schools, state education depart­ ments, and avocational programs of churches and neighborhood centers. Claxton (1976, pp. 6-7) underscores that "hence, 'education' is less and less the exclusive provice of tradi­ tional educational institutions." Realizing this, student services practitioners can utilize staff development programs to meet the competition and plan for the future. Current Interest in Vocationalism and Competence The shift from academic education to a more utilitarian perspective has achieved prominence because of several factors: (1) the continuing weak job market for college graduates, (2) the swelling number of critics who accuse community colleges of educating too many people for the wrong objectives, and (3) the emergence of an anti-intellectual cult that challenges the value of any but the most "practical" education. This current thrust toward vocationalism has already demanded in­ creased attention to career planning, training, assessment, and placement. Ellison (1977, p. 417) also claims that "the shift has created new expectations for student affairs as well as the total academic community." Furthermore, a trend that is affecting the mission of the community college is the increasing demand for persons to be able to demonstrate competence, rather than just to show edu­ cational credentials. Thus, there is an increasing public and/or consumer demand for community colleges to prove that 15 they are meeting their educational objectives. Both the current interest in vocationalism and the present demand for competence will have a profound impact on the community college and will dictate a radical restruc­ turing of the role of the staff. Student services practi­ tioners can better prepare themselves to meet this impact through staff development programming. Summary All of these forces for change--steady state environment, decreased staff mobility, accountability and fiscal crunch, increased litigation and external regulation, changing clien­ tele, attrition rates and compensatory programs, changing technologies and delivery systems, and current interest in vocationalism and competence--are having, and will continue to have an enormous impact on student services practitioners within community colleges. If there is one word that adequately describes the fu­ ture of student services within community colleges, it is change--change in staff roles, change in program trends, and change in organizational structures. Student services prac­ titioners must become realistic about the changes confronting community colleges--changes that are demanding cost effec­ tiveness, definable outcomes, and objective evaluation. No longer can student services practitioners simply maintain the system in higher education. Student services practitioners cannot afford to be "reactive"; they must 16 take the initiative by being "proactive" in developing their own human resources and in helping to shape their own des­ tinies. Thus, staff development programming offers an excel­ lent means not only to revitalize student services staff but also to revitalize student services programs. Staff development programming offers an unparalleled opportunity to meet the needs and demands of the future. Purpose of the Study The current surge of interest in staff development re­ flects an awareness of the unique role of student services practitioners within community colleges. Concern also re­ sults from stabilizing enrollments and decreased staff m o ­ bility as well as technological and disciplinary changes. The stark reality of finite resources, both human and finan­ cial, cannot be ignored in justifying the many efforts made and expenditures incurred in the name of staff development. Thus, the purpose of the present study is to analyze through a questionnaire the nature and extent of staff de­ velopment programming for full-time, professional student services practitioners within Michigan community colleges. It is also the purpose of the study to determine and describe differences: (1) among three different size categories of institutions, and (2) among four different level categories of student services practitioners. Such a study will con­ tribute valuable information for future staff development programming. 17 Need for the Study Within the past few years, the literature on staff development for student services practitioners has grown steadily. The rapidity with which this has taken place is, in part, substantiation of the often made claim that staff development is beginning to be recognized on a large scale as a major approach to renewal and change within student services. The present study is designed to gather pertinent in­ formation relating staff development programming to full­ time, professional student services practitioners within Michigan community colleges. Although the literature on staff development for student services practitioners is steadily increasing, further research is needed to offset the ever-changing community college environment with its limited human and financial resources. The present study is unique in three ways. It attempts to determine and describe differences: 1. Among three different size categories of institutions. 2. Among four different level categories of student services practitioners. 3. Among objectives, components, barriers, incentives, activities, and evaluation criteria of different staff development programs. No previous study has attempted to accomplish this goal. Such a study will contribute to the field of student ser­ vices and the literature of staff development programming. 18 Assumptions of the Study In designing and implementing this study, several assumptions regarding the participants are made. These assumptions include the following: 1. The forces of change are directly and indirectly affecting student services practitioners within community col­ leges ; staff development programs are needed to help cope with continually changing roles and demands. 2. Student services practitioners realize that financial restrictions on commu­ nity colleges necessitate the acqui­ sition of new skills and competencies through staff development rather than through new staff hiring. 3. Financial restrictions on student ser­ vices practitioners within community colleges perpetuate an increased reli­ ance on inside sources and a decreased reliance on outside sources of staff development. 4. Community college student services practitioners recognize the persistent need for and importance of staff development. 5. Student services practitioners within community colleges are both concerned about the importance of staff develop­ ment and aware of the issues involved; thus, they will respond to the ques­ tionnaire regardless of the level of sophistication of their own staff development program. In designing and implementing this study, several assumptions regarding the questionnaire format are made. These assumptions include the following: 1. The questionnaire is both appropriate for the purposes outlined and consistent with the characteristics and purposes of descriptive research. 19 2. The responses to the questionnaire accurately reflect the perceptions of student services practitioners within Michigan community colleges. 3. The information collected allows differentiation by both the size institution and the level of the services practitioner. for of the student Delimitations of the Study The following delimitations apply to the sample used in the study: 1. The sample includes only full-time, pro­ fessional student services practitioners within Michigan community colleges. 2. The sample surveys three different size categories of community colleges. The size categories include: (1) 1-4000 students, (2) 4001-8000 students, and (3) More than 8000 students. 3. The sample surveys four different level categories of student services practi­ tioners. The four different levels in­ clude: (1) Guidance counselors, (2) Second-line administrators, (3) Firstline administrators, and (4) Other practitioners. 4. The information gathered is dependent upon the respondents from admissions, records, student activities, counseling, financial aid, placement, housing, and dean's office. It is assumed that the individuals in the sample are both knowl­ edgeable in their respective fields and interested in the topic of staff de­ velopment . 5. The information gathered is also depend­ ent upon the willingness of the chief student services administrator at each community college campus t o : 20 --Distribute the questionnaires to all full-time, professional staff members --Instruct staff members to complete the questionnaires and return them in the attached envelopes to the chief student services administrator --Return all the completed question­ naires to the researcher for analysis 6. The information gathered is influenced by: --The cluster concept in departmental organization --Fall mailings which should reach most of the desired participants The following delimitations apply to the instrument used in the study: 1. The instrument used to gather data in the study is the questionnaire. Both the advantages and disadvantages of the questionnaire format are rec­ ognized. 2. The instrument covers only certain areas of staff development: objec­ tives , components, barriers, incen­ tives, activities, and evaluation criteria. 3. The instrument does not record the respondent's motivation for answering or not answering different questions. 4. Since the study is descriptive in nature, it does not analyze either the quality of each program or the resultant change in effectiveness of each respondent. Statistical significance is not implied in the analysis of the information. 21 Terms Used in the Study A critical appraisal of the literature relative to staff development reveals some confusion and duplication of terminology and meanings. interchangeably: The following terms are often used inservice education, inservice training, inservice growth, inservice renewal, inservice improvement, inservice development, inservice staff development, staff education, staff training, staff growth, staff renewal, staff improvement, staff regeneration, staff development, profes­ sional education, professional training, professional growth, professional renewal, professional improvement, professional development, and continuing education. For this study, the term "staff development" seems the most appropriate. The term "staff" describes all those full­ time, professional student services practitioners within ad­ missions, records, student activities, counseling, financial aid, placement, housing, and dean's office. The term "develop­ ment" is synonymous with improvement--improvement measured in terms of increased efficiency (doing things better) and effec­ tiveness (doing the right things better). Thus, the term "staff development" is defined as the opportunity for incumbent staff to participate in profes­ sional and personal renewal activities after employment either on their own campuses or through the agency of the college which employs them. Staff development is a divi­ sional process which seeks to modify the attitudes, skills, and behavior of staff members toward greater competence 22 and effectiveness in meeting student needs, their own needs, and the needs of the division. Through an ongoing program­ ming process, staff development aims: (1) To change the way staff members feel about their professional roles, (2) To increase their knowledge and skills in those roles, and (3) To alter the way they carry them out in practice. Most of the other terms and concepts utilized in this study are familiar and are used in the conventional manner. The following terms are defined to delimit the intended understanding: Community College is defined as a two-year publicly owned and operated college which offers a comprehensive curriculum in two or more of the following areas: career programs, developmental programs, general education, con­ tinuing education, and/or transfer programs. Faculty Development is designed to assist faculty mem­ bers in personal and professional growth, and activities are designed to help teachers learn new skills and knowledge relating to the teaching function. Instructional Development is designed to focus on the curricula and ways to improve student learning through the re-designing of courses and the preparation of more effec­ tive learning materials. Management Development is designed to improve the effi­ ciency and effectiveness of non-faculty persons whose func­ tion is to manage a college. 23 Organizational Development is designed to concentrate on the environment or atmosphere of the institution itself and to seek ways to create a more effective setting in which development can occur. Personal Development is concerned with improvement of people--their attitudes about themselves, their jobs, and their personal lives. Preservice Staff Development describes the formal edu­ cation and the work experience of a prospective staff member. It includes all types of training prior to initial employment. Professional Development is concerned with the improve­ ment of job-related skills, knowledge, and attitudes. Staff Development--Formal refers to formally structured educational activities offered through college courses, work­ shops, seminars, institutes, conventions, conferences, visi­ tations, professional reading, and action research projects. Staff Development--Informal refers to those personal educational experiences, other than those provided through formal inservice education, which are of value to the staff member in acquiring new skills or attitudes. Staff Development Program includes all activities, planned in accordance with specific or assumed objectives, that are intended to contribute to the continuing profes­ sional growth of individuals comprising a student services staff. A staff development program is considered to be a planned program for an entire student services staff as contrasted to various activities in which personnel workers 24 might independently engage to improve themselves. Some phases of a staff development program may be applicable to an entire staff while other phases may be appropriate only to certain staff members. Regular staff members dealing with daily routine matters are not considered a part of a staff development program. Student Development suggests a wider concern for the total development of students and an attempt to bring about a more integral relationship between student personnel ser­ vices and the other sectors of the college, especially the instructional dimension. Student Personnel has been historically used to define a btoad collection of activities, including but not limited to the following: admissions, records, counseling, student activities, financial aid, placement, housing, and dean's office. Student Services combines the concepts of both student personnel and student development to achieve a broader range of services and learning activities for students. It encom­ passes all the services and activities of the entire student services division. Student Services Practitioners is synonymous with staff. It includes all those full-time, professional individuals who belong to a division of student services and are involved in admissions, records, student activities, counseling, finan­ cial aid, placement, housing, or dean's office. 25 Design of the Study All 29 Michigan community colleges are included in the present study and comprise a total of 38 individual campuses. The student services divisions within the 38 Michigan commu­ nity college campuses reflect differences in terms of size, geographical location, and commitment to student services programming. The sample selected for the study includes only full­ time, professional student services practitioners within admissions, records, student activities, counseling, finan­ cial aid, placement, housing, and dean's office. The sample surveys three different size categories of institutions: (1) 1-4000 students, (2) 4001-8000 students, and (3) More than 8000 students. The sample also surveys four different level categories of student services practitioners: (1) Guidance counselors, (3) (2) Second-line administrators, First-line administrators, and (4) Other practitioners. The instrument used in the study is the questionnaire. The sections included in the questionnaire are derived from both a review of the literature (including an ERIC search) and discussions with various student services practitioners. Six main sections comprise the instrument: formation, Elements, (2) Objectives or Purposes, (4) Barriers and Incentives, (6) Evaluation. (1) General In­ (3) Components or (5) Activities, and The estimated completion time for the 17 multiple choice and short answer questionnaire is less than 20 minutes. 26 Organization of the Study The present study is organized into five chapters. In Chapter I, staff development programming is introduced as a priority item. The presentation includes: purpose, need, assumptions, delimitations, terms, design, and organization of the study. In Chapter II, the pertinent literature related to staff development is reviewed. The presentation includes: a re­ vitalized definition of staff development and the importance of staff development. ponents, barriers, It also includes: objectives, com­ incentives, activities, and evaluation criteria used in staff development programming. In Chapter III, the methodology of the study is described. The presentation includes: selection of the sample, develop­ ment of the instrument, collection of the data, and analysis of the data. In Chapter IV, the analysis of the data is discussed. The presentation includes descriptive findings on: general information, objectives, components, barriers, incentives, activities, and evaluation criteria. Differences and simi­ larities overall, by size of institution, and by level of student services practitioner are also described. In Chapter V, a summary of the study is explained. The presentation includes: descriptive findings of the study, conclusions of the study, recommendations for practice, and recommendations for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In Chapter II, the pertinent literature on staff de­ velopment programming for student services practitioners is reviewed. The presentation includes the following areas: (a) Revitalized Definition of Staff Development, tance of Staff Development, ment, (b) Impor­ (c) Objectives of Staff Develop­ (d) Components of Staff Development, Incentives to Staff Development, (e) Barriers and (f) Activities Involved in Staff Development, and (g) Evaluation of Staff Development. Revitalized Definition of Staff Development The term "staff development" connotes different things to different people. Beeler (1977a, p. 38) claims that staff development ". . . generally refers to in-service continuing education, or staff training, designed to enhance the compe­ tencies, skills, and knowledge of individuals and to enable them to provide better services to their clientele." Truitt (1969, p. 2) explains that "a planned, organized program of in-service development is a collective means of increasing the effectiveness of each staff member individually." Similarly, Truitt and Gross (1966, p. 3) proclaim that: 27 28 Broadly conceived, inservice education encompasses all phases of student personnel work that contribute to continuing profes­ sional development and competence. The pro­ gram includes activities, planned in accor­ dance with specific objectives intended to enhance the professional growth and compe­ tence of a student personnel staff (both individually and collectively). Hammons and Wallace (1974, p. 39) define staff develop­ ment as ". . . in-service programs designed to improve the professional competencies of those already serving in the community college." O'Banion (1974c, p. 13) contends that staff development ". . . is a program consciously undertaken and carefully planned to help all members of the college com­ munity realize their potential so they in turn can help stu­ dents realize theirs." Richardson (1975, p. 303), describes staff development as ". . . the process of improving staff capabilities for dealing effectively with new and continuing responsibilities." Claxton (1976, p. 22) defines staff de­ velopment as ". . . growth of individuals, rather than the remedying of deficiencies." In summary, the term "staff development" may be defined as a continuous, growth-oriented process which seeks to modify the attitudes, skills, and behavior of staff members toward greater competence and effectiveness in meeting student needs, their own needs, and the needs of the division. Successful programs change the way staff feel about their professional roles, increase their knowledge and skills in those roles, and alter the way they carry them out in practice. 29 Importance of Staff Development In a period of tightened budgets and uncertain enroll­ ments, the allocation of scarce funds for staff development may seem like a luxury. Several writers, however, disagree. Londoner (1979) argues that staff development is no longer a frill that organizations provide in affluent times. It is a basic means by which organizations achieve their goals. Claxton (1976) contends that one of the most pressing needs in the field of community college education today is staff development. Hunter (1975) agrees that community college staff development is too important to be left to chance. With change rapidly accelerating and bringing with it new roles and responsibilities, staff development is impor­ tant for meeting the pressures of change and conflict. Paul and Hoover (1980) contend that change has been rapid every­ where and that student personnel professionals are no excep­ tion. O'Banion (1972b) confirms that all staff members, the mediocre and the highly competent, need continuing opportun­ ities to keep up with new developments in education. Truitt (1969, p. 2) notes that: The nature and extent of an in-service de­ velopment program will vary widely from insti­ tution to institution. However, regardless of size, location, type or historical development of the student personnel program, the need for a planned in-service development program exists to some degree in all institutions. Beeler and Penn (1979) conclude that staff development pro­ grams are essential for the revitalization of an organization and its individuals. 30 Staff development is important for maintaining staff competence. Baier (1979) contends that the importance of recruiting, developing, and maintaining a competent staff cannot be overemphasized and should be a major priority of every student affairs division. Shaffer (1972) affirms that today and in the decade ahead, sound and productive staff development programs are necessary for professional survival. Beeler (1977a) agrees that the need for highly qualified and competent student personnel staff has never been more urgent. Staff development is important for keeping staff informed. Stamatakos and Oliaro (1972) stress that in-service develop­ ment is a vital method for maintaining the necessary level of information to allow student personnel workers to meet the challenges of their job in an assertive productive fashion. Shaffer (1972) confirms that fast moving developments in society require colleagues who are informed, aware, respon­ sive, and forward looking in their day-to-day operations as well as in their planning for the future. Wood, Thompson, and Russell (1981) also emphasize that somehow educators must keep up with the new knowledge and technology in their areas of specialization Staff development is important for upgrading skills, abilities, and technologies. Truitt and Gross (1966) recom­ mend that inservice education for student personnel workers should be directed toward professional upgrading of each staff member as an individual, and the increased competence of the staff as a functioning whole. William and Biggs (1975) 31 contend that staff development opportunities must be provided to insure the continuous upgrading of the staff. Baier (1979) asserts that continuous upgrading of the staff has been an expectation of almost every profession and that student affairs should not be an exception. Truitt and Gross (1966, p. 16) conclude that: Inflexible staff and static programs will not suffice during the period of rapid transition and changing demands on higher education and the profession of personnel work. Demands made on individual students and colleges call for broader and more diversified approaches to student life programs. The need for staff upgrading is fur­ ther emphasized by the great strides being made in man's knowledge, maturity, and problem-solving methodology. Staff development is important for retraining staff. Williamson and Biggs (1975) affirm that with the ever-changing societal role of education, it is increasingly difficult to secure members of the staff who will remain adequate over the years until retirement. O'Banion (1972b) proclaims that these people need basic inservice programs to retool their skills, attitudes, and knowledge. Baier (1979) stresses that in light of these trends, student affairs professionals are going to be expected to master many new skills in addition to the ones they presently possess. Blake (1972, p. 12) concludes that: If a social institution such as the community-junior college is to continue to respond to ever changing needs of society, its staff must be continually retrained and upgraded. Otherwise, it will be attempting to satisfy tomorrow's educational and social needs with yesterday's answers. 32 Staff development is important not only for updating student services staff, but also for improving student ser­ vices programs. Continuous staff development is important for meeting the changing educational needs of the college's communities. O'Banion (1972a) affirms that inservice edu­ cation deserves strong support because it provides the best opportunity for community junior colleges to renew and ex­ pand their programs. Miller (1975) confirms that in-service' education/staff development programming is certainly one way to help meet these increasing demands. Beeler (1977a) agrees that continuing staff development contributes significantly to meeting the overall mission of providing an effective delivery system for student services programs on campus. Stamatakos and Oliaro (1972) conclude that maximum use and development of staff members becomes an essential part of meeting demands of that ever-changing collegiate environment. Staff development is important for several additional reasons. Passons (1969) asserts that staff development can increase staff awareness and understanding of colleague roles and responsibilities. Wanzek and Canon (1975, p. 431) elab­ orate that staff development programs can: . . . help the staff become more inter­ ested in the division as a whole, develop selfconfidence, learn who they are and what they want, learn strategies to achieve their ends, and know how to work together as a total di­ vision. (There is also a) . . . breakdown in the isolation and self-interest of individual departments and a greater cohesiveness and interest in the service to students of the entire division. 33 In summary, staff development programming is important for meeting the pressures of change and conflict, for keeping staff informed, for upgrading skills, abilities, and tech­ nologies, for retraining staff, and for improving student services programs. Staff development programming is also important for improving morale, stimulating creative problem solving, facilitating goal-setting, and increasing produc­ tivity and efficiency. Staff development programming can help in filling the gap between what is needed and what currently exists. It can assist student services staff in attaining higher levels of competencies in new and emerging areas of professional knowledge and skill development. It can assist student ser­ vices programs in better meeting the needs and demands of students. Staff development programming can improve staff by bridging the gap between the theory taught in graduate training programs and the practical knowledge gained on the job. It can improve programs by teaching staff members how to deal with new problems in new environments using new technologies. Thus, staff development programming can facilitate the development of competent staff members, which in turn can enhance the development of effective student services pro­ grams . Through the improvement of student services staff and programs, opportunities for student development can ultimately be achieved. 34 Objectives of Staff Development In Table 2.1, several writers in the literature suggest various objectives for the design and implementation of staff development programs. The objectives are listed from most to least often suggested. Suggestions from community col­ lege and/or student services experts, practitioners, and researchers are included in the table. In the national study conducted by Miller (1975), the continuing staff development activities of student affairs programs are assessed. Data are gathered from student ser­ vices practitioners at different administrative levels in a wide variety of post-secondary institutions. Miller ranks the following objectives in order of most to least benefi­ cial: (1) To learn specific skills and competencies, To review new approaches and and solutions to problems, portunities, (2) resources, (3) To exchange ideas (4) To expand personal growth op ­ (5) To interact with other professionals, (6) To explore theories and understandings, and (7) To make con­ tributions to student services. Miller records several interesting discoveries. Vice- presidents, deans, and directors view the development of skills and competencies as most important. Counselors and others (assistants, associates, and housing coordinators) consider exposure to new approaches and resources as most important. Vice-presidents perceive the opportunity for personal growth as more valuable than the other groups. ings rate the objectives and Thus, Miller's find­ value them across position lines. Table 2.1 Suggested Objectives for Staff Development To stimulate staff toward personal and professional growth. X To learn new skills and competen­ cies related to job performance. X X X X X X X X To interact with fellow profes­ sionals in and out of the division. X X X To solve old, new, and perplexing problems related to student ser­ vices work. X X X To enable staff to improve morale, raise aspirations, and make cr e a ­ tive contributions. X X X Miller 1975 Beeler 1977a & Canon Wanzek 1975 X RESEARCH Federico 1975 & Geffen Lambert 1974 Baier 1979 MODEL Stamatakos & Oliaro 1972 Truitt 1969 Shaffer 1961 OBJECTIVES Truitt 1966 & Gross THEORY X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LO Ln Table 2.1 (Continued) THEORY MODEL To become aware of services, p r o ­ grams, and involvements of the division. To design new programs to better meet student needs and demands. To supply time for announcements and other administrative matters. X X X X X M iller 1975 X X X X Beeler 1977a Federico 1975 Wanzek & Canon 1975 Lambert 1974 & Geffen X To explore timely issues in higher education and student services. To provide continuity for a spe­ cialized and changing staff. Baier 1979 Stamatakos & Oliaro 1972 T ruitt 1969 Shaffer 1961 OBJECTIVES Truitt 1966 & Gross i RESEARCH X X X X V 37 Components of Staff Development In Table 2.2, several writers in the literature recom­ mend various components for the design and implementation of staff development programs. The components are listed from most to least often recommended. Recommendations from community college and/or student services experts, practi­ tioners, and researchers are included in the table. Some additional components are recommended by Truitt and Gross (1966). They suggest that study topics and activ­ ities for staff development programs should reflect both immediate and long standing issues which face the staff and the division. They also suggest that opportunities should be made to allow the application of new knowledge and in­ creased understanding of theory and technique, which are gained through staff development activities, to the program and the services of the division. Additional components are also recommended by other writers. Beeler (1977a) agrees that activities should be integrated into the ongoing job expectations of staff and that the staff development program should have a built-in accountability component. O'Banion (1978) advocates that assessment should be made of administrative views and sup­ port, of present level of staff development activities, of institutional and professional/personal needs, and of re­ sources within and near the institution. Hammons, Wallace, and Watts (1978) favor the separation of staff development and staff evaluation and foster the continuation of staff Table 2.2 Recommended Components for Staff Development THEORY RESEARCH Stordahl 1981 Wanzek 1975 Ancheta 1978 X X X X X Participation by staff in program plan­ ning and implementation. X X X X Support from administration and student services staff. X X X X X X X X X Evaluation by program participants. X X Measurable objectives that relate to insti­ tutional, divisional, and staff goals. X X ... X X Balance between institutional, divisional, and staff needs. ................................ ............ X X X Morphy 1978 & Canon O'Banion 1978 X Nelsen 1979 Hammons, Wallace, & Watts 1978 Variety in activities and instructional techniques. COMPONENTS & Gross Truitt 1966 MODEL u > 00 X X X Table 2.2 (Continued) MODEL Wanzek & Canon 1975 X X Flexibility and continuity in the scheduling o f activities. X X X X Voluntary participation in activities X X X X X Rewards of incentives for participation. X X X Adequate funding to cover program expenses. X X X Statement of philosophy or rational for staff development. X X X Mixing of internal and external resources. Promotional plan for program activities. X X X X Ancheta 1978 Stordahl 1981 X Nelsen 1979 X O'Banion 1978 Hammons, Wallace, & Watts 1978 Assignment of specific responsibility for the program. COMPONENTS & Gross Truitt 1966 RESEARCH X X X Morphy 1978 THEORY 40 development activities year round. Nelsen (1979) encourages the sharing of research and student development data. Stor- dahl (1981) promotes the inclusion of part-time as well as full-time staff. Wanzek and Canon (1975) advocate the in­ clusion of clerical staff, the appointment of a strong chair­ person, the establishment of mini-grant criteria, and the printing of a newsletter. Several writers elaborate upon the importance of toplevel support for the success of staff development programs. Stamatakos and Oliaro (1972) , Bender (1980), and Truitt and Gross (1966) contend that the final implementation as well as the specific objectives and content of the staff develop­ ment program should be left to the discretion of the chief student personnel administrator. Beeler (1977a), however, recommends that a PSD (Profes­ sional Staff Development) specialist, working in conjunction with a committee, should be assigned the primary responsi­ bility for directing staff development efforts. Beeler as­ serts that the director should be given this important task as part of a regular professional load and not as an extra "hat" to wear. Wanzek (1977) concludes that the more successful staff development programs are generally those which are: division-wide in scope, (1) (2) vigorously supported by the chief student affairs officer, and (3) directed by a direc­ tor of professional development or a high-placed officer in the student affairs administrative structure. 41 Barriers and Incentives to Staff Development Staff development programs offer great potential for the professional and personal growth of student services practitioners. They also provide a potent force for the improvement of division-wide student development programs. Staff participation, however, is vital to the success of staff development. According to Truitt and Gorss (1966, p. 11), "maximum participation on the part of all staff members is basic to the realization of the goal of inser­ vice education, increased professional growth, and compe­ tence. " Should participation in staff development be voluntary, mandatory, or contractual? There is no question that parti­ cipation in staff development can be required through admin­ istrative edict or negotiated into collective bargaining agree­ ments. What is questionable is whether required attendance results in more than increased attendance statistics. Several writers advocate the voluntary approach. Hammons, Wallace, and Watts (1978, p. 16) offer the following argument for voluntary participation: Staff development means adult development. The underlying assumptions of adult learning are quite clear: adults learn what and when they want--normally based on an individual feeling of need due to a current problem. Consequently, while attendance can be re­ quired either contractually or by subtle influence, attention and receiving, which are prerequisites to learning, cannot. Claxton (1976, p. 42) also recommends the voluntary approach by stating that "a program that is coercive almost invariably 42 would be resisted by independently thinking staff members." Therefore, a staff development program based on identified staff needs and voluntary participation is highly recommended over other methods. Regardless of what is done to secure attendance and before the goals of staff development programming can be achieved, two fundamental questions must be answered: (1) What kinds of barriers exist, and (2) What kinds of incen­ tives are available. Although no general consensus exists, some of the bar­ riers include the lack of: time, location, funding, leader­ ship, expertise, support, promotion, interest, relevance, centralization, and collective bargaining. Several writers present what they consider formidable barriers to staff de­ velopment programming. Truitt and Gross (1966, p. 9) main­ tain that: Steps to plan and develop an inservice education program represent formidable bar­ riers to its implementation. The task is further complicated by the very problems inherent in the needs for such a program. Regardless of all other considerations, cooperation and coordination of staff and student leadership are essential to an effective program. Other essentials in­ clude techniques, procedures, principles, materials, and types of inservice educa­ tion activities. Technical ability is absolutely necessary for planning, organ­ izing, implementing, and evaluating an inservice program, but alone is not suf­ ficient. All ingredients are needed to insure a viable program. 43 Poole (1974) contends that lack of motivation--how to recon­ cile the personal goals of staff members with the demands of their professional situations--may be the most serious handi­ cap that hampers staff development. Claxton (1976) asserts that the most serious obstacle to the establishment of an effective staff development program may be the lack of exper­ tise and experience in knowing how to go about planning and organizing such a program. Three survey studies also lend input regarding the bar­ riers facing the success of staff development programming. Morphy (.1978) explains that the types of barriers depend upon the level of the practitioner and the strength of the program. He records the following findings: 1. Probable benefit to program and staff de­ sire are seen by administrators and other practitioners as the most important barriers. 2. Cost is seen by counselors as the most im­ portant barrier. 3. Funds, the needs of staff, and the value, relevance, practicality, and applicability of the activity are other important bar­ riers differentiating a successful program from an unsuccessful program. 4. Directors of strong professional develop­ ment programs judge that decentralization of staff is the most important barrier. 5. Directors of weak professional develop­ ment programs judge that time is the most important barrier. Miller (1975) claims that cost, probable benefit, and loca­ tion of activities are the three most important barriers. Gross (1963) concludes that lack of time is the most often 44 cited reason for the failure of staff development in student services work. Lack of budget is the second most frequently mentioned reason for program shortcomings. Thus, several different barriers can decrease or hinder the success of staff development programming. By acknowledging the barriers, resistance to staff de­ velopment programming can be overcome. are suggested by different writers. Various strategies Claxton (1976) declares that programs must be thoughtfully conceived, carefully planned, and truly based upon staff needs to decrease resis­ tance. Wergin (1977) proposes that looking at the important criteria held by various program publics is a good way to diagnose areas of resistance. Truitt and Gross (1966) state that a constant review of the factors which underlie the need for the program is an effective way to decrease resistance. Thus, the best way to insure learning, subsequent behavioral change, and measurable results is to have worthwhile programs. Before the goals of staff development programming can be achieved, not only what kinds of barriers but also what kinds of incentives must be considered. What kinds of incen­ tives are available for staff development? Although a num­ ber of different theories of motivation exist, the common thread running through them is that different factors moti­ vate different people in different w a y s . Hammons, Wallace, and Watts (1978, p. 16) state that "present motivational efforts of community colleges range on a continuum from pay­ ing everyone who participates to requiring participation in 45 staff development." Between these extremes lie a potpourri of alternatives. Among the possibilities are the following: released time, promotions, direct stipends, salary increases, accumulation of points for merit pay, personal growth, professional growth, divisional recognition, institutional recognition, public recognition, travel to other colleges and univer­ sities, travel to conferences and meetings, continuing edu­ cation units, graduate credit, and increased student learning. The opportunity to participate in personal and profes­ sional growth activities is a very important incentive. O'Banion (1978) stresses that it is one of the most impor­ tant incentives in a staff development program and one that must not be overlooked. Gross (1963) confirms that interest and desire of program participants is the most often cited reason for the success of inservice education programs in the institutions studied. Novak and Barnes (1977) record the results from two similar but separate studies of staff development program­ ming within Florida and Illinois community colleges. All groups studied (division chairpersons, student personnel staff, administrators, and faculty members) view personal and professional growth as the most desirable incentive and reward for participation in staff development activities. Additional writers credit other incentives for the success of staff development programming. Miller (1975) identifies the development of specific skills and exposure 46 to new approaches and resource uses as the two most valuable benefits from participation in continuing education programs. Vice-presidents of student affairs rank opportunities for personal growth and self-renewal as a more important benefit than do their subordinates. Morphy (1978) identifies that the opportunity for exchanging ideas and solutions to common problems is seen as the most important benefit associated with participation in professional development by both chief student affairs administrators and other student affairs practitioners. Counselors, however, perceive the opportunity for personal growth and development as the most important benefit. While personal and professional growth certainly are im­ portant incentives, an effective program cannot ignore other methods for providing incentives and rewards. Very little agreement, however, exists among experts, practitioners, and researchers regarding which rewards produce the best results. The problem of developing incentives that work for a division of student services is obviously a very difficult one. To insure maximum support from the various consti­ tuencies, it should receive careful consideration as part of the early needs assessment. Thus, it is important to analyze which incentives are perceived positively so that these factors can be considered in the design and imple­ mentation of the staff development program. Using the most appropriate incentives can maximize the success of the entire staff development program. 47 Activities of Staff Development Although a general consensus exists relating the value of staff development to student services practitioners, there is less than complete agreement regarding how the pro­ grams should be implemented and how much emphasis should be given to certain activities as compared to others. This section includes a discussion of the following areas: Introduction, (b) Types of Activities, (a) (c) Specific Models, and (d) Specific Studies. Introduction When the need for staff development has been established, objectives of the overall program, as well as those of each program activity, should be clearly defined. Truitt and Gross (1966) explain that specific objectives are intended to enhance the professional growth and competence of a stu­ dent personnel staff both individually and collectively. Truitt and Gross (1966) further contend that goal defini­ tion provides direction to the general program as well as to the specific activities and procedures which constitute the total program. Thus, it is imperative that the objec­ tives of staff development be related to those of the total personnel program. A staff development program should also be planned to develop sequentially. Truitt and Gross (1966) stress that it is not enough to determine what activities should be included; special attention must be given to the relationship 48 of one activity to another and the sequence in which they are presented. Activities related to specific job responsibilities are suggested as an initial consideration. Truitt and Gross (1966) affirm that greater skill in discharging individual responsibilities reflects those aspects in which a staff member gains confidence and emotional support. Therefore, all other aspects of the staff development program are con­ structed upon this initial emphasis. Truitt and Gross (1966) contend that once the program has assisted in developing greater job competence, it is desirable to broaden the staff development emphasis to include general topics and acitivires. The goals of staff development programming cannot be attained by a single activity, publication, or program. Baier (1979) notes that it is necessary to cover a variety of different activities using various formats and time frames under a coordinated staff development committee and formal program. Since each institution’s staffing needs are dif­ ferent, Alvarado and Rinnander (1977) suggest that the best prescription for designing a program for a certain college is to give adequate consideration to that uniqueness. Although the format may vary from one institution to another, Stamatakos and Oliaro (1972) explain that the guid­ ing principle behind the staff development program must be kept intact. That is, the guiding principle must be built into job function and developed from student services phi­ losophy, stated objectives, and current and anticipated 49 outcomes. Stamatakos and Oliaro (1972) advocate a joint staff effort aimed at synthesizing and integrating the commitment, expertise, and efforts of the entire staff in the direction indicated by the philosophy of the student personnel divi­ sion and the objectives of the institution. Similarly, O'Banion (1978) recommends that the program of activities should be derived from the assessment of needs and interests of those for whom the program is planned and from the mis­ sion, needs, and priorities of the institution. Types of Activities The different kinds of activities recommended and used for staff development programs for student services practi­ tioners are numerous. Baier (1979, p. 80) emphasizes that the nature and scope of staff development activities that could be utilized to accomplish the development and mainte­ nance of a competent staff are limited only by "our crea­ tive abilities, management skills, and fiscal and human resources." Several writers suggest a variety of different activ­ ities for the design and implementation of staff develop­ ment for student services pracititioners. Brown and Hanger (1975) provide an extensive list of activities intended not only to stimulate the individual staff member but also to strengthen the division. More important than any item on the list is the development of an attitude, an awareness 50 of the continuing need among staff members to renew them­ selves . Wood and Thompson (1980) suggest that adults learn best through concrete experiences where they apply what is being learned and in informal situations where social inter­ action takes place. Several advantages exist for using experimentally-based training. First, the understandings developed are tied not to abstract ideas but rather to con­ crete experiences that can be drawn upon in future appli­ cations. Second, the principles and skills developed through experiential learning are remembered more easily because they are tied to a sequence of personal actions and conse­ quences. Third, learning by doing is more likely to be applied in similar situations. Stamatakos and Oliaro (1972) propose a weekly staff conference where department heads share their plans and accomplishments and keep division members informed as well as provide opportunities for critical feedback. Truitt and Gross (1966) offer several activities for staff development programming. They include: workshops, case studies and conferences, research, tape recordings and films, staff seminars and retreats, directed readings and discussion, visiting lecturers, interschool visitations, panels, role-playing, individual evaluation and supervision, and attendance and participation at professional meetings. Truitt (1969) advances a combination of pre-school or in-school workshops, formal courses, weekly or semi-weekly 51 staff meetings, discussions between student leaders and staff members, professional seminars, and attendance at national and state professional conferences. Baier (1979) submits the following activities for staff development programming: new staff orientations, coffee hours, workshops and seminars, mini-university programs, student affairs program grants, research and literature re­ ports, and staff newsletters. Baier also suggests other activities that could be used with a comprehensive staff development program. They include: visitations, conven­ tions, short courses, graduate programs, corporate workshops, and summer institutes. Williamson and Biggs (1975) encourage staff members to pursue various activities designed to upgrade their compe­ tence through the following on-duty activities: professional reading, periodic exchanges, joint projects, weekly staff seminars, case conferences, and visits to other institutions and national meetings. Tilley (1973) recommends additional ways to stimulate growth through staff development programming. They include: issue-oriented study groups, action research projects, and staff visitation and exchange programs. Shaffer (1972) proposes the following staff development activities: staff meetings, book reviews, position papers, research reports, and mini conferences. O'Banion (1973) presents the following alternatives for staff development programming: summer and year-long 52 institutes, short-term workshops, staff retreats, in-house continuing seminars, encounter groups, conventions and pro­ fessional meetings, college visitations, packaged programs, apprenticeships, and professional reading. Thus, the different kinds of activities recommended and used for staff development programming are abundant and far reaching. The limits are bounded only by the creative abilities, management skills, and fiscal and human resources of student services practitioners. Specific Models Particular models used in student services staff develop­ ment programs suggest a variety of successful activities. No one activity can be considered more effective than another. Several factors, however, impinge upon the kinds of activities that are selected for a staff development program. These fac­ tors include: (2) experi­ (1) educational background of staff, ences and needs of staff, and (3) goals and objectives of the division. Meyerson (1974) recommends the Mini-University approach to achieve colleague interaction, informational emphasis, skill training, and thinking time at the University of Nebraska. Meyerson contends that the Free University model meets the needs of a wide spectrum of interests through a potpourri of courses within a short period of time. Beeler (1977a) also advocates the Mini-U as a promising model for student services staff development at Eastern Michigan 53 University. According to Beeler, there are three major * practical advantages to the Mini-U. format. First, staff can identify areas for gaining and sharing expertise and skills. Second, individual staff clock time is less than the time involved in monthly meetings. Third, staff can earn Continuing Education Units (CEU's). Wanzek and Canon (1975) suggest newsletters, mini-grants, and mini-courses for achieving improved morale, new student developmental programs, and general advancement of profes­ sionalism in staff members at Northern Illinois University. Ancheta (1978) favors individual campus workshops and district-wide conferences in designing staff development pro­ grams for student personnel services in the Los Angeles Com­ munity College District. Harvey, Helzer, and Young (1972) consider the staff re­ treat to be a productive setting for staff development. (1973) Lewis also promotes the reestablishment of leadership retreats, skill development programs, and programs creating human inter­ action opportunities. The workshop format is advanced by several models. Beeler (1977b) uses the workshop method to attract attention to the referral process. O'Brien and Johnson (1980) and Coan (1976) recommend the workshop activity to improve attitudes toward research. Foxley (1972) also suggests the workshop approach for effective communication and active listening and for working with people of different backgrounds. Additional activities are proposed by other models in the literature. Pas sons (1969) uses role-playing, micro-lab, and audio-tape techniques in a pilot project on inservice training at the University of Pennsylvania. Leventhal and Pumroy (1969) suggest the case study for staff development activities involving behavior therapy. Lane (1971) fosters the development of encounter groups to enable staff members to gain increased insight into individuals and groups. Hickerson (1973) suggests the use of transactional analysis to train student services practitioners. Laudicina and Laudicina (1972) recommend the use of a carefully developed staff evaluation program to improve staff development. Lambert and Geffen (1974) advocate a consortium approach to staff development programs involving several institutions in New York. Lewis (1969) maintains that the activities of national associations also contribute in many ways to staff development programming. Thus, the specific models in the literature demonstrate how different kinds of activities can be used in staff development programming. Specific Studies Several studies record the significance of various activities used in staff development programs for student services practitioners. In his dissertation, Gross (1963) surveys a stratified random sampling of one hundred colleges and universities holding membership in the National Association of Student 55 Personnel Administrators (NASPA). Regarding staff develop­ ment activities, Gross provides the following results: 1. The content and methods of the inservice education program are determined by con­ sensus of the personnel staff in a majority of cases. 2. Attendance at professional meetings is the activity most often included in inservice programs. Staff seminars are the next most often included inservice practice. 3. In the judgment of the chief student per­ sonnel administrators, attendance at profes­ sional meetings, staff seminars, pre-school workshops, supervised experiences, case conferences, and directed readings are rated, in that order, the most important activities in the inservice education pro­ grams of the institutions studied. 4. Attendance at professional meetings, staff seminars, pre-school workshops, and super­ vised experiences are the most frequently employed inservice activities. In his dissertation, Morphy (1978) studies the profes­ sional development activities of student affairs practitioners (administrators, counselors, and other student affairs prac­ titioners) within the two-year post-secondary educational institutions of Alberta, Canada. Regarding staff development activities, Morphy reports the following findings: 1. Content of the professional development programs is determined by staff desire, needs and interests, and by the director. 2. The methods of delivery of professional development are primarily determined by individual and departmental needs, and by group discussion and consensus. 3. Off-campus workshops are the most fre­ quently used alternative, and academic course work is the least frequently used alternative. 56 4. Conventions are perceived to be one of the least beneficial alternatives by administrators and counselors and offcampus workshops as one of the most beneficial alternatives by other stu­ dent affairs practitioners. 5. The majority of professional develop­ ment funds are spent on off-campus conferences and workshops and minimal funds are spent on on-campus activi­ ties or general academic course work. In a national study conducted by Miller (1975), the con­ tinuing staff development activities of student affairs pro­ grams are assessed. The specially designed questionnaire elicits data from student services practitioners at different administrative levels in a wide variety of post-secondary institutions. The results indicate how respondents rank the comparative benefit of five different types of professional development activities. According to Miller, the resultant rank order from highest or most valuable to lowest or least valuable i s : 1. Participation away from campus at profes­ sional development workshops offered by professional associations and others. 2. Bringing in outside experts as resource consultants for on-campus in-service education programs. 3. Do-it-yourself on-campus in-service edu­ cation programs. 4. Attendance at national, regional, or state professional association conven­ tions . 5. Attending academic courses offered by graduate education programs. 57 In addition to ranking the five different types of pro­ fessional development activities, respondents also rate them along a four-point Likert-type scale from "a waste of time and money" to "vital, we need more of them." The overall response follows the same general response pattern of the ranking procedure with one exception: attendance at pro­ fessional association conventions is rated as the least bene­ ficial type of activity, with academic course attendance as the next least beneficial. When both the rank ordering and the rating of the five types of activities are examined by the position of the re­ spondent, results are similar to the overall findings, with one exception. The vice-presidents, deans, department direc­ tors, and counselors are in agreement that off-campus activity is most valuable; other position categories (assistants to the dean or vice president, assistant and associate deans, housing coordinators, etc.) are in agreement that bringing in an outside expert for in-service education programs held on campus is of more benefit to the participants than are any of the other approaches under consideration. According to Miller, this difference of opinion suggests: 1. Lower-level staff members, who are most often associated directly with program implementation, can benefit most from on-campus staff development programming approaches, especially those that bring people to campus to deal specifically with the problems and concerns inherent in the particular institution. 58 2. Those at leadership levels may be some­ what out of touch with the needs of their subordinate staff members when it comes to staff development programming. In another national assessment completed by Rhatigan and Crawford (1978), the professional development experi­ ences of working student affairs professionals are appraised. The study attempts two goals: (1) To determine how major student affairs administrators rate potential professional development activities, and (2) To assess the accuracy with which a group of faculty involved in doctoral level programs in the field understands practitioner preferences. In the study, highly placed student personnel adminis­ trators from 464 institutions of higher education convey the amount of help they derive from twelve professional develop­ ment activities. The following findings are recorded: 1. Administrators see the personal exchange of ideas with others as their most help­ ful source of professional development. 2. Administrators rate attendance at profes­ sional meetings as the next most helpful, with small meetings being more attractive than national conventions. 3. Administrators rank reading activities as the least satisfactory source of profes­ sional development activity. These findings are consistent across institutional size and type, and across subgroups defined by position, years of experience, professional organization affiliations, and level of education. The results also indicate that, although fac­ ulty members who direct doctoral training programs have a 59 fair understanding of these preferences, they overestimate the role of professional books and "thought" articles and underestimate the importance of attending meetings and workshops. In the Novak and Barnes (1977) study of Florida and Illinois community colleges, further consideration is given to how and where a staff development activity might take place. The choices range from having internal staff members serve as resource persons for programs to using outside con­ sultants. The possible procedures include the use of special funds for professional travel and the establishment of coop­ erative relationships with other community colleges or senior institutions in order to develop comprehensive staff develop­ ment programs. The following findings are recorded: 1. The sample groups from both states find all the activities acceptable. 2. All agree it is highly desirable to coop­ erate with other community colleges and senior institutions in presenting timely training activities. 3. They also concur that staff development programs should include both noncredit and credit courses, seminars, and short workshops. The only major difference of opinion in the Illinois study is related to professional travel. Illinois faculty members and division chairpersons consider the provision of special procedures to allow for conference travel to be a desirable aspect of a staff development program. Illinois 60 administrators do not agree. All three Florida groups consider professional travel to be a necessary part of the staff development program, but a subgroup cross-cutting the three main groups--Florida respondents with ten or more years of service--view this as a less desirable method for enhancing professional growth. One additional subject of disagreement in the Florida study is planned staff retreats. Florida administrators view this kind of activity as a necessary part of a staff development program, while the faculties and student personnel staffs view it as much less desirable. In summary, the findings of several specific studies record the significance of various activities used in staff development programming for student services practitioners. Throughout the many studies, there is an obvious discrepancy between what is considered most beneficial to staff and the proportional amount of expenditure for staff development pur­ poses. This suggests the need to evaluate staff development activities more carefully in comparison to the apparent value received from the activities. Thus, no general consensus exists regarding which activ­ ities should be implemented and how much emphasis should be given to certain activities as compared to others. The many different kinds of activities recommended by experts, models, and studies in the literature, however, allow the formation of a desirable picture of staff development programming. 61 Evaluation of Staff Development While the literature of staff development is replete with descriptions of programs, little evidence is available regarding the impact of these programs on participants, di­ visions, or institutions. of the following areas: Evaluation, This section includes a discussion (a) Introduction, (c) Need for Evaluation, (b) Definition of (d) Suggested Guidelines, and (e) Available Methods. Introduction Evaluation is as basic to staff development as it is to education. Unfortunately, as is so often the case, systematic evaluations of staff development programs are rarely undertaken. Smith (1977, p. 100) contends that ’’presently there is little evidence that staff development programs are being evaluated effectively in community colleges." Smith (1977, p. 92) fur­ ther notes that "clearly, the evaluation of staff development programs is in its infancy nearly everywhere." The lack of attention to evaluation of staff development programs for student services practitioners is understandable. Thus far, energies have been focused largely on establishing staff development programs rather than on evaluating them. Rose (1976) explains that in the course of this flurry of activity, people interested in establishing professional de­ velopment programs, and even those already involved in them, have become preoccupied with the activities of the program. Gaff (1975) agrees that promoters of institutional improvement 62 programs have been too busy getting things in motion to worry about evaluating what they are doing. According to Watts and Hammons (1980), other contribu­ ting factors for this lack of evaluation include: (1) the non-evaluation orientation of many of the campus and national leaders of staff development, and (2) the lack of a theoret­ ical or practical literature foundation on which to base an evaluation. The latter is perhaps the major causal factor for the present lack of evaluation data. In the scores of higher education articles, monographs, and books on staff development, only two provide more than a cursory look at program evalua­ tion (Hammons, Wallace, and Watts, 1978; Smith, 1977). Regardless of its potential, staff members are generally not overly enthusiastic about evaluation systems. Grasha (1977) maintains that evaluation is an emotional issue and consequently evokes defensive behaviors in people. Overall, assessment procedures are often resisted because they are seen as a threat to self-esteem, job security, and individual privacy. Brethower and Rummler (1977) concur that much of the con­ fusion surrounding the evaluation of staff development is because people cannot agree on what they are trying to eval­ uate and why; and consequently they will not agree on how to evaluate. Definition of Evaluation Evaluation is a very natural activity, something student 63 services administrators engage in daily. According to Brown (1978, p, 57): It involves making judgments that result in decisions. The judgments may be about a particular aspect of a program or about the worth of an entire program, and decisions may range from making minor modifications to com­ pletely dismantling the program. Evaluation is the process of ascertaining or appraising the value of something. Tobin (1974) proclaims that in staff development, evaluation is aimed at determining the value of specific learning offerings and the effectiveness of the over­ all effort. Thus, by definition, evaluation is a systematic approach to establishing worth in terms of predetermined standards. Evaluation is often seen only as an instrument for meas­ uring accountability. It is also a process which becomes a tool to provide more adequate information which an individual, a division, or an institution can use to make better decisions. Therefore, the evaluation process is a tool designed to yield important information--information which allows important de­ cisions to be made more soundly than the lack of information would allow. Evaluation is a process which begins in the planning stage of the development program itself and is an integral part of the total program. Duke and Corno (1981, p. 93) regard the planning of a staff development evaluation as a decision-making process: 64 Decisions must be made concerning: (1) evaluation design, (2) data collection, (3) methods of analysis, and (4) presentation of results. Besides these technical decisions, there are a variety of political decisions to be made: (1) the purposes of the evalua­ tion, (2) the specific outcomes to be eval­ uated, (3) who is to be involved in carrying out the evaluation, (4) who will have access to the results, and (5) what resources are available for conducting the evaluation. Evaluation is an integral part of every staff develop­ ment program, established along with goals, objectives, and activities of the undertaking. Dorris (1978) stresses that it allows for program revision when goals are not being met, makes possible a change of direction when indicated, and pro­ vides the information for staff to identify new trends as they arise. Thus, evaluation can provide information about the extent to which a program's impact is what was intended and can discover the means by which that impact was achieved. Need for Evaluation Hammons, Wallace, and Watts (1978) suggest that there are two major purposes for initiating or conducting an eval­ uation of staff development programs. summative. The first purpose is Summative evaluation assesses the overall effec­ tiveness of the completed program and determines if the pro­ gram as implemented to date should be continued, terminated, replicated, or disseminated. The second purpose is formative. Formative evaluation is continuous throughout the program and provides decision-making information in order to make improve­ ments or adjustments in the program's plans, activities, or 65 anticipated outcomes. Any staff development program may be evaluated according to either one or both of these purposes. Whereas summative evaluation is directed to policy makers, formative evaluation is intended primarily to assist program developers. (1974) Conroy cautions that each of these kinds of evaluation must be planned from the beginning of the program in order to deter­ mine what information will be needed, how to acquire that in­ formation, and how to use it. Thus, evaluation can improve staff development programs themselves and also provide a crucial factor in determining their very survival. The "bottom line" issue posed on many campuses is whether the gains or benefits are worth the in­ vestment. According to Watts and Hammons (1980, p. 2): Colleges need to know how effective staff development programs are, what impact the pro­ grams have on participants as well as the in­ stitution, whether or not an acceptable ratio of program costs to program benefits exists, and ultimately, what measurable benefits accrue to students, such as improved learning, improved employability, or increased retention, although the latter is an institutional benefit as well. In an era of tight budgets, taxpayer revolts, and public demand for accountability; failure to evaluate programs is not only educationally unsound but politically unwise. Smith (1977, p. 100) agrees that "assessments must be made in order to show that funds spent on inservice training do make a dif­ ference in student learning and staff growth." Therefore, the better impact is measured, the easier it is to discuss the contributions of staff development programming. 66 Suggested Guidelines Effective evaluation attempts to determine not only if the staff development program has accomplished its purpose, but also if important information is available to the groups who must support, approve, and fund future programming. Some general guidelines for designing the evaluation format are offered by Kirkpatrick (1967) and Watts and Ham­ mons (1980). Kirkpatrick recommends fociising attention on four different levels of evaluation: ing, (3) behavior, and (4) results. (1) reaction, (2) learn­ Watts and Hammons pro­ pose some additional considerations for the program: (1) developmental state (infancy versus maturity), (2) available resources (time, money, and expertise), (3) political environ­ ment (degree of administrative support), (4) extent of eval­ uation (evidence versus proof), and (5) timing of evaluation (immediate versus time lapsed). Some more specific guidelines and steps for completing the evaluation process are suggested by the following writers: Brown, 1978; Conroy, 1974; Grasha, 1977; Griffin, 1979; Harris, 1980; Moe, 1977; Rose, 1976; Smith, 1977; and Wergin, 1977. Thus, when evaluating staff development programs, it is important to have an awareness of successful guidelines. It is also crucial to know and understand the expectations of the groups who support, approve, and provide future funding. Having this knowledge, prior to evaluation, makes it possible to obtain and present information which speaks directly to the concerns and questions of these groups. 67 Available Methods The selection of the method used in the evaluation pro­ cess should be determined by: the program, (1) the overall objectives of (2) the kinds of information to be obtained, and (3) the abilities of the staff development leaders and parti­ cipants. The following writers recommend different types of data collection methods: 1975. Dorris, 1978; Tobin, 1974, and Toombs, Some of the evaluation methods involve: questionnaires, interviews, self-reports, observed changes, attendance and attrition rates, completion of M B O ’s or ABO's, program in­ structors, outside consultants, and supervisors. Whenever possible, more than one method is recommended for the evaluation procedure. The particular method or methods, however, depends upon not only what kinds of information are desired, but also what kinds of information are appropriate to the particular program. Several specific models employ some of the available methods in their evaluation. Wanzek and Canon (1975) use a questionnaire with each member of the staff to obtain their reactions to and evaluations of the program of professional growth and to attain their suggestions for the following year. Passons (1969) uses written subjective evaluations to eval­ uate a pilot project involving empathic understanding. Lambert and Geffen (1974) use attendance and attrition rates to measure the success of their consortium approach to staff development. 68 Several specific studies also value the different kinds of evaluation methods available. Gross (1963) analyzes the evaluation procedures used by one hundred colleges and uni­ versities holding membership in the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). Gross records that ongoing self-evaluation by staff members is the only means by which eight-two percent of the inservice education pro­ grams are evaluated. Morphy (1978) studies the evaluation practices of stu­ dent affairs practitioners within the two-year post-secondary educational institutions of Alberta, Canada. Morphy regis­ ters the following findings: 1. Of the 79 respondents, 19 do not respond to a question on evaluation and 20 re­ sponses indicate that no evaluation takes place at a l l . 2. Assessment by participating professionals and informal procedures are the major methods of evaluation indicated. 3. All respondents indicate, at best, an average degree of satisfaction with seven evaluative factors of a profes­ sional development program; the majority indicate some degree of dissatisfaction with all factors combined. Novak and Barnes (1977) investigate the evaluation methods used by Florida and Illinois community colleges. The evalua­ tion choices available to the respondents range from experi­ mental design techniques to processes designed to elicit individual participant reactions and testimonials about the value of staff development activities. The following findings are recorded: 69 1. All groups--administrators, faculty members, and division chairpersons (include ing student personnel workers)--agree that evaluation based on the overall objectives of the staff development program is the most desirable. 2. Florida administrators view standardized tests as a highly desirable evaluative technique, whereas the faculty and stu­ dent personnel workers perceive them as less desirable. 3. Illinois administrators view the use of experimental evaluative designs as more desirable than do their faculty members and division chairpersons. Nevertheless, both the Florida and Illinois studies reveal an interest and desire on the part of all the sampled groups in evaluating the effectiveness of staff development programs. In summary, while the literature of staff development is replete with descriptions of programs, little evidence is available regarding the impact of these programs pants, divisions, and institutions. on partici­ According to O'Banion (1977, p. x i ) : The assumption that staff development leads to better programs, more effective instruction, and improved organizational development--and thence to improved student development--is untested. The difficulty of measuring this construct is that there are many variables between staff development and student develop­ ment. As evaluation of staff development programs for student services practitioners continues to improve and emerge as a priority item; however, links between the two may be possible. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY In Chapter III, the methodology used in the study is reviewed. As outlined in Chapter I, the purpose of the study is to analyze through a questionnaire the nature and extent of staff development programming for full-time, pro­ fessional student services practitioners within Michigan community colleges. It is also the purpose of the study to determine and describe differences: (1) among three different size categories of institutions, and (2) among four different level categories of student services prac­ titioners. The presentation includes detailed information regarding methodology and covers the following topics: (a) Introduction, (b) Selection of the Sample, ment of the Instrument, (c) Develop­ (d) Collection of the Data, and (e) Analysis of the Data. Introduction The general design of the study uses the descriptive method of research. Descriptive research is frequently labeled as the "what is" kind of research. This means that it emphasizes present status, it describes a current situa­ tion, or it studies facts and conditions as they exist. 70 71 It does not necessarily record the respondent's motivation for answering or not answering different questions. It does not necessarily analyze the quality of each program involved in the study. It does not necessarily indicate transitional growth or change during the course of time the research is pursued. It does not necessarily imply statistical signifi­ cance in the analysis of the information. Instead, norms, standards, or patterns are established; and data discovered in descriptive approaches are compared to them. Descriptive research techniques are most commonly used to gather facts, opinions, and attitudes. The major pur­ poses of descriptive research include description, explana­ tion, and exploration. According to Lovell and Lawson (1970, p. 31), "it is concerned with conditions that exist, prac­ tices that prevail, beliefs and attitudes that are held, processes that are on-going, and trends that are developing." Thus, the data derived in descriptive research can be meaningful and helpful in diagnosing a situation or in pro­ posing a new and better program. Descriptive research can be referred to as the preparation stage for action research. Descriptive research is needed to portray a picture of exist­ ing conditions. Once existing conditions are defined, later experimentation and observation can launch a program of im­ provement. Therefore, descriptive research is often referred to as the preliminary or the springboard to later experi­ mental research. 72 Selection of the Sample The sample selected for the study includes only full-time, professional student services practitioners within admissions, records, counseling, student activities, financial aid, place­ ment, housing, and dean's office. Professional is defined as having at least a bachelor's degree, and full-time is defined as working thirty or more hours a week for nine or more months of the year within a division of student services. Only full-time, professional student services practi­ tioners are included in the present study. Both part-time student services practitioners and support staff are excluded. Part-time staff are excluded because of limited availability. Support staff are excluded to maintain consistency and manage­ ability within the study. Both groups, however, have a pro­ found impact on students and a substantial impact on the effec­ tiveness and tone of the entire student services division at each campus. Because of their importance, both groups are often invited to attend divisional as well as institutional staff development activities. All 29 Michigan community colleges are included in the present study and comprise a total of 38 individual campuses. The names and locations of all 29 Michigan community colleges are shown on a map in Appendix A. The names and addresses of the 38 chief student services administrators at each community college campus are listed in Appendix B. Since the student services divisions within the 38 Michigan 73 community college campuses reflect differences in terms of size, geographical location, and commitment to student ser­ vices programming; the sample surveys three different size categories of institutions. The three size categories in­ clude: (2) 4001-8000 students, and (3) (1) 1-4000 students, More than 8000 students. The different community colleges are listed according to their size category in Appendix C. The sample also surveys four different level categories of student services practitioners. include: The four level categories (1) Guidance counselors (within counseling office), (2) Second-line administrators (chairpersons, directors, coor­ dinators, department heads), (3) First-line administrators (vice-presidents, deans, assistant deans), and (4) Other pro­ fessional student services practitioners (within admissions, records, counseling, student activities, financial aid, place­ ment, housing, and dean's office). The different student ser­ vices practitioners are listed according to their level or position category in Appendix D. Development of the Instrument The instrument used in the present study is the question­ naire. The major advantages and disadvantages of the ques­ tionnaire technique are described by the following writers: Berdie & Anderson, 1974; Bradburn & Sudman, 1979, and Orlich, 1978. The questionnaire is one of the most commonly used methods of descriptive research in the behavioral sciences. It gathers data from a relatively large number of cases 74 at a particular time and is concerned with the generalized statistics that result. Thus, the questionnaire is a form of planned collection of data for the purpose of description. The different sections included in the present question­ naire were derived from both a review of the literature (in­ cluding an ERIC search) and discussions with many student services professionals. The first draft of the questionnaire was submitted to the dissertation director and several stu­ dent services practitioners for evaluation, criticisms, and suggestions. revisions. Subsequently, the instrument underwent several The final revision was then submitted to the dis­ sertation committee and several student services practitioners for further review, consideration, and approval. Upon approval, the final form of the questionnaire (Appendix E) was printed on a three-page foldout (3% x 11 both sides). The completion time for the 17 multiple choice and short answer questionnaire was estimated at less than 20 minutes. For most questions, participants were asked to simply check (✓) the appropriate response. For other ques­ tions, participants were asked to respond according to the given instructions. Six main sections comprised the final questionnaire: (1) General Information, Components or Elements, (2) Objectives or Purposes, (3) (4) Barriers and Incentives, (5) Activities, and (6) Evaluation. In the first section, participants were asked to 75 provide general information: size of institution, classifi­ cation of position, and length of employment with the division. Participants were also questioned whether their division had a staff development program; and if so, how long it had existed and approximately how many hours per month they de­ voted to staff development activities. In the second section, participants were asked to rank the two most important objectives or purposes for their staff development program. They were also asked to indicate if any of the objectives or purposes for their staff development pro­ gram were in writing. In the third section, participants were requested to indicate both the current status and the preferred status of various components or elements considered to be important for staff development programming. Both the concepts and the methods were derived from the literature. In the fourth section, participants were asked to rank three general barriers which decreased or hindered the suc­ cess of their staff development program. They were also asked to rank three general incentives which would increase or improve the success of their staff development program. Additionally, they were requested to indicate which incen­ tives were actually used in their program. In the fifth section, participants were requested to rank the two off-campus and the two on-campus activities they considered to be the most worthwhile or beneficial for their staff development program. They were also asked to 76 indicate the frequency both the off-campus and on-campus activities were used during the past year. Furthermore, they were asked to indicate what general topics were out­ standing during their past year of staff development activ­ ities and what general topics should be emphasized in future staff development activities. Finally, in the sixth section, participants were asked to rank which general evaluation methods would be most useful for evaluating their staff development program and to indicate which methods were actually used. They were also requested to indicate what priority was given to their staff development program and what changes would improve staff development pro­ gramming within their student services division. Collection of the Data The first step in data collection was to gain the sup­ port of the Michigan Association of Community College Student Personnel Administrators (MACCSPA). The support of the state organization was sought to insure a rapid and high rate of return for the study. An outline of the study was submitted to the president and board of directors for review. Support in principle was granted by the board and a letter of endorse­ ment (Appendix F) was signed by the president of the organi­ zation. The second step in data collection was to contact by telephone the chief student services administrator at each of the 38 Michigan community college campuses. The purpose 77 of the initial contact was threefold: 1. To explain to each chief administrator the general purpose and overall impor­ tance of the study. 2. To gain each chief administrator's over­ all willingness to participate in the study by distributing and administering the questionnaires to staff members and by returning the completed questionnaires to the researcher. 3. To obtain an estimate of the number of professional staff within the student services division at each community college. The third step in data collection was to forward an institutionally-coded package of materials to each student services division head at each Michigan community college campus. The package of materials included the appropriate number of institutionally-coded questionnaires (Appendix E ) , each enclosed within a white return envelope. Each white return envelope also included a general cover letter of instructions (Appendix G ) . In addition, a special letter of instructions (Appendix H) was personally addressed to each student services division head. letter explained the following: 1. Purpose of the study. 2. Value of the study. 3. Directions for questionnaire administration. 4. Deadline for questionnaire completion. 5. Assurance of confidentiality. The special cover 78 To encourage a high rate of return, each questionnaire could be completed during a regularly scheduled staff meeting or during a more appropriate time selected by each division head. Each questionnaire, general cover letter, and special cover letter was also individually signed by the researcher. Besides containing the appropriate number of question­ naires, cover letters, and white return envelopes; each institutionally-coded package of materials also contained several other items. Each package contained a copy of the endorsement letter (Appendix F) from the Michigan Associa­ tion of Community College Student Personnel Administrators (MACCSPA). It contained a return post card (Appendix I) acknowledging receipt of the coded materials. It also con­ tained a large brown return mailing envelope to encourage an efficient rate of return for the completed questionnaires. Thus, each institutionally-coded package of materials in­ cluded the following: 1. Questionnaires within envelopes. 2. General cover letters of instructions. 3. Special cover letter of instructions. 4. Endorsement letter from MACCSPA. 5. Return post card. 6. Return mailing envelope. The fourth step in data collection was follow-up. The goal of the study was to obtain at least three completed ques­ tionnaires from each of the 38 community college campuses. 79 The number three was selected because some student services divisions have only three full-time, professional student ser­ vices practitioners to serve their entire campus. Thus, to achieve the goal of obtaining at least three completed ques­ tionnaires from each campus, several different follow-up procedures were employed: 1. After 4 weeks, the first follow-up letter (Appendix J ) w a s personally addressed to each non-responding division head. The first follow-up letter included the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Purpose of the study. Value of the study. Number of responding divisions. Directions for questionnaire administration. Deadline for questionnaire completion. Assurance of confidentiality. Promise of study results. After 4 we e k s , the early thank you letter (Appendix K ) w a s personally addressed to each responding division head. The early thank you letter included the following: a. b. c. d. 2. Appreciation for participation. Number of responding divisions. Tally of completed questionnaires from the particular division. Promise of study results. After 6 weeks, the second follow-up letter (Appendix L ) w a s personally addressed to each non-responding division head. The second follow-up letter included the following: a. b. c. d. Purpose of the study. Value of the study. Number of responding divisions. Directions for questionnaire administration. 80 e. f. g. Deadline for questionnaire completion. Assurance of confidentiality. Promise of study results. As an added incentive, a "Lincoln" ($5) was attached to cover the cost of refresh­ ments for the staff while completing their questionnaires. A second institutionallycoded package of materials was also for­ warded to expedite the rate of return. After 6 weeks, the late thank you letter (Appendix M ) w a s personally addressed to each responding division head. The late thank you letter included the following: a. b. c. d. 3. Appreciation for participation. Number of responding divisions. Tally of completed questionnaires from the particular division. Promise of study results. After 8 weeks, the first telephone call was made to each non-responding division head. The first telephone call again encouraged division heads to forward their completed questionnaires so that their campus could be included in the project. Upon request, another institutionally-coded package of ma­ terials was distributed. After 8 weeks, the late thank you letter (Appendix M ) w a s personally addressed to each responding division head. 4. After 10 weeks, the second telephone call was made to each non-responding division head. The second telephone call again encouraged division heads to forward their completed questionnaires so that their campus could be included in the project. Upon request, another institutionally-coded package of m a ­ terials was distributed. After 10 weeks, the late thank you letter (Appendix M) was personally addressed to each responding division head. 81 5. After 12 weeks, the third telephone call was made to each non-responding devision head. The third telephone call again encouraged division heads to forward their completed questionnaires so that their campus could be included in the project. Upon request, another institutionally coded package of m a ­ terials was distributed. After 12 weeks, the late thank you letter (Appendix M) was personally addressed to each responding division head. Throughout the entire follow-up procedure, the important role of each division head was acknowledged as vital to the success of the study. Thus, to obtain a high rate of return, several follow-up methods and techniques were employed. Analysis of the Data The completed questionnaires were coded and keypunched for computer analysis. Using the computer program entitled "The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences" (SPSS), the following specific information was analyzed from the six sec­ tions of the questionnaire: 1. General Information Size of the Institution Position of the Student Services Practitioner Length of Employment Within the Division Existence of the Staff Development Program Length of Existence of the Program Hours Per Month Devoted to Staff Development 2. Objectives or Purposes Ranking of General Objectives Determination of Written Objectives 3. Components or Elements Current Status of Concepts and Methods Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods 82 4. Barriers and Incentives Ranking of General Barriers Ranking of General Incentives Determination of Presently Used Incentives 5. Activities Ranking of Off-Campus Activities Ranking of On-Campus Activities Determination of Frequency of Activities Outstanding General Topics Future General Topics 6. Evaluation Ranking of General Evaluation Methods Determination of Presently Used Evaluation Methods Priority Given to Staff Development Recommended Changes to Improve Programming Information obtained from the completed questionnaires was analyzed to determine and describe differences: (1) among three different size categories of institutions, and (2) among four different level categories of student ser­ vices practitioners. Descriptive statistics, including measures of central tendency and variability, were utilized to analyze the responses. to present the information. Narratives and tables were used CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA In Chapter IV, the findings and .analyses of the study are presented. Differences among the three different size categories of institutions and among the four different level categories of student services practitioners are determined and compared. The presentation includes detailed information from the following sections of the questionnaire: Information, Elements, (b) Objectives or Purposes, (d) Barriers and Incentives, (a) General (c) Components or (e) Activities, and (f) Evaluation. General Information All 29 Michigan community colleges are included in the present study and comprise a total of 38 individual campuses. The names and locations of all 29 Michigan community colleges are shown on a map in Appendix A. The names and addresses of the 38 chief student services administrators at each com­ munity college campus are listed in Appendix B. Since the student services divisions within the 38 Mich­ igan community college campuses reflect differences in terms of size, geographical location, and commitment to student services programming; the sample surveys three different 83 84 size categories of institutions. include: (1) 1-4000 students, (3) More than 8000 students. The three size categories (2) 4001-8000 students, and In Appendix C, the different community colleges are individually listed according to their size category. The number of completed questionnaires from each community college is also listed. In addition, the sample surveys four different level categories of student services practitioners. The four level categories include: (1) Guidance counselors, (2) Second- line administrators, (3) First-line administrators, and (4) Other practitioners. In Appendix D, the different student services practitioners at each community college are listed according to their level category. The number of completed questionnaires from each level is also indicated. The goal of the study was to obtain at least three com­ pleted questionnaires from each of the 38 Michigan community college campuses. The number three was selected because some student services divisions have only three full-time, professional student services practitioners to serve their entire campus. As indicated by Appendices C and D, 36 of the 38 community college campuses submitted three or more completed questionnaires, resulting in a return rate of 98.2%. The remaining two community colleges each submitted two completed questionnaires. Thus, all of the 38 Michigan community college campuses are represented in the study. Since some institutions returned more than three com­ pleted questionnaires, a total of 295 questionnaires is 85 included in the data base. Since differences are determined and compared overall, by size of institution, and by level of practitioner; using a total of 295 respondents increases rather than decreases the value of the study. In some ta­ bles, discrepancies in totals are due to non-responding par­ ticipants. Also, in some tables, the first, second, and third choices may be the same because the rankings are deter­ mined by counting the total number of responses. Table 4.1 offers specific information regarding the size categories of institutions and the level categories of stu­ dent services practitioners. The following number of respon­ dents by size of institution are represented in the study: 60 respondents from small (1-4000 students) institutions, 38 respondents from medium (4001-8000 students) institutions, and 197 respondents from large (more than 8000 students) in­ stitutions. The following number of respondents by level of student services practitioner are represented in the study: 106 guidance counselors, 84 second-line administrators, 41 first-line administrators, and 64 other practitioners. Fairly equal level distribution is found among respondents from small institutions, but unequal level distribution is found among respondents from medium and large institutions. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 record the length of employment within the student services division. Overall, almost one-half of the 295 respondents have extensive experience (more than 9 years) invested in their student services division. By size, the mode for all categories is also more than 9 years. Table 4.1 I. General Information: Size of In s titu tio n and Level o f P ra c titio n e r OVERALL POSITION n Guidance Counselor 1 i ' 1 - 4000 % - 1 n i ------------- 1 4001 - 8000 MORE THAN 8000 I % n i i i ___________________________ % n 1 i i i % 106 3 5 .9 14 ' i 2 3 .3 18 ' i 4 7 .4 74 ' I 3 7 .6 Second-Line Administ r a to r 84 2 8 .5 16 ' 1 2 6 .7 7 ' 1 1 8 .4 61 ' I 3 1 .0 First-Line A dm i n istrator 41 1 3 .9 15 ' 1 2 5 .0 7 1 1 1 8 .4 19 ' I 9 .6 Oth er Practitioner 64 2 1 .7 15 ' i i 2 5 .0 6 1 i i 1 5 .8 43 1 i i i 2 1 .8 295 1 0 0 .0 60 ' 1 1 1 0 0 .0 38 1 i i 1 0 0 .0 197 ' i i 1 0 0 .0 =20.3%' I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I =12.9%’ t i i i i i i i i i = 6 6 .8 % ! i i i i i i i i i i.. Table 4.2 I. General Information: Length of Employment Within the Student Services D i v i s i o n — Size OVERALL EXPERIENCE 1 - 4000 I n • % | ■ n % 4001 - 8000 n i Less Than 1 Year 21 7.1 8 9.5 7 22.4 11 i 1 - 2 Years 28 3 - 5 Years 66 6 - 9 Years More Than 9 Years 55 *1 2 5 1 i 1 t 1 i 1 i i 295 15 42.3 * 19 --- - — 11 100.0 1 1 1 1 60 13.3 1 11.7 2 18.3 3 25.0 8 31.7 * 24 100.0 38 2.6 13 5.3 19 7.9 52 21.1 32 53.2 * 81 > % i i ' 6.6 1 ' 9.6 1 ' 26.4 I ' 16.2 1 1 41.1 i i 197 ' 100.0 t i i i 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 n 1 100.0 ■ f 1 % i I I * Mode 18.6 ' I ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i 1 i * MORE THAN 8000 i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 -1 oo >"J Table 4.3 I. General Information: Length o f Employment Within the Student Services D ivision—Level OVERALL COUNSELORS 1 EXPERIENCE n I l % n , % SECOND LINE .. i n , FIRST LINE OTHER i % n , % i n % ■ — i--------- Less Than 1 Year 21 1 • 1 - 2 Years 28 ■ I 7.1 9.5 | 3 - 5 Years 66 ' 22.4 t 6 - 9 Years 55 • 18.6 1 More Than 9 Years *125 295 1 42.3 i i '100.0 i i i i i t i i ...... ; * Mode ... : 4 ' 3.8 5 1 6.0 6 ' 5.7 I 18 ! 17.0 7 ' 8.3 I 14 *64 106 ' 13.2 1 1 60.3 1 1 1 ' 100.0 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 *29 ' I 34.5 19 1 22.6 1 24 ' 28.6 1 84 ' 100.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 ' 7.3 9 1 14.1 4.9 13 | 20.3 4.9 *17 | 26.5 1 24.4 1 ' 58.5 i 12 | 18.8 13 | i 20.3 1'100.0 64 | 100.0 1 1 1 1 2 ' 1 2 1 I 10 *24 41 i 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 f f 1 1 1 1 00 oo 89 By level, the mode for counselors and first-line adminis­ trators is more than 9 years, but the mode for second-line administrators and other practitioners is 3-5 years. Tables 4.4 and 4.5 tabulate the existence of a staff development program. Overall, almost one-half of the 295 respondents indicate the presence of a staff development program. By size, large institutions are more likely to record the presence of such a program than small and medium institutions. By level, counselors are more likely to re­ cord the presence of such a program than second-line admin­ istrators, first-line administrators, or other practitioners. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 display the length of existence of the staff development program. Overall, for institutions having a staff development program, the mode for the length of existence of the program is 3-5 years. By size, the mode for the length of existence of the program is 3-5 years. By level, the mode for the length of existence of the program is also 3-5 years, except for first-line administrators. The mode for first-line administrators is more than 9 years. Tables 4.8 and 4.9 depict the hours per month devoted to staff development. Overall, for institutions having a staff development program, the mode for the number of hours per month devoted to staff development is 1-2 hours. By size, the mode for the number of hours per month is 1-2 hours. By level, the mode for the number of hours per month is also 1-2 hours. Table 4.4 I. General Information: Existence of the S ta ff Development Program--Size OVERALL EXISTENCE n Yes Unsure, Do Not Know No 1 • 1 *137 1 i 32 1 i 126 1 i 1 - 4000 % 46.5 n i i %0 20 ' 33.3 4001 - 8000 1 i ~ - i 1 7 ' n % 18.4 i 10.8 6 42.7 *34 ' 1 ' 1 1 10.0 4 56.7 *27 1 1 ' 1 1 10.5 71.1 i t i i i i i i i i i i * Mode 1 n i % _ _ _ _ _ i_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 * 1 1 0 ' 55.8 1 22 ' 11.2 1 65 ' 33.0 i 1 i 295 i1 100.0 i i MORE THAN 8000 1 60 ' 1 1 100.0 38 ' I 100.0 197 ' 100.0 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 4.5 I. General Information: Existence of the S ta ff Development Program— Level OVERALL COUNSELORS SECOND LINE FIRST LINE n n n OTHER EXISTENCE n Yes Unsure, Do Not Know No * Mode % % % n % *137 46.5 *54 50.9 * 40 47.7 * 20 48.8 23 35.9 32 10.8 11 10.4 7 8.3 2 4.9 12 18.8 126 42.7 41 38.7 37 44.0 19 46.3 I* 29 45.3 295 100.0 106 100.0 84 100.0 41 64 100.0 100.0 Table 4.6 I. General Information: Length o f Existence of the S ta ff Development Program—Size OVERALL OF EXISTENCE , n No Response No Program Presently Exists Less Than 1 Year 21 138 9 i i 1 1 1 - 4000 % n 1 i 1 % 4001 - 8000 i i i i n % MORE THAN 8000 n i < i i % 7.1 7.1 3 ' 5.0 4 ' 10.5 14 ' 46.9 37 '1 61.8 26 '1 68.5 75 ' 38.2 3.1 2 1 3.3 1 ' 2.6 6 1 6.4 2 3.3 1 '1 2.6 16 1 ' 17.6 00 LENGTH ■ 1 13.3 *3 1 7.9 *41 1 '1 2.6 16 1i 2 5.3 29 'i 14.7 1 'I 1 1 1 - 2 Years 19 3 - 5 Years *52 6 - 9 Years 19 1 6.4 2 't 3.3 More Than 9 Years 37 11 12.5 6 '1 10.0 1 1 1 i i 1 1 ' 1 1 i i 1 3.0 ' 8.1 i i ' 20.8 i 8.1 1 295 '1 100.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 * Mode With Program 60 '1 100.0 1 38 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 100.0 197 ' 100.0 I 1 1 \ 1 1 1 1 Table 4.7 I. General Information: Length o f Existence o f the S ta ff Development Program—Level OVERALL LENGTH O F EXISTENCE | % \ 21 . SECOND LINE ■ .. . . " i -n No Response COUNSELORS 7.1 n , 1 7 t FIRST LINE i % 6.6 n , 1 2 i OTHER \ % n , % n i I 1 1 2.4 0 < % 0.0 12 ' 18.8 1 No Program Now Exists Less Than 1 Year 138 9 ■ 46.9 • 3.1 3 ' 2.8 40 > 47.7 0 • 0.0 22 2 > 53.6 > 4.9 31 4 ' 48.3 ' 6.3 1 1 - 2 Years 19 3 - 5 Years *52 6 - 9 Years 19 > M ore Than 9 Years 37 ' 12.5 295 • 6.4 « 17.6 6.4 6 * *22 5.7 • 20.8 7 • 8.3 * 2 0 i 23.8 1 ' 2.4 5 4 > 9.8 *6 > 9.8 1 ' 19.5 5 5.7 8 < 9.5 4 17 ' 16.0 7 » 8.3 *8 6 ' ' I ' i 1 9.4 7.8 1 1 1 1 ' I 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 '100.0 106 ■ 100.0 41 ' 100.0 1 i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 7.8 1.6 1 84 ' 100.0 1 1 1 * Mode With Program 45 • 42.5 64 ' 100.0 i i i i i i i Table 4.8 I. General Information: Hours Per Month Devoted to S ta ff Development—Size OVERALL 1 - 4000 4001 - 8000 HOURS PER MONTH n i % n % n 1 i • i 6 '1 22 ; 7.4 4 1 5.1 122 | 41.4 31 '1 52.4 22 1 - 2 Hours * 74 | 25.1 * g '1 15.3 3 - 4 Hours 35 | 11.9 7 '1 11.9 5 - 6 Hours 19 6.4 5 1 3.1 1 4.7 3 No Response Less T han 1 Hour 7 - 8 Hours More Than 8 Hours : 9 ! 14 I 1 1 % MORE T HAN 8000 n — 1 1 % 11 1r 6.1 15.8 12 '1 57.9 69 *8 ' i 21.1 * 57 1i 28.9 0 i1 0.0 28 i1 14.2 8.5 1 'i 2.6 13 1i 6.6 1.7 1 'i 2.6 7 i1 3.6 5.1 0 0.0 11 1i i 5.6 '1 1 1i 35.0 i 295 | 100.0 60 1' 100.0 1 1 1 1 1 I * Mode With Program 38 i1 i i i i i i 100.0 197 11 100.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 4.9 I. General Information: Hours Per Month Devoted to S ta ff Development-Level OVERALL 1 HOURS PER MONTH n | % COUNSELORS ------------- 1- - n , % SECOND LINE . FIRST LINE OTHER 'i n , % n , % i n % ----- 1--------- 22 • 7.4 10 1 < 122 i 41.4 39 • 36.9 1 - 2 Hours *74 > 25.1 * 30 < 28.3 *16 3 - 4 Hours 35 < 11.9 12 > 11.3 14 5 - 6 Hours 19 < 6.4 7 ■ 6.6 7 ' 7 - 8 Hours 9 « 3.1 3 ' 2.8 14 < 4.7 t 1 1 '100.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 * 4.7 No Response Less Than 1 Hour More Than 8 Hours 295 * Mode With Program 9.4 1 2 ' 2.4 1 40 ' 47.6 2.4 9 15 ' 36.6 28 * 19.0 *15 ' 36.6 *13 « 16.7 4 ' 9.8 5 8.3 3 * 7.3 2 1 ' 1.2 3 ' 7.3 2 4 4.8 0 ■ 0.0 1 1 5 1 '100.0 1 ' 100.0 41 '100.0 1 64 ' 1 1 I 106 84 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 14.1 i ' 43.8 i 1 20.3 t 1 7.8 i 1 3.1 i 1 3.1 i 1 7.8 t i 1 100.0 i i i i t i i 96 Objectives or Purposes Tables 4.10, 4.11, and 4.12 present the ranking of ob­ jectives for staff development. jectives are ranked: Overall, the following ob­ first--to learn new skills and compe­ tencies related to job performance and second--to design new programs to better meet student needs and demands. By size, the first and second choices are consistent with the overall choices, except for small institutions. Small institutions rank: first--to become aware of the many different services, programs, and involvements of the divi­ sion of student services. By level, the first and second choices are consistent with the overall choices, except for other practitioners and first-line administrators. Other practitioners rank: first--to become aware of the many different services, pro­ grams, and involvements of the division of student services. First-line administrators rank: second--to solve old prob­ lems, new problems, and perplexing problems related to stu­ dent services. Tables 4.13 and 4.14 chart the determination of written objectives for staff development. Overall, for all three size categories, and for all four level categories, written objec­ tives for staff development seem to be the exception rather than the rule for many student services divisions within Michigan community colleges. Table 4.10 II. Objectives: Ranking o f Objectives fo r S ta ff Development—Overall T a lly 1st Choice 2nd Choice OBJECTIVES n 1 i Become Aware 43 | Explore Issues 27 Learn Skills Solve Problems % n ' i % 14.6 19 | 6.4 1 9.2 21 7.1 * 57 . 19.3 45 ' | i 15.3 38 | 12.9 37 | 12.5 VO '• v l Design Programs 38 1 12.9 * 54 Stimulate Staff 29 . 9.8 Interact With Others 12 1 Other * Mode 2 18.3 33 1 | . 4,1 25 ; 8.4 0.7 1 ' i i i i i i i i i 0.3 11.3 Table 4.11 II. Objectives: Ranking o f Objectives fo r S ta ff Development--Size T a lly 1 - 4000 OBJECTIVES 4001 - 8000 1st n 1 % 2nd n ■■I ■■■■ ; % ..i , 1st n ; % MORE THAN 8000 2nd n 1st | % n ., ; % i- - - - 1 2nd n ; % *12 ! 20.0 3 ; 0.5 3 ! 7.9 0 0.0 28 , 14.2 16 . 8.1 Explore Issues 8 ! 13.3 4 , 6.7 1 , 2.6 4 10.5 18 , 9.1 13 • 6.6 Learn Skills 8 , 13.3 10 , 16.7 6 , 15.8 *6 . 21.8 29 .14.7 11 : 18.3 5 , 8.3 4 , 10.5 4 10.5 23 ■ 11.7 28 .14.2 25 , 12.7 *31 .15.7 Become Aware Solve Problems 15.8 * 4 3 Design Programs 5 , 8.3 *19 , 31.7 * 8 ,21.1 4 10.5 Stimulate Staff 8 13.3 5 , 8.3 1 , 2.6 3 7.9 20 , 10.2 25 .12.7 Interact With Others 3 ! 5.0 5 , 8.3 1 , 2.6 3 7.9 8 , 4.1 17 . 8.6 Other 0 ! 0.0 1 . 1.7 0 , 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.0 2 , 1.0 1 . 0.5 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * Mode i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 Table 4.12 II. Objectives: Ranking o f Objectives fo r S ta ff Development--Level T a lly COUNSELORS n Become Aware E x p lo re Issues Learn S k i l l s Solve Problems 2nd 1st OBJECTIVES ! % , 13.2 1 3 . 2.0 14 *30 14 si conn n ; 2nd 1st % ' 1 n t 0 . 7.5 11 4 , 3.0 13 , 15.5 , 20 .3 14 , 13.2 *17 . 13.2 14 . 13.2 0 . 9.4 1 . 0. 5 *20 . 10.9 12 12 , ll.J 10 1st 1 % 1 II 1 5 , ft 0 1 0 , 9 5 13.1 17 ! 20 2 f t 9 , 10 7 .2 0 .2 , EIHST LINE line 9. 5 n 2nd i 10 S tim u la te S t a f f 0 I n t e r a c t W ith O thers 3 . 2 .0 1 1 . 0.9 1 1 I 1 ft 1 • O th e r * Mode ■ 14.3 * 20; n ; ., - | 1 7 .2 3 | 4 .7 5 j 7 .0 9. 0 4 , 9 0 7 | 1 0 .9 2 | 4. 9 2 | 4 9 0 ! 1 2 .5 22 0 10 | 15.6 5 ; | 12.5 0 ' 12.5 1 70 9 | 14.1 1 6.3 4 | 6.3 1 | 1 .6 6 j 14.6 *12 1 1 0 .B 7 .0 i 23 0 * 0 I 19.5 6 , 14 6 0 5 ! 9 5 6 ! 14.6 4 1 , 9 0 9. 4 3 , 3. (i 1 5 , 7 1 2 ! 4. 9 5 , 12 2 4 0 .0 0 , I 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 .0 0 0 0 0 1 0 .0 1 1 , 2 4 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ft ft 1 ft •% *11 0 , 1 1 1 i n — 9 , 10.7 ! % 4 ! t , 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2nd 1st 1 't % n % f i —1—■------- ----------1 i 3 ( 7 3 7 l / .l 1 Design Programs OTHER 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ft 1 1 f t ft f t ft f t 1 1 f t I Table 4.13 II. Objectives: Determination o f Written O b j e c t i v e s — Size OVERALL WRITTEN OBJECTIVES , n No Response 29 1 i 1 1 ' 1 - 4000 % i i % i — n 9.8 5 1 25.1 1 1 22.7 1 ' 42.4 1 1 1 -' 100.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 i Yes Unsure, Do Not Know No 74 67 *125 295 * Mode ' 8.3 1 1 20.0 4001 - 8000 n 10 3 t 8 *35 60 1 13.3 1 ' 58.4 i i i ' 100.0 I 1 1 3 *22 38 1 i 1 1 ' 1 1 I • 1 1 1 1 1 ' t 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 % 26.3 7.9 MORE THAN 8000 i n i % -. . . . i. . . . . . . f 14 1 7.1 I 59 • 29.9 | 7.9 56 57.9 *68 100.0 197 ' 28.4 I ' 34.6 1 1 1 1 100.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 - - - - - - - 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Table 4.14 II. Objectives: Determination o f W ritten Objectives— Level OVERALL WRITTEN OBJECTIVES COUNSELORS SECOND LINE •■'— . . i n j FIRST LINE t % n , % n , OTHER i % n , % n i % ------ 1--------- > No Response 29 Yes 74 Unsure, Do Not Know *125 295 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * Mode 11 29 25 *41 1 ' 1 ' 1 10.4 27.4 1 5 ' 6.0 i 25 ' 29.8 3 7 I ' 1 23.6 ' i 38.6 19 *35 i 22.6 1 1 41.6 1 1 *26 1 100.0 1 41 ' 5 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 E 7.3 10 i5 15.6 17.1 13 3 20.3 12.2 18 63.4 *23 I ' 1 1 28.1 8 | 36.0 i i i 106 1 100.0 1 1 1 1 84 i i I I 1 I t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i I I I ' 100.0 1 1 1 1 64 | 100.0 i i i « 1 1 i i i 1 1 1 1 1 t i i i i 101 No 67 1 ' 9.8 1 ' 25.1 1 ' 22.7 1 ' 42.4 1 1 1 ' 100.0 1 1 102 Components or Elements Tables 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, and 4.20 refer to the concept that staff needs determine the basis for the staff development program. Concept--Current Status: More respondents accept than reject the concept that staff needs determine the basis for their staff development program. Medium institutions and other practitioners, however, are more likely to reject the concept than other groups. Method--Current Status: More respondents in all three size categories and all four level categories use the method of staff discussion to determine staff needs than any other method. Concept--Preferred Status: More respondents would accept than reject the concept that staff needs should determine the basis for their staff development program. Method--Preferred Status: More respondents in all three size categories and all four level categories would use the method of staff discussion to determine staff needs than any other method. Tables 4.21, 4.22, 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, and 4.26 refer to the concept that specific responsibility for the staff develop­ ment program is assigned to one person. Concept--Current Status: More respondents reject than accept the concept that specific responsibility for their staff development program is assigned to one person. institutions, Small second-line administrators, and first-line Table 4.15 III. Components: Current Status o f Concepts and Methods—Overall Yes, Is Part No, Is Not Part CURRENT STATUS n 120 Method: Staff Discussion n 46 1 f t 1 1 I 1 1 ; % \ i t 40.7 55 15.6 71 • 24.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18.6 103 Staff Needs Are Determined B y — Survey % i i t Concept: Staff Needs Determine The Basis For The SDP. ; *133 ' 45.1 41 ' 13.9 Advisory Comnittee 40 ' 13.6 66 ' 22.4 Administrative Decree 65 1 | 22.0 55 * 18.6 1.7 24 Other *Mode 5 | I 1 1 1 1 1 1 | I 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.1 Table 4.16 III. Components: Preferred Status o f Concepts and Methods—Overall Yes, Should Be Part No, Should Not Be Part PREFERRED STATUS n ; 181 i i i ' Concept: Staff Needs Determine The Basis For The SDP. Method: Survey Staff Discussion *181 64 Administrative Decree 47 8 * | | ' | ' | ' 1 1 1 1 f * Mode 61.4 4 35.9 10 61.4 1 21.7 29 15.9 69 2.7 7 1 106 1 % 1 1 1 t Adviso r y Committee Other 1 11 ' ■ i i i i i i « | ' | ' ' | ' i i i i t 1.4 104 Staff Needs Are D etermined B y - 1 1 1 1 1 % 3.4 0.3 9.8 23.4 2.4 Table 4.17 III. Components: Current Status of Concepts and M e t h o d s — Size 1 - 4000 Yes C U R R E N T STATUS n ; % No n ; % t i Concept: 24 Method: . 40.0 Yes n ; 1 15 • 25.0 No % n \ % I 1 1 MORE THAN 8000 7 ■ 18.4 Yes n ; % 1 1 f 1 1 | 1 9 • 23.7 89 ' 45.2 1 1 t ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I n , % 1 1 1 No 31 ' 15.7 1 i 1 Staff Needs Are Determined B y Survey Staff Discussion A d visory Committee Administrative Decree Other * Mode 6 • 10.0 16 • 26.7 4 • 10.5 *30 < 50.0 10 • 16.7 *10 3 ■ 5.0 18 • 30.0 12 ■ 20.0 13 0 i 0.0 6 36 ' 18.3 42 ' 21.3 ■ 26.3 9 ' 23.7 * 9 3 ' 47.2 22 ' 11.2 5 ' 13.2 9 ' 23.7 32 • 16.2 39 ' 19.8 > 21.7 4 ■ 10.5 ' 28.9 49 ' 24.9 31 ' 15.7 1 10.0 1 1 • 2.6 4 ■ 2.0 17 • 8.6 ■ 2.6 13 > 34.2 i i 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 105 Staff Needs Determine The Basis For The SDP. 4001 - 8000 Table 4.18 III. Components: Preferred Status o f Concepts and Methods— Size 1 - 4000 PREFERRED STATUS Yes n 41 n ; 68.3 0 .< 0.0 19 1 1 1 1 • 30 . 0 3 *39 i 65.0 1 n < 50.0 % n No 1 ! % 0 < 0.0 i i 121 < 6 1 . 4 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 % n i 1 1 I • 5.0 8000 Yes 1 . THAN • 1 2.0 106 1 18 % 1 1 1 MORE No 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Staff Needs Are Determined B y - Staff Discussion . Yes n 1 1 Method: Survey No ; % Concept: Staff Needs Determine The Basis For The SDP. 4001 - 8000 1 t 1 1 1 1 15 » 39.5 0 < 0.0 73 ■ 37. 1 7 • 3.6 1.7 *20 <5 2 . 6 0 < 0.0 *122 ' 61.9 0 ' 0.0 8 «13.3 8 <21. 1 3 < 7.9 ' 48 ' 2 4 . 4 18 « 9. 1 15 <25. 0 7 <1 8 . 4 10 < 26.3 31 ' 1 5 . 7 44 ' 22.3 0 < 0.0 2 < 5.3 0 < 0.0 5 < 2.5 7 . 1 A dvisory Committee 8 Administrative Decree 9 • 13.3 1 i 15 . 0 Other 1 • * Mode 1.7 1 1 I t t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' I 1 1 3.6 Table 4.19 III. Components: Current Status of Concepts and M e t h o d s — Level COUNSEFORS No Yes CURRENT STATUS n 1 , % il .—— • 1 • Concept: 46 S t a f f D is c u s s io n A d v is o ry Committee A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Decree Other * Mode 19 • 1 7. 9 1 | 1 37 1 . ■1 1 1 1 No % n Yes t 1 14 1 6. 7 20 ' 4 0 . 0 1 1 ' 2 7. 4 1 10 ' 2 1. 4 1 19 22.6 *49 *46.2 1 16 • 15. 1 1 *3/ ' 44.0 1 11 13.1 12 * 1 1. 3 I 26 •24.5 1 12 ' 14. 3 1 17 20.2 21 ' 1 9. 0 I 24, ' 2 2 . 6 1 to ' 21.4 14 16. 7 2 ' 1.9 i I 1 12 2.4 6 7.1 2 ' S 1 1 9.0 8 8 1 8 6 * 1 2. 2 1 *24 Yes 1 . % 8 8 1 8 4 ' 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 29 11.3 1" 1 1 • 12.3 I ' n 8 ' 44.0 1 | 1 OTHER No % t' 13 1 1 1 n I 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 S t a f f Needs Are Determ ined l l y - - n 8 1 Method: Survey ■4 3 . 4 1 1 , % i ■ 1 1 Yes FIRST FINE ' 50.5 1 7 ' 17. 1 i 4 ' 9.0 6 * 14. 6 1 0 ' 1 9. 5 7 • 17. 1 1 0 ' 19. 5 a 1 ' 1 1 1 2.4 a 2 ' ■ ■ a 4.9 n No 1 . % -8---------1 n 8 t % ■ n,ft... ■ ■ t 8 8 1 17 ' 2 6 . 6 1 1 1 1 8 8 1 10 10 ' 1 5 . 6 8 16 *25.0 i ' 35.9 1 10 '15.6 8 10 ' 1 5 .6 1 15 19 ' 2 9 . 7 1 9 *14. 1 8 4 1 6.3 *23 0 ' 8 8 8 0 .0 * 20. 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 '23.4 8 8 8 8 107 S t a f f Needs D eterm ine The Basis For The SOP. SECOND FINE Table 4.20 III. Components: Preferred Status of Concepts and Methods—Level COUNSELORS Yes PREFERRED STATUS n ; S t a f f Needs D eterm ine The Oasis Tor The SDP. No % II • i Concept: SECOND LINE 1 , Yes 0 Ho Yes 01IIER No Yes I % n a i 73 • 6 0 . 9 1 FIRST TINE . t n % n 1 1 • 0.0 1 52 * 61.9 1 ! % n . 1.2 23 ' 56. 1 1 1 ' 1 . % 1■ " a i % n 2.4 33 ' 5 1 . 6 1 i i 1 No 1 . % a ■■ - i i i a n 2 ' 1 Method: < 1 I 1 a a S t a f f Needs Are D eterm in ed U y - - 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 a i a a 3.1 a Survey S t a f f D is c u s s io n A d v is o ry Committee A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Decree O th e r * Mode 37 • 3 4 . 9 * 71 ' 6 7 . 0 21 * 19. 0 13 • 1 2 . 3 3 • 1 1 1 2.0 6 1 16 31 4 • • 5.7 0.9 1 15. 1 ' 29.2 • 3.0 1 1 1 33 *53 23 16 3 • 39.3 • 63. 1 ' 27.4 ' 19.0 • 3 6 1 I 1 2 2.4 0 0 .0 9 10. 7 17 20.2 I 1. 2 12 ' 2 9 . 3 1 ' 2.4 24 0 ' 0 .0 *34 7 • l/.l 1 ' 2.4 / ' 17. 1 9 ' 22.0 1 ' 1 1 1 1 ' *23 ' 56. 1 2.4 2.4 37.5 1 ' 1 .6 ' 53.1 0 ' 0 .0 13 ' 20.3 | 3 ' 4.7 11 ' 17.2 12 1 ' * 9 a i 1.6 1 a a a ' 10.0 a 1 i a a 1.6 Table 4.21 III. Components: Current Status of Concepts and Methods—Overall Yes, Is Part No, Is Not Part CURRENT STATUS n % n i i Concept: Specific Responsibility For SDP Is Assigned To One Person. ; 67 i 1 1 ; 1 1 22.7 89 > 1 1 1 1 Responsibility Is Assigned T o — 1 1 1 1 30.2 109 Method: Ch ie f Administrator % *72 > 24.4 54 • 18.3 Division Chairperson 51 • 17.3 51 i 17.3 Division Staff Member 40 ■ 13.6 51 • 17.3 Committee Chairperson 27 • 9.2 64 > 21.7 Special SDP Officer 24 > 8.1 64 < 21.7 Other 17 • 1 1 1 5.8 27 * Mode 9.2 1 1 I Table 4.22 III. Components: Preferred Status o f Concepts and Methods—Overall Yes, Should Be Part PREFERRED STATUS 11 1 1 % No, Should Not Be Part n 1 , % 27.8 55 *74 1 1 1 » i t i i i i i i • 25.1 34 i i i > 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Division Chairperson 55 • 18.6 32 < 10.8 Division Staff Member 43 ' 14.6 27 ' 9.2 Committee Chairperson 44 ' 14.9 31 • 10.5 Special SDP Officer 40 ' 13.6 35 ' 11.9 Other 19 ' 1 1 1 6.4 10 • 1 1 t 3.4 Concept: Specific Responsibility For SDP Is Assigned To One Person. 82 Method: Responsibility Is Assigned T o — Chief A dministrator * Mode 18.6 11.5 Table 4.23 III. Components: Current Status o f Concepts and Methods— Size 1 - 4000 CURRENT STATUS Yes n Concept: 1 1 No n | % 1 1 19 ! 31.7 1 1 1 1 1 ( 1 14 . 23.3 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 * 2 3 , 38.3 9 i 15.0 Division Chairperson 7 . 11.7 15 . 25.0 Division Staff Member 5 . 8.3 14 . 23.3 Committee Chairperson 5 . 8.3 Special SDP Officer 1 ! 1.7 Other 1 ! 1.7 16 . 26.7 1 18 . 30.0 i 8 . 13.3 Specific Responsibility For SDP Is Assigned To One Person. Method: Responsibility Is Assigned T o — Chief Adminstrator * j % 4001 - 8000 Mode Yes n | MORE THAN 8000 No % 1 1 I 6 i 15.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 n | % Yes n 1 1 14 . 36.8 1 1 1 § 1 1 1 42 * 5 . 13.2 7 *44 *5 . 1 2 . 1 1 . I 2 . 13.2 7 5.3 9 .18.4 1 .18.4 1 .23.7 2.6 10 .26.3 21 5.3 9 .23.7 21 1 . 2.6 1 . 2.6 15 39 33 , % . i . <21 . 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .22.3 <19.8 1 .16.8 1 .10.7 .10.7 1 • 7.6 No n , % 61 38 29 28 38 37 18 1 1 1 *31.0 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 <19.3 1 .14.7 1 >14\2 . <19.3 1 >18.8 1 • 9.1 T a b le 4 . 2 4 III. Components: P r e f e r r e d S ta tu s o f Concepts and Methods— S iz e 1 - 4000 PREFERRED STATUS Yes n | 21 * *20 1 % n . 3 5 .0 . 3 3 .3 12 . 2 0 .0 8 . 1 3 .3 Committee C h airp e rs o n 9 . S p e c ia l SDP O f f i c e r 9 . 1 5 .0 O ther 3 . 1 5 .0 5 .0 12 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 . 1 8 . 1 7 . 2 0 .0 . 1 7 . 1 2 . 8 ; No % n 1 1 i i D i v i s i o n S t a f f Member Mode n Yes MORE THAN 8000 Yes ; % n 2 ; % n « 5 .3 i i 47 ; % t 1 I 1 i 14 1 3 6 .8 1 1 1 1 1 1 f No i 2 3 .9 1 1 41 . 2 0 .8 1 1 V 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 2 8 .9 3 . 7 .9 *43 . 2 1 .8 24 . 1 2 .2 1 3 .3 10 i 2 6 . 3 2 . 5 .3 33 • 1 6 .6 22 . 1 1 .2 1 1 .7 5 . 1 3 .2 4 . 1 0 .5 30 . 1 5 .2 16 . 8 .1 1 3 .3 5 ■ 1 3 .2 4 . 1 0 .5 30 • 1 5 .2 19 . 9 .6 1 1 .7 5 . 1 3 .2 3 . 7 .9 26 .1 3 .2 25 • 1 2 .7 3 .3 1 . 2 .6 2 . 5 .3 15 . 1 1 .7 *11 7 .6 6 . 3 .0 112 R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Is Assigned To— D i v i s i o n C h airp e rs o n % 1 1 1 1 1 1 Method: C h ie f A d m i n i s t r a t o r No 1 1 Concept: S p e c ific R e s p o n s ib ility For SDP I s Assigned To One Person. 4001 - 8000 Table 4.25 III. Components: Current Status of Concepts and Methods—Level COIJNSLI ORS CIIMtl Nl STATUS n Yes No 1 , 1 . I n Me U ip d : R e s p o n s ib ility Assigned l o - - Is C h ie f A d m i n i s t r a t o r D i v i s i o n C h a irp ers o n D i v i s i o n S t u f f Member % n 19 • 17.9 1 • 37 • 3 4 .9 I 1 1 , MRSI No t Yes n n % i , • 2 6 .2 1 1 21 2 6 .0 14 OTHER No % n . Yes % n i 34 .1 1 1 II • . • 2 6 .0 8 1 12 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 • 2 0 .0 *20 • 2 1.0 10 21. 4 * 17 * 25 • 2:1.6 17 • 1 6 .0 16 ■ 1 9 .0 16 17. 9 12 * u .:i 20 ■ 10.9 16 • 19. 0 II II • 41. 6 3 • 2 • 4.9 I 4 • % • 1 8 .0 1 1 • 19 * 17.9 No 1 - % —1----------1 1 1 n I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 INC 20 '31.3 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 • 7. 3 * 16 • 2 5 .0 11 ' 17. 2 1 6 • 12. 2 0 • 1 2 .5 14 ' 21. 9 1 9.0 () • 14. 6 0 • 1 2 .5 14 ' 2 1 .9 1 Commi t t e e Cbu i rpcrson 9 • 0 .6 23 •21.7 13 • 16. 5 19 22. 6 2 • 4.9 6 • 14. 6 3 • 4.7 16 ' 25.0 1 S p e c ia l il • 7. 5 25 • 23. 6 11 • I I I 15 I/.9 1 • 2. 4 / * l/.l 4 • 6.3 17 ’ 2 6 .6 1 12 ' 11. 3 13 • 12. 3 2 1 • 2. 4 3 • 2 ' 3. 1 5 Oi her * Mode SUP O f f i c e r • 2. 4 6 /. 1 7. 3 • 7 .0 113 S p e c ific R e s p o n s ib ility f o r SUP Is Assigned To One Person. Yes 1 1 1 1 toniO jiL; SICONO 1.INI: Table 4.26 III. Components: Preferred Status o f Concepts and Methods— Level SECOND 1.1 ME COUNSI.I.ORS Mo Yes PREFERRED STATUS f n , I n 9 i n — 9 * f 1 1 Concept: S p e c ific R e s p o n s ib ility F or SDP Is Assigned To One Person. Method: 30 • 2 0 .1 21 9 9 % 1- --------9 9 9 ' 2 0 .0 n Yes % n D i v i s i o n S t a f f Member, C w m iitte e C h a irp e rs o n O th e r * Mode 9 9 % fin . % 0 9 % 10. 7 15 • 3 0 .0 i • 9 .0 21 n ,-■1, ■ Ui 11 9 9 % 9 n 9 9 1 9 9 9 ' 37. 5 7 ' 1 0 .9 9 1 i 9 i 9 I 9 * 9 9 9 9 9 I 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 t 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 17 • 1G.0 in *22 • 2 0. n f 15 ' 1 1 .2 13 ' 1 2 . 1 12 12 11 « 17. 0 17 10 ' I •ii.i 9 *in * 20. 2 9 1 0 .7 *23 ' 11. 1 15 ' 1.1.2 9 .1 17 ' 1 0 .0 in 7 9 10.7 5 10 0 .0 10 ' 17 . 9 f 0 • 1 0 .0 0 7. 1 5 • 12. 2 3 • ‘ 2. 1 *17 ' 12. 2 9 .0 5 0 7. 1 7.3 10 0 ' 12. 2 0 7.3 0 0 .0 0 ' 9 .1 9 • 1 5 .6 I 0 * 1 2 .5 9 ' 12. 5 9 ' 0 .3 9 • 12. 2 10 # 15. 6 t •1 ' 0.3 5 ' 12. 2 11 1 17. 2 0 9. 1 2 ' 1 .9 0 1 ' 9 9 0 .0 ' 5 9 2 .1 0 9 • 12. 2 3 ’ ' 2 0 .0 9 9 ’ 19. 0 ' i 9 9 2 ' 50. 1 9 9 9 ’ 17. 0 t ’ ' 21. 1 9 9 9 S p e c ia l SDP O f f i c e r Yes No 9 9 9 9 D i v i s i o n C h a irp e rs o n OUIER • R e s p o n s i b i l i t y Is Assigned T o - C h le f A d m in is tra to r 9 19 ' 1 7 . 9 Mo Yes t I 1RS1 LINE 0 .0 1 ' 1 .0 115 administrators, however, are more likely to accept the con­ cept than other groups. Method— Current Status: More respondents use the method of assigning specific responsibility for their staff develop­ ment program to the chief administrator than to any other in­ dividual. More respondents at medium institutions, however, use the method of assigning specific responsibility to either the chief administrator or the division chairperson. More respondents among counselors, however, use the method of as­ signing specific responsibility to the division chairperson. Concept--Preferred Status: More respondents would accept than reject the concept that specific responsibility for their staff development program should be assigned to one person. More respondents among counselors, however, would be more likely to reject the concept than other groups. Method--Preferred Status: More respondents would use the method of assigning specific responsibility to the chief administrator than to any other individual. More respondents among counselors and second-line administrators, however, would use the method of assigning specific responsibility to the division chairperson. Tables 4.27, 4.28, 4.29, 4.30, 4.31, and 4.32 refer to the concept that participation is vital to the success of the staff development program. Concept--Current Status: More respondents accept than reject the concept that participation is vital to the success of their staff development program. An equal number of Table 4.27 III. Components: Current Status o f Concepts and Methods--Overall Yes, Is Part No, Is Not Part CURRENT STATUS n n 131 ■ 1 | % 1 44.4 39 1 Participation Is-- 1 1 13.2 116 Method: • 1 1 1 Voluntary *107 « 36.3 41 • 13.9 Mandatory 70 > 23.7 52 < 17.6 Contractual 24 ■ 8.1 66 • 22.4 4 ' 1.4 24 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8.1 Other 1 I 1 1 1 1 * % 1 1 Concept: Participation Is Vital To SDP Success. | Mode Table 4.28 III. Components: Preferred Status o f Concepts and Methods—Overall Yes, Should Be Part No, Should Not Be Part PREFERRED STATUS I 11 Concept: Participation Is Vital To SDP Success. 165 Method: 1 % n 1 , 1 t 1 i 1 i ' 55.9 2 1 1 1 1 1 % 0.7 | Participation Is— Voluntary *121 1 1 | * | ' 41.0 14 1 M an d atory 74 ' 25.1 43 13.2 41 1 Contractual Other 39 5 ' I ' 1 ' | ' 14.6 13.9 | 1.7 6 ' 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t f 1 4.7 I 2.0 Table 4.29 III. Components: Current Status o f Concepts and Methods--Size 1 Yes CURRENT STATUS * Concept: Participation Is— n 4001 - 8000 No | % Yes n | % 1 1 1 1 27 i 4 5 . 0 11 , 1 1 1 1 No % 18.3 1 9 . Yes n | % 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 n \ MORE THAN 8000 n 1 1 23.7 9 t 1 1 n , % 1 1 1 . 23.7 95 .48.2 I 19 . 9.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I \ % No 1 118 Participation Is Vital To SDP Success. Method: - 4000 1 1 Voluntary 31.7 12 . 2 0 . 0 13 . 2 1 . 7 13 . 2 1 . 7 4 . Contractual 6 i 10.0 16 . 2 6 . 7 Other 0 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 . 1 6 . 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 . 1 0 1 Mandatory * Mode *19 . 0.0 * 8 i 21. 1 8 .21.1 *80 <40.6 21 . 10.7 10.5 11 . 28.9 53 . 26.9 28 i 14.2 7.9 10 . 26,3 15 40 >20.3 0.0 1 . 7.6 1 . 2.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 . I 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.6 4 1 13 . i t i i i i 6.6 Table 4.30 III. ' . Components: Preferred Status o f Concepts and Methods--Size ..... ..........1 1 - 4000 PREFERRED STATUS Yes n ; % No n ; % 35 n ; 1 2 . 1.7 1 1 1 1 1 ! . 3.3 t No % 1 1 20 MORE THAN 8000 . 52.6 1 1 1 n . % 1 1 Yes n , % 1 I No n , % 1 1 1 . 36.8 0 . 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 . 10.5 110 - 55.8 1 1 1 1 1 1 * 8 0 ' 40.6 1 1 8 • 4.1 1 1 1 • 0.5 1 1 1 Voluntary *27 1 1 1 ■45.0 Mandatory 15 125.0 8 .13.3 12 > 31.6 6 ■ 15.8 47 • 23.9 29 ' 14.7 Contractual 12 .20.0 11 .18.3 8 .21.1 5 . 13.2 19 ■ 9.6 25 ' 12.7 0 . 0.0 1 1 1 1 * 1 2 . 3.3 1 « 1 1 1 1 • 2.6 1 1 1 1 2 • 5.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 ' 2.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 ' 1.0 Participation Is-- Other * Mode f t *14 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 119 Method: • 58.3 1 1 Yes 1 1 1 1 Concept: Participation Is Vital To SDP Success. 4001 - 8000 Table 4.31 III. Components: Current Statjus o f Concepts and Methods— Level COIJNSI I OHS CUItltlHI Yes STATUS n .—— : Is--- 11 • 10. 4 1 n 1 , Ho 1 1 n , t -------- 1--------- _ • 1 1 41 ' <10.0 1 Yes n Ho 1 , % ii • 10./ 1 Yes 1 , % n Ho 1 i % 1 • % n • 1 I X X 9 OTHER 22 1 1 ' 53./ 1 3 * 1 I 1 1 J 1 1 1 t ) 1 4 1 1 1 I 7.3 21 ---- 1 1 1 • 32.8 i • 16 ' 25.0 I 1 1 1 i • 35.0 13 '1 2 .3 *16 *42.9 II • 11.1 *16 ' 39.0 5 • 12.2 *17 ' 26.6 12 ' 10.0 1 Mandatory 20 • 2 6. 4 21 • 1 9. 0 20 ‘ 23.0 12 ' 14. 3 12 * 29.3 5 • 12.2 10 ' 15.6 14 ' 21.9 1 Contractua1 10 • 9.4 26 ‘ 24.5 6 ■ /. 1 10 • 21.4 4 • 9.0 5 * 12.2 4 ■ 6.3 17 * 26.6 1 1 • 1 1 1 « 1 1 .9 9 • 0.5 1 1 • 12 I 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 2.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 • 9.0 1 I 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 ' 9.4 1 1 1 1 1 O the r * Mode *30 n ! % --------- 1----------1 1 Yes I’ lHST 1 I Ht 4 1 < 1 1 t t 1 0.0 1 1.6 1 120 47 • 4 4 . 3 1 MelhmJ: Voluntary % 1 1 P a r t i c i p a t i o n Is V i t a l l o SOI* Success. Participation Ho 1....... - C on c ep t: SI COHO 1 IN! Table 4.32 III. Components: Preferred Status o f Concepts and Methods—Level SECOND EI Ml COUHSI 1.0RS Yes PREFERRED STATUS n • , No I n t P a r t i c i p a t i o n Is V i t a l To SDP Success. 05 ' 0 1 .3 t 9 P a rtic ip a tio n Is — 1 1 V o lu n tary Mandatory C o ntractual Other *17 30 10 3 ' 2 0 .1 I 19 1 15.1 i 10 • * t t t ' 0 .9 t 19 Z.fl ' 1 .7 1 *35 ' 17.9 i 70 ' 15.1 11 ’ i i t f i t % ' 5 0 .1 t 0 0 .0 1 n • ■g i i i 71 3.n • 11.7 7 No % n . Mo Yes % n f . 9 % n • % ..... ' 50.5 I f 1 t f t 0 ’ 0 .0 V 9 77 ' 17.2 1 9 1 1 ' 1.0 9 9 9 9 9 1 1 9 5 0 .0 *10 9 9 1 n 1 | f * t 1 5 t Yes f I 1 t • 1 1 .3 I t * Mode 1 9 , Mo OTHER 121 Method: I h i * i i • 1 Concept: Yes n n s i LINE ' 7 3.0 1 15 • 13.1 f 17 ' 7 .1 f 1 t t I 1 0 17.9 11 ' 39.0 1 7 ' ' 7 0 .0 1 ’ 1 .9 9 .0 *7 3 0 .0 6 0 ' 11.5 ' 0 .0 1 9 1 I 9 i 9 ' 35.9 f 13 ' 7 0 .3 2 ' 0 7 • 11.0 ' 1 .9 0 0 3.1 9 5 ’ 7.0 9 9 9 11.3 9 ' 9 .1 9 7 ' 10.9 ' 0 0 .0 9 ' 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 .0 122 respondents at medium institutions, however, both accept and reject the concept. Method--Current Status: More respondents in all three size categories and all four level categories use the method of voluntary participation than any other method. Concept--Preferred Status: More respondents would accept than reject the concept that participation would be vital to the success of their staff development program. Method--Preferred Status: More respondents in all three size categories and all four level categories would use the method of voluntary participation than any other method. Barriers and Incentives Tables 4.33, 4.34, and 4.35 present the ranking of bar­ riers related to staff development programming. Overall, the barriers to staff development programming are: first--time, second--time, and third--funding. By size, the first, second, and third choice barriers are consistent with the overall choices, except for medium and large institutions. Medium institutions rank: funding, second--time, and third--time. rank: first-- Large institutions first--time, second--time, and third--interest. By level, the first, second, and third choice barriers are consistent with the overall choices, except for second-line administrators and first-line administrators. ministrators rank: interest. Second-line ad­ first--funding, second--time, and third-- First-line administrators rank: — funding, and third--support. first--time, second Table 4.33 IV . Barriers and Incentives: Ranking of General B arriers—Overall T a lly 3rd Choice 2nd Choice 1st Choice BARRIERS n I i I n i Time Location Funding * 75 3 59 > 25.4 22 14 * 31 7.5 4.7 10.5 9.5 2.0 10.8 30 14 23 . • 10.2 4.7 7.8 18 18 23 6.1 6.1 7.8 6 23 6 ■ i • 2.0 7.8 2.0 11 30 15 3.7 10.2 5.1 14 7 4 < < ■ 4.7 2.4 1.4 19 8 6 6.4 2.7 2.0 4 11 9 ■ 1.4 3.7 3.1 9 2 7 > > ■ 3.1 0.7 2.3 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 123 20.0 16.6 4.7 14.6 Promotion Interest Irrelevance Mode % i • i 28 6 32 * n *49 14 43 Leadership Expertise Support Decentralization Collective Bargaining Other % 1 1 . 0 > > | Table 4.34 IV. Barriers and Incentives: Ranking o f General B arrie rs --S ize T a lly 1 - 4000 1st BARRIERS 4001 - 0000 1st 1— 3rd 2nd MORE THAN 0000 2nd 3rd 1st 2nd 3rd n iifrMHtiw* *16 26.7 *12 1 1.7 13 21.7 4 Leadership E x p e rtis e Support 0 13.3 3.3 2 0 13.3 Promotion In te re s t Irr e le v a n c e 1 I 0 D e c e n t r a lIz a t io n C o ll e c t iv e Bargaining Other 1 1 * Mode 11 5 6.7 1 10.3 *9 20.0 5 0.3 1.7 0 15.0 *12 13.2 0.0 * 0 , 21 0 31.6 7 3 11.7 5.0 3 5.0 1 2.6 4 6 10.0 2.6 1 6 10.0 0 13.3 1 5 1.7 1.7 0 0.0 5 0.3 6.7 0.3 0.0 0 4 5 0.0 0 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 4 1 1 0 13 , *4 2 2 10.5 *54 27.4 *29 1 4.7 5.3 2 1.0 10 5.1 5.3 34 17,3 27 13.7 10 2 3 7.9 1 2.6 13.2 7 3 7.9 0.0 0 2 2 1 2 2 2.6 0,0 0 1 0 6.7 1.7 1.7 0 0 1 0.0 0.0 2.6 5 0 1 1 0.0 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.0 0 1 0 2 5.3 5.3 19 19 3 19 9.6 1.5 9.6 3 9 9 1.5 4.6 4.6 17 5 0 1 4.1 0.5 11 6 2.0 3 4 10 9.6 5.1 14 7.1 6 13 6.6 11 20 10.2 5.6 12 11 12 6.1 6 3.0 0.6 *23 3.0 11.7 5.6 6. 1 2.5 13 6.6 5.6 3.0 1.5 15 6 7.6 3.0 4 2.0 124 Time Location Funding Table 4.35 IV . B arriers and Incentives: Ranking o f General B arriers—Level T a lly COUNSELORS BARRIERS 1st n ; % Time Location Funding Promotion Interest Irrelevance Decentralization Collective Bargaining Other * Mode n ' 1 X 3rd 1 n i. * i 8 , 7.5 *28 . 26.4 *15 !14.2 5 . 4.7 7.5 1 . 0.9 20 , 18.9 13 ,12.3 *10 , 9.4 1 8 , 7.5 6 . 5.7 11 ,10.4 7 , 6.6 8 , 7.5 4 . 3.8 8 , 7.5 5 , 4.7 12 . 11.3 1 1 . 0.9 3 , 2.8 2 , 1.9 5 , 4.7 6 . 5.7 10 , 9.4 7 , 6.6 1 , 0.9 4 . 3.8 1 8 , 7.5 3 . 2.8 4 , 3.8 4 , 3.8 3 , 2.8 0 . 0.0 3 . 2.8 2 , 1.9 1 , 0.9 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2nd 1st n * n X 18 21.4 *18 21.4 2 2.4 1.2 1 *20 23.8 13 15.5 9 2 13 10.7 2.4 15.5 12 4 9 2 2 2 2.4 2.4 2.4 2 2 2 3 1 0 3.6 1.2 0.0 5 2 1 14.3 4.8 10.7 FIRST LINE 3rd n 1 X , 1st n ; % 2nd n 5 7 ! 8.3 *16 !39.0 2 5 , 6.0 1 , 2.4 7 , 17.1 *11 6 , 7.1 , 6 , 7.1 4 , 9.8 2 0 , 0.0 5 , 6.0 1 8 , 9.5 2 , 4.9 2 2 , 24 2.4 2.4 *17 , 20.2 2.4 5 , 6.0 , 6 , 7.1 6.0 2.4 0 , 0.0 1.2 1 , 1.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 % 12.2 4.9 26.8 OTHER 3rd n ! * 1st n X 2 ! 4.9 *13 20.3 1 , 2.4 0.0 0 5 , 12.2 12 18.8 4.9 1 , 2.4 2.4 3 , 7.3 4.9 *6 , 14.6 2nd n % n ' 1 X 5 ! 7.8 *11 ! 17.2 5 , 7.8 0 , 0.0 6 . 9.4 *10 ,15.6 9 0 5 14.1 0.0 7.8 5 , 7.8 2 , 3-1 4 , 6.3 3 , 4.7 2 , 3.1 4 , 6.3 5 , 7.8 5 , 7.8 2 , 3.1 1 2 , 3.1 1 , 1.6 2 , 3..1 1 1 1 t • 1 1 0 , 0.0 1 , 2.4 2 , 4.9 0 6 1 0.0 14.6 2.4 2 , 4.9 3 , 7.3 1 , 2.4 1 2 1 1.6 3.1 1.6 1 , 1.6 5 , 7.8 2 , 3.1 0 , 0.0 0 , 0.0 1 , 2-4 3 1 2 7.3 2.4 4.9 3 , 7.3 3 , 7.3 1 , 2.4 3 1 2 4.7 1.5 3.1 2 , 31 1 , 1.6 1 , 1.6 * I 3rd 125 Leadership Expertise Support 2nd SECOND LINE 126 Tables 4.36, 4.37, and 4.38 list the ranking of pre­ ferred incentives related to staff development programming. Overall, the preferred incentives that can most likely increase or improve the success of and/or participation in staff development programming are: first--released time, second--personal growth, and third--professional growth. By size, the first, second, and third choice preferred incentives are somewhat changed. Small institutions rank: first--released time, second--personal growth, and third-travel. Medium institutions rank: first--released time, second--personal growth, professional growth, and travel, and third--released time. Large institutions rank: first-- released time, second--personal growth and professional growth, and third--professional growth. By level, the first, second, and third choice preferred incentives are also somewhat changed. Counselors rank: first--released time, second--personal growth, and third-travel. growth, Second-line administrators rank: first--professional second--personal growth, and third--professional growth. First-line administrators rank: first--released time, second-- personal growth, and third--institutional recognition. practitioners rank: Other first--released time, second--profes- sional growth, and third--professional growth. Tables 4.39, 4.40, and 4.41 feature the ranking of pres­ ently used incentives related to staff development, programming. Overall, the presently used incentives that most gen­ erally increase or improve the success of and/or participation Table 4.36 IV. Barriers and Incentives: Ranking of General Incentives—Overall T a lly 2nd Choice 1st Choice 3rd Choice INCENTIVES n ' 1 % n ; % 24.1 16 * 6.1 6.1 21 22 11 23 ' 5.4 7.1 7.8 17 7.5 3.7 5.8 13 * 46 • • • 4.4 3.7 15.6 9 9 25 3.1 3.1 8.5 45 7 ' • 15.3 2.4 3.4 * 39 13.2 2.7 2.4 4.4 0.3 29 4 32 n % I Released Time Promotions Salary Increases ' 8 » 5 25 • 2.7 1.7 8.5 Professional Growth Peer Recognition Divisional Recognition 52 ' 17.6 Institutional Recognitior Public Recognition Travel 14 Continuing Ed. Units Graduate Credit Other 6 2.0 1.0 3 ' 2 8 2 6 3 ' 1 1 1 1 1 * Mode 11 10 13 4.7 0.7 2.7 24 8.1 0.7 4 1.4 2.0 1.0 6 1 1 > • ' ' 8 7 2.0 5 15 0.3 1 9.8 1.4 10.8 1.7 5.1 0.3 127 Participation Payment Merit Pay Points Personal Growth *71 18 18 Table 4.37 IV. Barriers and Incentives: Ranking o f General Incentives—Size T a lly - 4000 J INCENTIVES 1 st 2nd 1 1 Released Time Promotions S a l a r y I ncreases n ' 1 1 1 3 • 1 • 4 • 3rd 1st MORE TUAN 0000 2nd 3rd “ % n ; % ----- ri ’ t I ----- r --------i 5.0 1.7 6.7 6 • 10.0 1 • 1.7 3 • 5.0 n * % 1 ., , n , 1st 2nd 3rd ■..— ' 1 a % n ; % n % 13 17 17 6.6 8.6 8.6 i 12 • 6 .1 9 • 4.6 11 • 5 . 6 n ; % a 0 • 0.0 3 • 7.9 2 • 5.3 1 *4 • 1 0 . 5 1 • 2.6 3 • 7.9 1 • 2.6 1 • 2.6 * 4 • 10. 5 1 • 2.6 1 • 2.6 3 • 7.9 5 • 4 • 15 • 2.5 10 2.0 7 7 . 6 *30 5.1 3.6 15. 2 7 • 3.6 4 • 2.0 17 • 8 . 6 37 • 1 8 . 0 *30 5 4 • 2.0 3 • 1.5 7 1 5. 2 2.5 3.6 *31 • 15 .7 7 • 3.6 4 • 2.0 P a r t i c i p a t i o n Payment M e r i t Pay P oi nts Personal Growth 1 • 1.7 0 • 0.0 7 • 1 1. 7 2 • 3.3 3 « 5.0 *12 • 2 0 . 0 1 • 4 • 5 . 1.7 6.7 0.3 * 7 • 10. 4 1 • 2.6 2 • 5.3 1 2 • 5.3 1 • 2.6 3 • 7.9 P r o f e s s i o n a l Growth Peer R ec ogni ti on D i v i s i o n a l Re c og ni ti o n 11 • 1 0 . 3 2 • 3.3 0 • 0.0 11 • 1 0. 3 0 • 0.0 2 • 3.3 5 . 1 • 3 • 0.3 1.7 5.0 4 • 10. 5 0 • 0.0 0 • 0.0 * 4 • 1 0. 5 2 • 5.3 1 • 2.6 3 • 7.9 0 • 0.0 0 • 0.0 I n s t i t u t i o n a l R ec ogni ti on P u b l i c R e co g n i t i o n Tr avel 3 • 5.0 1 • 1 .7 3 • 5.0 2 • 3.3 0 • 0.0 7 • 11. 7 5 • 0.3 0 • 0.0 *11 • 1 0 . 3 2 • 0 • 0 • 5.3 0.0 0.0 0 • 0.0 1 • 2.6 * 4 • 10. 5 3 • 7.9 0 • 0.0 2 • 5.3 9 • 4.6 1 • 0.5 5 • 2.5 11 0 13 5.6 0.0 6.6 21 • 1 0. 7 4 • 2.0 19 « 9 . 6 Co nt in u in g Ed. U n it s Graduate C r e d i t Other 1 • 1.7 1 • 1 .7 0 • 0.0 1 1 1 1 • 1.7 3 ■ 5.0 0 * 0.0 1 1 1 1 • 1 .7 4 • 6.7 0 • 0.0 0 • 0.0 0 • 0.0 1 • 2.6 1 1 1 0 • 0.0 0 • 0.0 0 • 0.0 1 1 a 1 • 2.6 0 • 0.0 0 • 0.0 a i i 1 • 0.5 5 • 2.5 2 • 1.0 3 3 1 1.5 1.5 0.5 3 • 1.5 11 • 5 . 6 1 • 0.5 1 1 1 * Mode *46 • 23.4 17 • 0 . 6 12 • 6 . 1 128 * % 1 " I " "■ 1 *10 i 3 0 . 0 0 . 0.0 4 • 6.7 n 4001 - 0000 Table 4.38 IV . B arriers and Incentives: Ranking o f General Incentives—Level T a lly COUNSELORS INCENTIVES 1st n % 2nd n 1 ' % SECOND LINE 3rd n ' 1 % 1st n ' 1 % 2nd n ' 1 % FIRST LINE 3rd n t' I 1st n ; % 1 Participation Payment Merit Pay Points Personal Growth Professional Growth Peer Recognition Divisional Recognition Institutional Recognition Public Recognition Travel Continuing Ed. Units Graduate Credit Other * Mode *39 3 4 2 1 9 36.8 2.8 3.8 3 ! 2.8 2 , 1.9 7 i 6.6 7 ! 6.6 3 , 2.8 4 , 3.8 1.9 6 , 5.7 0.9 2 , 1.9 8.5 *20 ,18.9 4 , 3.8 4 , 3.8 11 ,10.4 1 21 t 19.8 1 1 0.9 1 1 0.9 3 1 2.8 0 1 0.0 3 1 2.8 i 0 i 0.0 2 i 1.9 0 i 0.0 i i i 18 ,17.0 3 , 2.8 5 , 4.7 14 !16.7 5 , 6.0 6 , 7.1 6 ! 7.1 11 ,13.1 5 , 6.0 2 , 2.4 3 . 3.6 4 , 4.8 5 , 6.0 6 . 7.1 *17 ,20.2 9 ! 10.7 *8 ,19.5 3 , 3.6 4 , 9.8 7 . 8.3 4 , 9.8 2 , 2.4 1 , 1.2 5 , 6.0 1 » 2.4 0 , 0.0 4 , 9.8 12 ,14.3 *14 , 16.7 2 , 2.4 4 , 4.8 3 , 3.6 2 , 2-4 6 ,14.6 3 , 7.3 0 , 0.0 12 ,11.3 1 , 0.9 2 , 1.9 *20 ,23.8 1 , 1.2 0 , 0.0 7 , 6.6 10 , 9.4 2 , 1.9 0 , 0.0 12 ,11.3 *16 ,15.1 5 , 6.0 2 , 2.4 3 , 3.6 3 , 3.6 0 , 0.0 5 , 6.0 6 , 7.1 1 , 12 9 , 10.7 3 , 7.3 0 , 0.0 0 , 0.0 0 , 0.0 3 , 3.6 1 , 1.2 1 1 I 0 , 0.0 1 , 1.2 0 , 0.0 1 1 1 4 , 4.8 4 , 4.8 0 , 0.0 , , , 0 , 0.0 0 , 0.0 0 , 0.0 2 , 1.9 2 , 1.9 1 , 0.9 t 1 1 1 , 1.9 6 , 5.7 1 , 0.9 1 1 1 1 n i % * i , 2.4 3, 7.3 4 , 9.8 1 < 2.4 2 . 4.9 *6 , 14.6 ( 4 , 9.8 2 , 4.9 1 , 2.4 3rd n 1 ' % 1st n ' 1 X 2nd n • 1 3rd % n ' 1 % t 2 ! 4.9 1o • 15.6 2 , 4.9 6 , 9.4 4 , 9.8 4 • 6.3 I 6 , 9.4 5 . 7.8 7 .10.9 1 4 < 6.3 3 • 4.7 2 * 3.1 1 , 2.4 2 , 4.9 3 . 7.3 2 . 3.1 0 , 0.0 6 , 9.4 4 • 6.3 2 , 3.1 3 i 4.7 2 . 3.1 2 . 3.1 6 , 9.4 6 ,14.6 1 , 2.4 1 , 2.4 5 , 7.8 *11 ,17.2 *7 ,10.9 2 , 3.1 1 , 1.6 0 , 0.0 2 , 3.1 2 , 3.1 1 , 1.6 2 , 4.9 *7 ,17.1 0 , 0.0 0 , 0.0 3 , 7.3 5 , 12.2 1 0 , 0.0 1 , 2.4 1 , 2.4 1 , 2.4 0 , .0.0 0 , 0.0 1 1 1 t 1 1 3 , 4.7 0 , 0.0 2 , 3.1 1 , 1.6 1 , 1.6 2 , 3.1 6 , 9.4 1 , 1.6 4 , 6.3 2 , 3.1 1 , 1.6 2 , 3.1 1 » 1 1 , 1.6 2 , 3.1 0 , 0.0 1 1 1 0 , 0.0 4 , 6.3 0 , 0.0 1 I 1 129 Released Time Promotions Salary Increases 2nd OTiiER Table 4.39 IV. Barriers and Incentives: Presently Used Incentives—Overall T a lly INCENTIVES Released Time Promotions Salary Increases n % 40.0 4.1 5.8 Participation Payment Merit Pay Points Personal Growth 19 7 78 6.4 2.4 26.4 Professional Growth Peer Recognition Divisional Recognition 92 30 22 31.2 10.2 7.5 Institutional Recognition Public Recognition Travel 27 8 80 9.1 2.7 27.1 Continuing Ed. Units Graduate Credit Other 10 16 3 3.4 5.4 0.9 130 118 12 17 Table 4.40 IV. Barriers and Incentives: Presently Used Incentives—Size T a lly 1 - 4000 4001 - 8000 MORE THAN 8000 INCENTIVES n % n i % n % Released Time Promotions Salary Increases 22 1 8 36.6 1.7 13.4 11 0 0 ' ' ' 28.9 0.0 0.0 85 11 9 43.1 5.6 4.6 Participation Payment Merit Pay Points Personal Growth 3 2 17 5.0 3.3 28.4 2 1 6 1 ' ' 5.3 2.6 15.8 14 4 55 7.1 2.0 27.9 Professional Growth Peer Recognition Divisional Recognition 19 5 6 31.7 8.4 10.0 4 2 0 ' ' • 10.5 5.2 0.0 69 23 16 35.0 11.7 8.1 Institutional Recognition Public Recognition Travel 8 3 14 13.3 5.0 23.3 2 0 10 ' 1 ' 5.2 0.0 26.3 17 5 56 8.6 2.5 28.4 0 4 0 0.0 6.7 0.0 1 6 0 ' ' ' 2.6 15.8 0.0 9 6 1 4.6 3.0 0.5 Continuing Ed. Units Graduate Credit Other Table 4.41 IV. Barriers and Incentives: Presently Used Incentives--Level T a lly COUNSELORS SECOND LINE FIRST LINE OTHER INCENTIVES % 'n 1 1 1 n i % n i % n i Released Time Promotions Salary Increases 47 4 2 44.3 3.8 1.9 37 4 8 i ' ' ' 44.1 4.8 9.5 12 3 4 5.7 1 . 8 29.2 4 2 22 ' ' ' 4.8 2.4 26.2 3 3 12 34 8 5 32.0 7.5 4.7 30 9 9 ' ' ' 35.8 10.7 10.7 14 6 3 5 0 26 4.7 0.0 24.5 9 4 29 1 ' ' 10.7 4.8 34.6 9 2 10 4 3 0 3.8 2.8 0.0 4 3 1 ' 34.1 ' 14.6 1 7.3 6 0 13 '1 9.4 0.0 20.4 14 7 5 1 ' ' 1 21.9 10.9 7.8 ' ' ' 1 22.0 ' 4.9 ' 24.4 ' ' 6.3 3.1 23.4 1 ' 3.1 6.3 3.2 4 2 15 1 1 Continuing Ed. Units Graduate Credit Other 7.3 ' ' 7.2 ' 29.2 '1 34.4 1.6 4.7 1 1 Institutional Recognition Public Recognition Travel 22 1 3 I t Professional Growth Peer Recognition Divisional Recognition 29.2 7.3 9.7 4.8 3.6 1 . 2 0 6 0 ' 0.0 ' 14.6 0.0 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 132 6 2 31 1 1 1 Participation Payment Merit Pay Points Personal Growth i 1 ' ' % » 1 133 in staff development programming are; first— released time, second-professional growth, and third--travel. By size, the first, second, and third choice presently used incentives are somewhat changed. rank: Small institutions first-released time, second— professional growth, and third--personal growth. Medium institutions rank; first --released time, second--trave1, and third--personal growth and graduate credit. Large institutions rank: first- released time, second--professional growth, and third— travel. By level, the first, second, and third choice presently used incentives are somewhat changed. Counselors rank: first— released time, second--professional growth, and third --personal growth. Second-line administrators rank: first --released time, second--professional growth, and t h i r d travel. First-line administrators rank: first— professional growth, second— released time and personal growth, and third --travel. Other practitioners rank: first— released time, second--travel, and third— professional growth. Activities Tables 4.42, 4.43, and 4.44 illustrate the ranking of preferred off-campus activities commonly used in staff de­ velopment programming. Overall, the off-campus activities that are considered most worthwhile or beneficial for staff development program­ ming include: first— conventions and professional meetings and second--conventions and professional meetings. Table 4.42 V. A c tiv itie s : Ranking of Off-Campus A c tiv itie s —Overall T a lly 1st Choice 2nd Choice OFF-CAMPUS n ' % n Conventions O r Profes­ sional Meetings *144 | ' 7to I i 48.8 *70 i 1 23.7 i 3 ' i 1.0 13 ' i 4.4 College Visitations 19 . 6 -4 65 , 22.0 Staff Retreats 45 1 I > 15.3 42 ' 14.2 Sabbaticals, Staff Exchange Programs, Apprenticeships, Or Course Work Other 28 Mode 9.5 35 < 11.9 i 9 i i i i ' 3.1 7 ' i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i * i 2.4 134 Summer Or Year-Long Institutes Table 4.43 V. A c tiv itie s : Ranking of Off-Campus A c tiv itie s —Size T a lly 1 - 4000 OFF-CAMPUS 1st n 2nd n Conventions Or Pr o f es ­ *34 sional Meetings ! 56.7 i *15 Sumner Or Year-Long Institutes 1 . 1.7 1 College Visitations 5 Staff Retreats ; % 1st n ! 25.9 1 * 14 5 , 8.3 1 0 ; 8.3 10 ; 16.7 7 ! 11.7 11 Sabbaticals, Staff Exchange Programs, Apprenticeships, Or Course Work 5 | 8.3 1 1 1 9 Other 0 0.0 0 1 1 Mode ; % . MORE THAN 8000 2nd n 2nd 1st % n | % n ! % *10 26.3 *96 ! 48.7 1 45 122.8 i , 0.0 1 1 2.6 2 , 1.0 1 7 , 3.6 1 5 , 13.2 8 21.1 9 , 4.6 *46 ,23.4 , 18.3 5 , 13.2 2 5.3 ! 15.0 1 1 1 2 ! 5.3 1 5 13.2 , 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.0 \ 36.8 i 1 , 2.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 33 , 16.8 29 ,14.7 , 10.7 1 1 1 21 ,10.7 1 1 1 8 . 4.1 1 t 1 1 1 1 7 , 3.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 135 ; % 1 1 1 * 4001 - 8000 Table 4.44 V. A c tiv itie s : Ranking o f Off-Campus A c tiv itie s — Level T a lly COUNSELORS 1st OFF-CAMI'US n Conventions Or P r o f e s ­ s io n al Meetings *45 ‘ 2nd % 1 • 42.5 1 1 * 0 . ‘J 1 College V i s i t a t i o n s 6 7.5 S t a f f Retreats 16 Sabbaticals, S ta ff Exchange Programs, A p p r e n t i c e s h i p s , Or Course Work 13 ' 1 2 . 3 < 1 1 OLher * Mode • 15.1 5 • 1 1 1 I 1 1 4.7 5 1 n *32 % 1 ■ 30.2 I 7 < 1 16 1st 6.6 • 15.1 10 * 1 7 . 0 9 • 1 1 1 0.5 3 . 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.0 n ' 1 *46 2nd % 1 . 54.0 1 1 . 1 1 .2 3 . 3.6 1 14 . 16.7 9 . 10. 7 I I 1 1 . 1 1 i 1 I 1 f IRST LINE 1.2 1 j n *21 1st % , 25.0 I 2 , 1 n ' i *21 2nd % : s i. f 2 2nd 1st n ‘ % 7 : 17.1 n *32 ' % 1 n 1 % i \ 50.0 10 1 15.6 1 2.4 1 , 1 2.4 , 25.0 1 9 , 10.7 1 12 . 1 4. 3 1 1 1 1 I , 1.2 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 ] 9 . 0 * 10 *21 OTHER 1 , 2.4 0 , 0.0 1 3 24.4 4 1 6.3 *17 6 , 14. 6 0 ! 19. 5 9 ! 14.1 1 . 1 ( 1 2.4 6 : 14. 6 5 j 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.4 7.0 1 1 1 0 , 0.0 2 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 3.1 1 1 , 4.7 1 ! 26.6 1 7 , 10.9 1 Q . 1 2. 5 1 1 1 3 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.7 136 Summer Or Year-Long Inst iL u te s • * St COMO LINE 137 By size, the first and second choice off-campus activ­ ities are consistent with the overall choices, except for large institutions. Large institutions rank: second-- college visitations. By level, the first and second choice off-campus activ­ ities are consistent with the overall choices, except for second-line administrators, first-line administrators, and other practitioners. Second-line administrators rank: second--college visitations and conventions and professional meetings. First-line administrators rank: visitations. Other practitioners rank: second--college second--college visitations. Tables 4.45, 4.46, and 4.47 record the ranking of pre­ ferred on-campus activities commonly used in staff develop­ ment programming. Overall, the on-campus activities that are considered most worthwhile or beneficial for staff development program­ ming include: first--in-house continuing seminars and second --short-term workshops. By size, the first and second choice on-campus activ­ ities are consistent with the overall choices. By level, the first and second choice on-campus activ­ ities are consistent with the overall choices, except for counselors. Counselors rank: first--short-term workshops. Tables 4.48, 4.49, and 4.50 exhibit the actual frequen­ cies of off-campus activities used in staff development programming. The most heavily attended off-campus activities Table 4.45 V. A c tiv itie s : Ranking o f On-Campus A c tiv itie s --O v e ra ll T a lly 1st Choice 2nd C h o i c e ON-CAMPUS n In-House Continuing Seminars * 103 n | 34.9 47 Encounter G r o u p s , Role Playing, Or Case Studies 11 Packaged Programs, Tape Recordings, Or Films 4 ' 1 , Mode 26.1 * 104 3.7 16 15.9 ' 1 . 35.3 5.4 i i 1.4 20 1 6.8 i i i i 25 ' 8.5 24 i 8.1 6 ' 2.0 8 ' i i i i i i i i 2.7 i » i i i i i i i * , % i i « 5 i 138 77 Other 7o i Short-Term Workshops Professional Reading ' 1 Table 4.46 V. A c tiv itie s : Ranking o f On-Campus A c tiv itie s —Size T a lly 1 - 4000 ON-CAMPUS 1st n ! 1 .'■■it ■' 2nd n ; % n ! 41.7 i 6 , 10.0 1 *14 Short-Term Workshops 12 ,20.0 *24 , 40.0 Encounter Groups, Role Playing, Or Case Studies 1 , 1.7 1 1 0 Packaged Programs, Tape Recordings, Or Films 2 , 3.3 1 1 Professional Reading 8 Other 0 1 % , 36.8 1 MORE THAN 8000 2nd n 1st % n *64 2nd 1 I % 1 % 0 , 32.5 1 1 36 i 18.3 i 5 13.2 6 , 15.8 * 1 4 36.8 , 0.0 1 ) 1 , 2.6 1 1 2 5.3 9 , 4.6 1 1 14 . 7.1 1 1 6 , 10.0 1 1 0 , 0.0 1 1 1 2.6 2 , 1.0 1 1 13 , 6 =6 1 1 ,13.3 5 , 8.3 2 , 5.3 1 2.6 15 , 7.6 18 , 9.1 , 0.0 , , , 0 , 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 , 0.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0.0 6 , 3.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 , 4.1 1 1 1 1 1 1 59 , 29.9 * 6 6 . 33.5 139 *25 Mode 8000 1st In-House Continuing Seminars , , * 4001 Table 4.47 V. A c tiv itie s : Ranking o f On-Campus A c tiv itie s --L e v e l T a lly COUNSELORS 1st ON-CAMPUS ln-llouse C on t i nu i n g Seminars n ' 31 , 29.2 1 *36 % . 3 4. 0 Cncounter Groups, Role P l a y i n g , Or Case Studi es 4 Packaged Programs, Tape Recor di ngs, Or Films 1 , P r o f e s s i o n a l Reading 2nd , 3.0 1 i n *31 10 1 11 1 1 10 , % i 6 : 15.1 i 1 0.9 1st ! 29.2 / | 23.0 *17 ) 41.5 1 1 ! 29.0 *31 1 .2 1 1 1 10.4 1 2 ! 1 2.4 9.4 I t 9.4 20 , 2 . 1 1 1 < I 1 * Mode 1 .9 6 , 1 1 2.4 n 1 1 2 , ' 1 1 It 5 1 % 1 I , 12. 2 | 12.2 *10 ' 43.9 0 | 0.0 0 ( 0.0 2 1 1 1 , 4.9 0 1 1 1 n i 1 0.0 6.0 5 0 1 ) 17. 1 0.0 1 ; 2 1 5.7 2 ! 1 1 1 1 1 2.4 0 , 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2.4 ( 11 | 17. 2 *24 e : 9.4 » 4 ' 6.3 1 1 1 5 J , i i , 1 1 t 1 1 1 *i 1.6 a a 4.9 3 , 0.0 1 ’ 3 7. 5 1 7.0 1 1 a 1 0 ' 9.4 1 ft 6 1 1 7 1 % i n 1 a 9.5 % '1 39.1 1 J 6.6 2nd *25 1 ft 1 2.4 1st 5 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 36. 9 1 2 , i Other % OTHER 2nd ! 35. 7 1 % 1 ! 1 1 , 1st 1 < 1 25 2nd u n *30 FIRST LINE 4.7 7 | 10. 9 1.6 2 J 1 , 1 1 a a i i a a a i i a 3.1 140 Short-Term Workshops SECOND LINE Table 4.48 V. OVERALL A c tiv itie s : Frequency o f Off-Campus A c tiv itie s —Overall 8 OFF-CAMPUS ACTIVITY n Conventions Or Professional Meetings % 48 1 6 . 3 3 1.0 College V i s i t a t i o n s 28 9.5 S t a f f Retreats 42 14. 2 Sabbaticals, S ta ff Exchange Programs, Apprenticeships, Or Course Work 16 4 Summer Or Yea rLong I n s t i t u t e s Othe r n % 54 1 8. 3 3 n % 33 11. 2 n % 18 6.1 it % 6 2.0 n 8 % n % n % 2.7 1 0.3 2 0.7 1.0 2 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 30 10. 6 19 6.4 2 4 1 1.7 0 0.0 0.7 9+ n 10 % 3.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0.3 0 0.0 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1.4 0.3 1 .4 16 5.4 5 5.4 3 1.0 0 0.0 I 0.3 0 0.0 I 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 1.4 3 1.0 3 3 1.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 1.0 Table 4.49 V. A c tiv itie s : Frequency of Off-Campus A c tiv itie s —Size 1 SIZE n 1 - 4000 4000 2 3 6 4 6 8 7 9* OIF-CAMPUS ACTIVITY - oooo MORE THAN 0000 - % n % n % n % n . % n % n n % % It Conventions Institutes V isitations Retreats Sabbaticals Other 9 1 5. 0 1.7 I 4 6.7 9 1 6. 0 2 3. 3 1 1.7 13 2 1 . 7 0 0.0 2 3.3 3 6.0 2 3 .3 0 0.0 7 11. 7 0 0.0 0 13. 3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 13.3 0 0.0 2 3.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0 I 0 0 0 1 .7 0.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 .7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Conventions Inst itutes Visitations Retreats Sabbat i c a l s Other 7 10.4 0 0.0 ■3 7 . 9 2 5.3 2 5.3 1 2.6 3 7.9 ! 2.6 rv 13.2 2.6 i 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 10.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0 0 0 1 0 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 Conventions I n s t i tutes Visitations Retreats Sabbaticals Other 32 16.2 2 1.0 21 10.7 31 15. 7 12 6.1 2 1.0 30 19. 3 22 11. 2 2 1.0 2 1.0 23 11.7 11 5 . 6 12 6.1 6 2.5 1 0 .6 0 0 . 0 3 1 .6 3 1.5 0 0 0 0 0 3 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 6 0 2 0 0 0 2.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0 1 0 1 0 3.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 3 0 1 1 % 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 Table 4.50 V. A c tiv itie s : Frequency o f Off-Campus A c tiv itie s —Level 1 POSITION 2 3 6 4 6 n % n % ri % n % n % 6 2 3 1 0 3 5.7 1 .9 2.8 0.9 0.0 2.8 6 0 0 0 1 2 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.9 0 0 I 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 n % Conventions Institutes Visitations Retreats Sabbaticals O the r 21 1 9. 0 0 0.0 13 1 2 . 3 20 1 8 . 0 5 4.7 2 1.9 19 1 7. 9 1 0.0 12 1 1. 3 6 6.7 1 0.9 1 0.9 SECONO LINE Conventions I n s t i t ut e s V isitations Retreats Sabbaticals Other 16 1 9. 0 0 0.0 10 1 1 . 9 9 1 0. 7 7 6.3 1 1.2 16 1 9 . 0 1 1.2 9 10. 7 2 2.4 1 1.2 0 0.0 13 16. 6 0 0.0 6 6.0 3 3 .6 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0 0 0 0 0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0 1 0 0 0 7.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Convent ions i n s t i t ut es Visitations Retreats Sabbaticals Other 5 12.2 2 4.9 4 9.8 5 12. 2 2 4.9 0 0.0 4 9.8 1 2.4 4 9.8 5 1 2. 2 I 2.4 I 2.4 7 17.1 0 0.0 8 1 9. 5 1 2.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 0 0 0 0 0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 . Conventions I n s ti tutes V isitations Retreats Sabbat i c a l s Othe r 6 9.4 1 1.6 1 1.6 0 1 2. 5 2 3.1 1 1.6 16 23. 4 0 0.0 5 7.8 3 4.7 0 0.0 1 1.6 / 4 0 2 0 0 1 6.1 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.6 0 2 0 0 0 1.6 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 OTHER 0 3 0 0 0 10. 9 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 I 0 % 11 % II % 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0 1 0 0 0 3.8 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 1 0 1 I 3.6 0.0 1 .2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0 0 0 0 0 7.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 n 0 0. 0 0 0 143 COUNSELORS l lltST LINE 9+ Q 7 OIL-CAMPUS ACTIVITY 144 overall, by size category, and by level category include: conventions and professional meetings, college visitations, and staff retreats. Tables 4.51, 4.52, and 4.53 tally the actual frequen­ cies of on-campus activities used in staff development pro­ gramming . Overall, by size category, and by level category, the most heavily attended on-campus activities include: short­ term workshops and in-house continuing seminars. Tables 4.54 and 4.55 present a listing of outstanding topics included in the past year of staff development pro­ gramming . Overall, the eight most often mentioned outstanding topics during the past year of staff development programming include: (1) Burnout Prevention and Stress Reduction, Communication and Team Building, vices, (2) (3) Improving Student Ser­ (4) Career Development and Life Planning, Potential and Improving Work Life, (5) Human (6) Computer Usage, (7) Time Management, and (8) Planning and Goal Setting. By size, the most popular outstanding topics include: small institutions--Improving Student Services, medium insti­ tutions --Burnout Prevention and Stress Reduction, and large institutions--Communication and Team Building. By level, the most popular outstanding topics include: counselors--Burnout Prevention and Stress Reduction, secondline administrators--both Burnout Prevention and Stress Re­ duction and Computer Usage, first-line administrators--both Table 4.51 V‘. A c tiv itie s : Frequency of On-Campus A c tiv itie s --O v e ra ll 9t ON-CAMPUS ACTIVITY OVERALL n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n % 20 9.5 10 6. I 11 3.7 7 2.4 3 1.0 3 1.0 1 0.3 1 0.3 0 2.7 Shor t-Ter m Workshops 44 14. 9 37 12 . 0 16 6.4 6 2.0 2 0 .1 1 0.3 0 0.0 3 1.0 2 0.7 Encounter Groups, Role P l a y i n g , Or Case Studi es 13 4.4 1 0.3 0 0.0 2 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 3 1.0 Packaged Programs, Tape Recor di ngs, Or Films 14 4.7 6 1.7 6 2.0 I 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.7 P r o f e s s i o n a l Reading 3 1.0 4 1.4 1 0.3 3 I .0 3 1.0 2 1 1 0.3 29 9.0 Other 1 0.3 2 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 1.7 145 In-House C on t i nu i n g Seminars 0.7 0.3 0 0.0 Table 4.52 V. Activities: Frequency of On-Campus A c t i v i t i e s — -Size 1 SIZE 2 3 4 5 6 7 n % u * n % C o nt i n u in g Seminars Short Workshops Groups and Cases Packaged Programs P r o f e s s i o n a l Reading Other 2 3 0 1 1 0 3.3 5.0 0.0 1.7 1.7 0.0 3 5 0 0 0 0 5.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0.0 1 .7 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 .7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 .7 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4001 - 8000 Cont inu ing Seminars Short Workshops Groups and Cases Packaged Programs P r o f e s s i o n a l Reading Other 3 7.9 5 13. 2 2 5.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0..0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MORE THAN 0000 Cont i nu ing Seminars Shor t Workshops Groups and Cases Packaged Programs P r o f e s s i o n a l Reading Othe r 23 1 1. 7 36 1 0. 3 11 5 . 6 13 6 . 6 2 1.0 0.5 1 11 13 0 3 1 0 5.6 6.6 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 7 6 2 1 2 0 3.6 3 .0 1.0 0.5 1 .0 0.0 2 2 0 0 2 0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3 I 0 0 2 0 1 - 4000 8 9+ ON-CAMPUS ACTIVITY 14 7. 1 31 15.7 I 0.5 5 2.5 3 1.5 2 1.0 n % n % II n % n % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 1 0 0.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 5 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.7 0 1 3. 3 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 2 3 1 17 4 1 .5 1 .0 1 .5 0.5 0.6 2.0 % II 2 % Table 4.53 V. A c tiv itie s : Frequency o f On-Campus A c tiv itie s — Level 1 POSITION 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9+ ON-CAMPUS ACTIVITY n % n % n % n % n % n % It % n % n % COUNSELORS Co nt in u in g Seminars Short Workshops Groups and Cases Packaged Programs P r o f e s s i o n a l Reading Other 6 5.7 20 in.9 6 5.7 7 6.6 1 0.9 1 0.9 4 3.0 14 13.2 0 0.0 3 2.0 1 .9 2 2 1 .9 0 4 0 3 0 0 7 .5 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 3 4 I 1 2 0 2.0 3.0 0.9 0.9 1.9 0.0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 SECOND LINE C on t in u in g Seminars Shor t Workshops Groups and Cases Packaged Programs P r o f e s s i o n a l Reading O the r 11 13.1 12 1 4 .3 4 4.0 4 4.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 9.5 11 13.1 0 0.0 2 2 .4 2 2 .4 0 0.0 3 7 0 1 0 0 3 .6 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3.6 2 .4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 2.4 0 ‘0 . 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1 .2 0 0.0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1.2 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1 .2 2 2.4 1 1 .2 0 0.0 11 13.1 1 1.2 FIRST LINE Co nt in u in g Seminars Short Workshops Groups and Cases Packaged Programs P r o f e s s i o n a l Reading Other 0 19.5 5 1 2. 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4 0 0.0 2 4 0 0 0 0 4.9 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 2 .4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .0 2 4.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.4 9 22.0 1 2.4 OTHER Co nt in u in g Seminars Short Workshops Groups and Cases Packaged Programs P r o f e s s i o n a l Reading Other 3 4.7 7 10. 9 2 3.1 0 0.0 1 1.6 0 0.0 4 6.3 0 12.5 1 1.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0.0 4.7 0.0 3.1 1.6 0.0 1 0 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 1 .6 0.0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 3 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 1 6 3 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.9 5.7 2.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 Table 4.54 V. A c tiv itie s : Outstanding Topics—Size MORE THAN 8000 TOTAL 6 15 24 3 2 17 22 Improving Student Services 5 3 10 18 Ca reer Development and Life Planning 1 3 10 14 Human Potential and Improving Work Life 3 1 10 14 Computer Usage 1 1 8 10 Time Management 1 2 7 10 Planning and Goal Setting 2 2 5 9 OUTSTANDING TOPICS 1-4000 Burnout Prevention and Stress Reduction 3 Communication and Te a m Building 4001-8000 Table 4.55 V. A c tiv itie s : OUTSTANDING TOPICS Outstanding Topics—Level COUNSELORS 2ND LINE 1ST LINE 11 8 2 3 24 Conmunication and T e a m Building 8 5 5 4 22 Improving Student Services 3 ‘ 7 5 3 18 Career Development and Life Planning 7 4 2 1 14 Human Potential and Improving Work Life 6 5 1 2 14 Computer Usage 1 8 0 1 10 Time Manag eme nt 1 5 3 1 10 Planning and Goal Setting 2 1 4 1 9 Burnout Prevention and Stress Reduction OTHER TOTAL 150 Communication and Team Building and Improving Student Ser­ vices, and other practitioners— Communication and Team Building. Tables 4.56 and 4.57 present a listing of future topics to be included in staff development programming. Overall, the fourteen most often mentioned future topics for staff development programming include: and Team Building, Budgets, (1) Communication (2) Increasing Services with Decreasing (3) Staff Enrichment and Development, Life Planning, (5) Professional Growth Topics in General, Goal Setting and Decision Making, dent Needs, (4) Career and (7) Meeting Changing Stu­ (8) Personal Growth Topics in General, proving Budget and Management Skills, in Higher Education, (6) (9) Im­ (10) Issues and Trends (11) Updating Counseling Techniques, (12) Minority and Foreign Student Concerns, (13) Marketing strate­ gies for Recruitment, and (14) Program Evaluation Techniques. By size, the most popular future topics include: small institutions--Increasing Services with Decreasing Budgets, medium institutions — Communication and Team Building, and large institutions — Communication and Team Building. By level, the most popular future topics include: coun­ selors --Communication and Team Building, Increasing Services with Decreasing Budgets, and Staff Enrichment and Development; second-line administrators--Communication and Team Building; first-line administrators— Communication and Team Building; and other practitioners— Communication and Team Building. Table 4.56 V. A c tiv itie s : Future Topics--Size 1-4000 4001-8000 MORE THAN 8000 Communication and T e a m Building 3 6 25 34 Increasing Services/Decreasing Budgets 7 3 16 26 Staff Enrichment and Development 5 4 12 21 Career and Life Planning 5 1 11 17 Professional Growth Topics in General 5 4 8 17 Goal Setting and Decision Making 5 4 6 15 Meeting Changing Student Needs 3 5 7 15 Personal Growth Topics in General 4 4 5 13 Improving Budget and Management Skills 2 1 10 13 Issues and Trends in Higher Education 1 1 10 12 Updating Counseling Techniques 3 2 7 12 Minorit y and Foreign Student Concerns 2 1 7 10 Marketing Strategies for Recruitment 3 2 5 10 Program Evaluation Techniques 5 1 4 10 FUTURE TOPICS TOTAL Table 4.57 V. A c tiv itie s : FUTURE TOPICS Future Topics--Level COUNSELORS 2ND LINE 1ST LINE OTHER TOTAL Communication and T e a m Building 10 13 4 7 34 Increasing Services with Decreasing Budgets 10 9 2 5 26 Staff Enrichment and Development 10 3 3 5 21 Career and Life Planning 9 3 2 3 17 Professional Growth Topics in General 8 4 3 2 17 Goal Setting and Decision Making 6 4 3 2 15 Meeting Changing Student Needs 3 5 3 4 15 Personal Growth Topics in General 7 4 1 1 13 Improving Budget and Management Skills 1 9 3 0 13 Issues and Trends in Higher Education 4 3 1 4 12 Updating Counseling Techniques 8 2 1 1 12 Minority and Foreign Student Concerns 4 2 3 1 10 Marketing Strategies for Recruitment 4 3 1 2 10 Program Evaluation Techniques 4 3 3 0 10 Evaluation Tables 4.58, 4.59, arid 4.60 present the ranking of preferred evaluation methods used in staff development pro­ gramming . Overall, the preferred evaluation methods that would be most useful for evaluating staff development programs are first--self-reports and second--self-reports. By size, the first and second choice preferred evalua­ tion methods are somewhat expanded. Small institutions rank first--self-reports and second--observed changes. institutions rank: Medium first--both self-reports and question­ naires and second--both self-reports and questionnaires. Large institutions rank: first--self-reports and second-- self-reports. By level, the first and second choice preferred eval­ uation methods are somewhat expanded. Counselors rank: first--questionnaires and second--self-reports. administrators rank: tionnaires. first--self-reports and second--ques- First-line administrators rank: reports and second--observed changes. rank: Second-line first--self- Other practitioners first--self-reports and second--questionnaires. Tables 4.61, 4.62, and 4.63 tabulate the ranking of presently used evaluation methods for staff development programming. Overall, the presently used evaluation methods that measure the results of staff development programs are: first--self-reports and second--questionnaires. Table 4.58 V I. Evaluation: Ranking o f Evaluation Methods—Overall T a lly 1st Choice 2nd Choice EVALUATION n Questionnaires i % n i % 47 i 15.9 38 | 12.9 * 65 ' 22.0 * 42 1 14.2 Interviews 25 . 8.5 29 • 9.8 Observed Changes 35 i 11.9 36 | 12.2 7 ' i 2.4 6 2.0 Completion of MBO's and ABO's 19 , i 6.4 17 ' i i , i Program Instructors 1 ' 0.3 3 ' 1.0 Outside Consultants 6 2.0 20 . 6.8 Supervi sors 8 . i i 2.7 17 | 5.8 Other 1 0.3 1 ' i i i i 0.3 Self-Reports Attendance and Attrition Rates * Mode ' i i i i 5.8 Table 4.59 V I. Evaluation: Ranking o f Evaluation Methods--Size T a lly 1 - 4000 1st EVALUATION n Questionnaires ; % .. n ; % 11 n Attendance and Attrition Rates 1 , 1.7 1 . 20.0 1 . 1.7 1 ; % 0 . 0.0 3 0 1 Completion of MBO's and ABO's 6 , 10.0 1 5 . 8.3 1 0 Program Instructors 0 , 0.0 0 i 0.0 0 1 0.0 1 Outside Consultants 1 . 1.7 2 • 3.3 1 . 2.6 1 Supervisors 1 . 1.7 3 . 5.0 2 • 5.3 2 Other 0 , 0.0 1 0 , 0.0 0 . 0.0 1 0 Mode n 3 . 18.4 1 . 0.0 1 i ; % 2 • 5.3 5 . 8.3 4 , 6.7 * 1 2 n • 14.7 , 6.7 Observed Changes % * 4 *7 4 , 1 n 2nd . 18.4 1 1 . 2.6 9 • 15.0 Interviews 1st 2nd * 4 i 10.5 , 36.7 *2 2 1st i < 11.7 *7 ! 15.0 MORE THAN 8000 ; % . 18.3 9 Self-Reports * 2nd . 4001 - 8000 31 . 15.7 23 1 . 10.5 * 3 6 . 18.3 *29 1 . 2.6 20 . 10.2 23 1 . 7.9 29 ■ 14.7 21 I . 7.9 2 6 . 3.0 1 t 1 . 0.0 13 . 6.6 12 1 1 1 1 . 2.6 1 • 0.5 2 1 . 2.6 4 . 2.0 17 1 * 5.3 5 . 2.5 12 i 0.0 1 1 . 0.5 1 1 < 11.7 ■ 10.7 « 1.0 I ' 6.1 1 • 1.0 • 8.6 • 6.1 • 0.5 1 Table 4.60 V I. Evaluation: Ranking o f Evaluation Methods--Level T a lly COUNSELORS 1st LVALUATION rt Q ue s t i o n n a i r e s I n t e r v iews Observed Changes *27 2nd % . 25.5 . 23.6 t 9 . 0.5 1 12 . 1 1 . 3 25 Attendance and A t t r i t i o n Rates 3 . 1 2.0 Completion o f MBO's and ABO's 2 , 1 t 0 , 1 .9 I'royram I n s t r u c t o r s Outsi de Cons ul ta nt s Supervi sors Other * Mode 1 , 1 1 . 1 , 1 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 1 i n i o : *20 1st % 9.4 , 1 0. 9 10 , 9.4 10 . 9.4 4 . 1 1 6 , I 1 3 , i 0 , i 3 , i 0 , i 3 .0 5.7 1 1 I IRST LINE 2nd 1st OTHER 2nd 1st It ' 1 % n 1 % i J 9.0 3 1 , 7.3 4 i , 9.0 9 ,10.7 * 9 | 22.0 6 0.3 11 ! 13.1 3 | 3 | 10 , 11. 9 14 116. 7 6 1 14. 6 *1 1.2 0 | 0.0 0 , 5 i 1 , 12. 2 n % n 9 ! 10.7 * 1 6 *20 , 23.0 7 , 1 , I 1 .2 11 ! 13.1 ( 1 3’ '1 ; i % 7.3 , 3 .6 1 % i n 1 % i 0 ) 1 2. 5 *o * i 12. 5 1 , 14.6 *11 ; 17. 2 7 'I 1 0 . 9 7.3 6 i , 5 | 7.0 J 7.0 ! 17.1 i 1 4 I | 9.0 1 2nd 1 I 0.0 , n 9.4 I 7 , 1 0. 9 1 3 , 5 4.7 1 '1 1 1 .6 2 '1 1 3.1 3 ' 1 1 4.7 0.0 1 2.0 1 . 1.2 0 j 0.0 0 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 '1 0.0 0 ' 1 7.5 3 , 3 .6 4 | 4.0 I ; 2 .4 1 '1 1.6 7 ' 1 0. 9 1 2.0 2 2.4 6 ; /.i 3 ; 7.3 1 1 ' 2.4 I 4 , 9.0 2 ' 1 3.1 4 ' 1 6.3 0.0 0 | 0.0 0 | 0.0 0 1 0.0 0 ' 1 1 0.0 1 ' 1 1 1.6 1 1 1 0 1 1 0.0 156 Self-Reports '1 SECOND LINE Table 4.61 Evaluation: Presently Used Evaluation M e t h o d s — Overall Tally EVALUATION n % Questionnaires 53 17.9 Self-Reports 77 26.1 Interviews 24 8.1 Observed Changes 32 10.8 Attendance and Attrition Rates 24 8.1 Completion o f MBO's and ABO's 35 11.9 Program Instructors 10 3.4 Outside Consultants 19 6.4 Supervisors 37 12.5 6 2.0 Other Table 4.62 V I. Evaluation: Presently Used Evaluation Methods--Size T a lly 1 - 4000 4001 - 8000 MORE THAN 8000 EVALUATION Questionnaires Self-Reports n , 7 1 ' ! ' 19 % n i % n 11.7 2 ' 5.3 44 31.7 6 ' 15.8 52 15.0 0 ' 0.0 15 11.7 2 ' 5.3 23 3.3 2 ' 5.3 20 18.4 0 1 0.0 24 1.7 1 ' 2.6 8 6.7 1 ' 2.6 14 8.3 6 ' 15.8 26 1.7 1 ' 2.6 4 I Interviews 9 1 | Observed Changes 7 Attendance and Attrition Rates 2 ' I 1 | Completion of MBO's and ABO's 11 Program Instructors 1 Outside Consultants 4 Supervisors 5 Other 1 ' 1 I • 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 : 1 ' 1 ' I ' | ' 1 ' 1 I ■ 1 1 * 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 I 1 1 1 i % 22.3 26.4 7.6 11.7 10.1 12.2 4.0 7.1 13.2 2.0 Table 4.63 V I. Evaluation: Presently Used Evaluation Methods—Level T a lly COUNSELORS SECOND LINE FIRST LINE OTHER I i i 1 ' EVALUATION n % n i % n i % n % 1 \ 16 15.1 19 'i 22.6 9 | 22.0 9 | 14.0 Self-Reports 32 30.2 20 'i 23.8 11 : 26.8 14 | 21.9 4 3.7 13 'i 15.5 4 | 9.8 3 ! 4.7 Observed Changes 11 10.4 12 'i 14.3 8 | 19.5 1 1.6 Attendance and Attrition Rates 10 9.4 7 1i i 8.3 2 | 1 4.9 5 7.9 'i i 17.9 | 1 22.0 Interviews 1 j Completion o f MBO's and ABO's 7 Program Instructors 4 3.7 1 'i 1.2 1 | 2.4 4 | 6.3 Outside Consultants 6 5.6 5 'i 6.0 3 1 7.3 5 ! 7.9 10 8.4 8 'i 9.5 9 | 22.0 10 | 15.6 3 2.8 1 'i i i i 1.2 1 2.4 1 | 1 1 1 1.6 Supervisors Other 6.6 15 9 1 1 I 4 6.3 1 159 Questionnaires 160 By size, the first and second choice presently used evaluation methods are somewhat expanded. rank: Small institutions first--self-reports and second--completion of MBO's and ABO's. Medium institutions, rank: first--self reports and supervisors and second--questionnaires, observed changes, and attendance and attrition rates. Large institutions rank: first--self-reports and second questionnaires. By level, the first and second choice presently used evaluation methods are somewhat expanded. Counselors rank: first--self-reports and second--questionnaires. administrators rank: tionnaires. Second-line first--self-reports and second--ques- First-line administrators rank: first--self- reports and second--questionnaires, completion of MBO's and ABO's, and supervisors. Other practitioners rank: first-- self-reports and second--supervisors. Tables 4.64 and 4.65 tally the priority given to staff development programming relative to other divisional needs, opportunities, and/or problems. Overall, when compared to other divisional needs, op­ portunities, and/or problems; staff development receives the following priority: high priority from 13.67o of the respondents, moderate priority from 30.27. of the respon­ dents, and low priority from 38.07> of the respondents. By size, when compared to other divisional needs, op­ portunities, and/or problems; high priority from: staff development receives 15.07. of the small institutions, 2.67. of the medium institutions, and 15.2% of the large institutions. Table 4.64 V I. Evaluation: P r io r ity Given to S ta ff Development—Size OVERALL PRIORITY n High Priority Item Moderate Priority Item Low Priority Item 40 89 112 1 i 1 1 ' i 1 i 1 i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 1 - 4000 % 13.6 30.2 38.0 n 9 16 29 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 ' % 15.0 26.7 4001 - 8000 n 1 3 1 i i 1 1 1 ' % 2.6 MORE THAN 8000 n 1 i % 30 1 1 15.2 | 7.9 70 I 48.3 19 ' 1 50.0 64 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 l 1 1 l 1 1 35.5 | 1 1 l 1 1 l 1 32.5 Table 4.65 V I. Evaluation: PRIORITY P r io r ity Given to S ta ff Development—Level OVERALL | % n High Priority Item 40 1 1 3 .6 16 Moderate Priority Item 89 ' 3 0 .2 31 1 ' I 112 • 3 8 .0 41 ' Low Priority Item _________ ___ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 % n * 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 FIRST LINE i , i % n , 1 15 1 1 7 .9 4 2 9 .2 26 1 3 1 .0 16 3 8 .7 31 ' 3 6 .9 14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I % n 1 15.1 1 OTHER ' I ' I ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i I 1 % 9 .8 5 ' 7 .8 3 9 .0 16 ' 2 5 .0 34.1 26 1' 1 I 4 0 .6 1 1 1 : i i i t i t i i i i i t i 162 . , 1" 1 I I SECOND LINE ---- r i n COUNSELORS 163 Staff development receives moderate priority from; 26.7% of the small institutions, 7.97. of the medium institutions, and 35.57, of the large institutions. ceives low priority from: Staff development re­ 48.37. of the small institutions, 50.07. of the medium institutions, and 32.57. of the large institutions. By level, when compared to other divisional needs, op­ portunities, and/or problems; staff development receives high priority from: 15.1% of the counselors, 17.97. of the second-line administrators, 9.87. of the first-line admin­ istrators, and 7.87. of the other practitioners. velopment receives moderate priority from: counselors, Staff de­ 29.27, of the 31.0% of the second-line administrators, 39.07. of the first-line administrators, and 25.07. of the other practitioners. Staff development receives low priority from: 38.77. of the counselors, 36.97. of the second-line adminis­ trators, 34.17, of the first-line administrators, and 30.6% of the other practitioners. Tables 4.66, 4.67, and 4.68 display a listing of recom­ mended changes to improve staff development programming. Overall, the following changes are recommended to im­ prove staff development programming: program, ings, (1) Start a planned (2) Offer flexible scheduling and multiple offer­ (3) Gain administrative support, (4) Encourage staff participation, (5) Provide release time, quate funding, (7) Utilize both outside consultants and in-house staff, (6) Allocate ade­ (8) Emphasize accountability and evaluation Table 4.66 V I. Evaluation: Recommended Changes to Improve Programming—Overall CHANGES , % Start A Planned Program 74 ' 25.1 Offer Flexible Scheduling And Multiple Offerings 18 1 6.1 Gain Administrative Support 17 ' 5.8 Encourage Staff Participation 16 ' 5.4 Provide Release Time 15 ' 5.1 Allocate Adequate Funding 13 • 4.4 Utilize Both Outside Consultants And In-House Staff 7 ' 2.4 Emphasize Acc ountability And Evaluation Of Activities 6 ' 2.0 Appoint A Coordinator 5 ' 1.7 Conduct A Needs Assessment 3 1 1.0 Promote The Program 1 ' 0.3 164 n Table 4.67 V I. Evaluation: Recommended Changes to Improve Programming--Size 1 - 4000 4001 - 8000 MORE THAN 8000 CHANGES n . % n i % n % Start A Planned Program 22 O ff e r Flexible Scheduling And Multiple Offerings 1 Gain Administrative Support 4 ' 1 1 1 i 36.7 10 ' 26.3 42 1.7 2 | 5.3 15 Provide Release Time 6 Allocate Adequate Funding 2 Utilize Both Outside Consultants And In-House Staff 3 Emphasize Accountability And Evaluation Of Activities . 0 Appoint A Coordinator 1 Conduct A Needs Assessment Promote The Program 1 ' 1 ' 1 1 1 ' 1 1 21.3 7.6 6.7 2 ' 5.3 11 1.7 1 ' 2.6 14 '1 7.1 10.0 1 ' 2.6 8 I 4.1 3.3 3 1 7.9 8 '1 4.1 5.0 0 | 0.0 4 1 I 2.0 0.0 0 j 0.0 6 1' 1 3.0 5.6 1.7 0 | 0.0 4 0 1 11 0.0 2 | 5.3 1 '1 0.5 0 'I 0.0 0 | 0.0 1 '1 0.5 i 2.0 165 1 ' 1 1 1' i •Encourage Staff Participation % Table 4.68 V I. Evaluation: Recommended Changes to Improve Programming--Level COUNSELORS SECOND LINE n n i 22 i ' FIRST LINE OTHER CHANGES Start A Planned Program 29 27.4 % n 8 7.5 3 ' i i % n 26.2 9 3.6 1 1 'i 22.0 1 i 5 4.7 7 ' 2.4 | 21.9 6 | 9.4 1 8.3 1 Provide Release Time 3 5 3 3 Emphasize Account abi lity And Evaluation Of Activities 4 Appoint A Coordinator 0 0 Promote The Program 0 ' 2.4 6 '1 9.4 1 6.3 ' 7.1 1 4.7 6 ' 7.1 4 'i 9.8 0 '1 0.0 8.3 2 'i 4.9 1 '1 1.6 2.4 1 2.4 1 ; i.6 2.8 7 ' 2.8 3.8 0.0 2 0 3 ' 0.0 0 i t ' i 0.0 1 1 i 1 i ' ' 0 ' 1 i 2.4 1 '1 1.6 1 3.6 0 'i 0.0 2 0.0 3 1i 7.3 0 0.0 0 1i 0.0 1 1 0.0 i 1 1 Conduct A Needs Assessment 4 6 i Utilize Both Outside Consultants An In-House Staff 2.4 i 2.8 1 Allocate Adequate Funding ' '1 3.1 ' 0.0 '1 1.6 1 166 1 Encourage Staff Participation % 14 1 Gain Administrative Support ' t i 1 Offer Flexible Scheduling And Multiple Offerings 1 i 1 % 167 of activities, (9) Appoint a coordinator, (10) Conduct a needs assessment, and (11) Promote the program. popular overall change is: The most Start a planned program. By size, the most popular recommended change for all categories is: Start a planned program. often mentioned change is: The next most small institutions--Provide re­ lease time, medium institutions--Allocate adequate funding, and large institutions--Offer flexible scheduling and multi­ ple offerings. By level, the most popular recommended change for all categories is: Start a planned program. mentioned change is: The next most often counselors--Offer flexible scheduling and multiple offerings, second-line administrators-- both Gain administrative support and Allocate adequate fund­ ing, first-line administrators--Provide release time, and other practitioners--both Offer flexible scheduling and mul ­ tiple offerings and Encourage staff participation. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS In Chapter V, a summary of the development of the study --its findings, conclusions, and recommendations--is offered. The presentation includes the following specific areas: (a) Introduction, (b) Summary of the Development of the Study, (c) Descriptive Findings of the Study, the Study, (d) Conclusions of (e) Recommendations for Practice, and (f) Recom­ mendations for Further Research. Introduction The demands on community colleges have been tremendous. Community colleges have proclaimed their mission to be ex­ tremely broad in scope. monumental task. Community colleges have accepted a It is surprising how little attention has been given to the development of the staff, especially the staff of student services practitioners, to cope with the enormous challenges presented by community colleges. Prior to 1970, staff development usually consisted of staff attendance at conferences, an occasional sabbatical, and the familiar one- or two-day workshop at the beginning of the fall term. Often, most of the fall workshops were devoted to procedural matters rather than to substantive 168 169 staff development. In recent years, however, staff development programming has begun to come to the forefront of attention in community colleges. With the added emphasis on staff development, there has also come a new view. Whereas staff development previously referred to such practices as providing sabbati­ cal leaves or travel money, the term now generally refers to an entire range of activities. This new emphasis on staff development for student ser­ vices practitioners results from several significant forces of change impinging on community colleges. change include the following: The forces of steady state environment, de­ creased staff mobility, accountability and fiscal crunch, increased litigation and external regulation, changing clien­ tele, attrition rates and compensatory programs, changing technologies and delivery systems, and current interest in vocationalism and competence. All of these forces are having and will continue to have an enormous impact on student services practitioners within community colleges. If there is one word that ade­ quately describes the future of student services within community colleges, it is change--change in staff roles, change in program trends, and change in organizational struc­ tures. Staff development offers an excellent means not only to deal with change but also to revitalize student services staff and programs. 170 Summary of the Development of the Study Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study was to analyze through a ques­ tionnaire the nature and extent of staff development program­ ming for full-time, professional student services practitioners within Michigan community colleges. It was also the purpose of the study to determine and describe differences: (1) among three different size categories of institutions, and (2) among four different level categories of student services practitioners. More specifically, the study on staff develop­ ment programming was designed for the following purposes: 1. To examine which objectives or purposes are most important and to determine if any of these objectives are in writing. 2. To explore which components or elements are suggested in the literature and to determine the current and preferred sta­ tus of these concepts and methods. 3. To identify which barriers decrease or hinder success and/or participation. 4. To survey which incentives would increase or improve success and/or participation and to determine which are actually used. 5. To analyze which activities are worth­ while or beneficial and todetermine the frequency of their use. 6. To review which general topics were out­ standing during past year activities. 7. To define which general topics should be emphasized in future activities. 8. To investigate which evaluation methods would be useful and to determine which are actually used. 171 9. To determine what priority is given to staff development. 10. To summarize what changes are recommended to improve staff development. Review of the Literature In Chapter II, the literature is reviewed. Only the pertinent literature directly relating staff development to community college student services practitioners is examined. The presentation includes the following significant areas: (a) Revitalized Definition of Staff Development, tance of Staff Development, ment, (b) Impor­ (c) Objectives of Staff Develop­ (d) Components of Staff Development, Incentives to Staff Development, (e) Barriers and (f) Activities Involved in Staff Development, and (g) Evaluation of Staff Development. The term "staff development" connotes different things to different writers. Various definitions are presented to better understand the term as it relates to programming. Several writers also cite different reasons for valuing staff development programming. tant for: Staff development is impor­ meeting the pressures of change and conflict, keep­ ing staff informed, upgrading skills, abilities, and tech­ nologies, training staff, and improving student services pro­ grams. Staff development is also important for: improving morale, stimulating creative problem solving, facilitating goal-setting, and increasing productivity and efficiency. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 outline particular objectives and distinguishable components for the design and implementation 172 of staff development programs. The objectives and components are listed from most to least often suggested. Recommenda­ tions from community college and/or student services experts, practitioners, and researchers are tallied and compared within the tables. Several writers also present what they view as formid­ able barriers and possible incentives for staff development programming. The various barriers and incentives must be con­ sidered in the early needs assessment to decrease resistance and increase participation. Voluntary, rather than mandatory or contractual, participation is strongly recommended to maxi­ mize the success of the entire staff development program. Although a general consensus exists relating the value of staff development to student services practitioners, there is less than complete agreement regarding how the programs should be implemented and how much emphasis should be given to certain activities as compared to others. Numerous writers present different activities, specific models, and national studies for review. Only the creative abilities, management skills, and fiscal and human resources of student services practitioners limit the possibilities. While the literature of staff development is replete with descriptions of programs, little evidence is available regarding the impact of these programs on participants, divi­ sions, institutions, and students. Various writers stress the need for evaluation and suggest different guidelines and available methods to complete the task. 173 Methodology of the Study In Chapter III, the methodology used in the descriptive study is reviewed. The sample selected for the study includes only full-time, professional student services practitioners within the 29 Michigan community colleges. The 29 Michigan community colleges comprise a total of 38 individual compuses. The sample does not include either part-time or support staff. Because of the differences among the many campuses, only full­ time, professional staff from the following areas are included in the study: admissions, records, counseling, student activ­ ities, financial aid, placement, housing, and dean's office. The sample surveys three different size categories of institutions: (1) 1-4000 students, and (3) More than 8000 students. (2) 4001-8000 students, The sample also surveys four different level categories of student services practi­ tioners: (1) Guidance counselors (within counseling office), (2) Second-line administrators (chairpersons, directors, coor­ dinators, department heads), (3) First-line administrators (vice-presidents, deans, assistant deans), and (4) Other pro­ fessional student services practitioners (within admissions, records, counseling, student activities, financial aid, place­ ment, housing, and dean's office). The instrument used in the study is the questionnaire. Six main sections comprise the instrument: mation, (2) Objectives or Purposes, (4) Barriers and Incentives, (1) General Infor­ (3) Components or Elements, (5) Activities, and (6) Evaluation. The questionnaire is printed on a three page foldout (8% x 11 174 both sides). The completion time for the 17 multiple choice and short answer questionnaire is estimated at less than 20 minutes. For most questions, participants are asked to simply check (j/) the appropriate response. For other questions, par­ ticipants are asked to respond according to the given instruc­ tions . The data collection includes four major steps. The first step involves obtaining the endorsement of the Michigan Asso­ ciation of Community College Student Personnel Administrators (MACCSPA). The second step involves contacting by telephone the chief student services administrators at the 38 Michigan community college campuses to explain the purpose of the study, to obtain their overall willingness to participate, and to attain an estimate of the number of full-time, professional student services practitioners at each campus. The third step involves forwarding to each division head an institutionallycoded package of materials containing the following: appro­ priate number of questionnaires and envelopes, general cover letters, special cover letter, endorsement letter, return post card, and return mailing envelope. completing the study. methods and techniques: The fourth step involves Follow-up procedures include several first follow-up letter, early thank you letter, second follow-up letter, late thank you letter, first telephone call, second telephone call, and third tele­ phone call. Throughout the entire follow-up procedure, the important role of each division head is acknowledged as vital to the success of the study. 175 Finally, the data analysis consists of coding and key­ punching the questionnaire responses for computer analysis. Using the computer program entitled "The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences" (SPSS), specific information is analyzed from the six sections of the questionnaire: General Information, (2) Objectives or Purposes, ponents or Elements, (4) Barriers and Incentives, ities, and (6) Evaluation. (1) (3) Com­ (5) Activ­ Differences are determined and described among three different size categories and among four different level categories. Descriptive statistics are used to analyze the responses. are used to present the information. Narratives and tables Descriptive Findings of the Study The following descriptive findings highlight the study: 1. one-half Representing all 38 campuses to some degree, almost of the 295 respondents indicate the presence of a staff development program. Large institutions and counselors are more likely than other groups to have a program. Thus, staff development has advanced from a series of individual events to an ongoing process within many student services divisions. Especially among large institutions and counselors, staff development is considered a direct function rather than an additional activity of student services divisions. 2. The mode for the length of existence is 3-5 years among institutions having a staff development program. Thus, even though staff development is not a new idea, division-wide 176 staff development programming for student services practi­ tioners is a fairly new concept. 3. The mode for the number of hours per month devoted to staff development is 1-2 hours among institutions having a staff development program. Thus, despite the forces of change impinging on community colleges and student services practitioners, the mode of 1-2 hours per month is feasible. Allocating more time to staff development may be idealistic but unrealistic. 4. Overall, the following objectives are ranked: first --to learn new skills and competencies related to performance and second--to design new programs to better meet student needs and demands. These rankings are consistent with Miller's (1975) national study. These objectives are also consistent with the objectives suggested by various writers in Table 2.1. 5. concepts: General agreement exists regarding the following (a) Staff needs should determine the basis for the staff development program. (b) Specific responsibility for the staff development program should be assigned to one person, (c) Participation is vital to the success of the staff develop­ ment program. These concepts are consistent with the com­ ponents recommended by various writers in Table 2.2. 6. General agreement also exists regarding the follow­ ing methods: (a) Staff discussion should be used to determine staff needs. (b) Specific responsibility for the staff de­ velopment program should be assigned to the chief adminis­ trator. Counselors and second-line administrators, however, 177 would assign specific responsibility to the division chair­ person. (c) Voluntary participation should be used to en­ courage attendance at activities. These methods are con­ sistent with the components recommended by various writers in Table 2.2. 7. Overall, the barriers that most likely decrease programming are: funding. first--time, second--time, and third-- These barriers are consistent with Gross (1963) who ranks: first--time and second--funding. These barriers are inconsistent, however, with Miller (1975) who ranks: first--cost, second--probable benefit, and third--location of activity. 8. Overall, the incentives that most likely increase programming are: first--released time, second--personal growth, and third--professional growth. These incentives are inconsistent with Gross (1963) who ranks: and desire of program participants. first--interest The incentives are con­ sistent, however, with Miller (1975) who ranks: first-- development of specific skills and second--exposure to new approaches and resource utilization. The incentives are also consistent with Novak and Barnes (1977) who rank: first-- personal and professional growth. 9. Overall, the off-campus activities that are consid­ ered most worthwhile or benficial for staff development pro­ gramming include: sional meetings. first and second--conventions and profes­ Overall, the on-campus activities that are considered most worthwhile or beneficial include: first-- 178 in-house continuing seminars and second--short-term workshops. These activities are consistent with Gross (1963) who ranks: first--professional meetings and second--staff seminars. These activities are consistent with Morphy (1978) who ranks: first--off-campus workshops. with Miller (1975) who ranks: These activities are consistent first--professional off-campus workshops and second--professional on-campus workshops. These activities are also consistent with Rhatigan and Crawford (1978) who rank: first--personal exchange of ideas and second --professional meetings. 10. Overall, the evaluation methods that are most useful for measuring staff development activities are: second--self-reports. first and These evaluation methods are consistent with Gross (1963) and Morphy (1978) who both rank: informal self-reports. first-- These evaluation methods are incon­ sistent, however, with Novak and Barnes (1977) who rank: first (Florida)--standardized tests and first (Illinois)-experimental designs. Conclusions of the Study After analyzing the descriptive findings presented in Chapter IV, the following conclusions are offered: 1. The high return rate to the questionnaire is inter­ preted as an indication of considerable interest in staff development. The low priority assigned to staff development and the absence of staff development programs among almost one-half of the respondents, however, are interpreted as 179 indications that staff development has not advanced from a series of individual events to an ongoing process within many student services divisions. 2. Small and large institutions appear to follow similar response patterns regarding objectives, components, barriers, incentives, activities, and evaluation criteria for staff development programming. Medium institutions, however, ap­ pear to follow different response patterns regarding the above mentioned areas. 3. No particular response patterns are observed among the four level categories of student services practitioners. Although some overlapping occurs, each level appears to have its own needs and opinions regarding staff development pro­ gramming objectives, components, barriers, incentives, activ­ ities, and evaluation criteria. 4. Although large institutions and counselors are more likely than other groups to record the presence of a staff development program; small and large institutions and secondline administrators are more likely than other groups to assign a higher priority to staff development. 5. The most often recommended change overall, by size category, and by level category is to start a division-wide staff development program. This recommendation is inter­ preted as an indication of new or continued interest in staff development programming. 180 Recommendations for Practice As a result of the above findings and conclusions, the following recommendations are presented for consideration: 1. Division-wide staff development programs should be started or updated to better meet the needs of student ser­ vices practitioners. following factors: This recommendation is based on the (1) Starting a planned program is the most popular recommended change overall, by size of insti­ tution, and by level of practitioner. (2) Less than one- half of the respondents indicate the existence of a staff development program. (3) The literature strongly supports the benefits of staff development programming. 2. The most worthwhile and beneficial objectives, com­ ponents, incentives, activities, and evaluation criteria should be considered in organizing or revising staff develop­ ment programs. The needs and opinions of different sizes of institutions and different levels of practitioners should also be reviewed. 3. Objectives related to staff development programming should be clear and in writing. Evaluation techniques should be maintained, both on a division-wide and individual basis, to correlate the objectives with the needs of the staff and the results of the program. 4. Chief student services administrators and division chairpersons should be instrumental in allocating released time for the ongoing process and in setting the tone for the success of the division-wide program. 181 5. Staff development should become a highly visible priority item along with other divisional needs, opportunities, and/or problems. Only in this way will staff development pro­ gramming become a direct function of the student services division. Recommendations for Further Research As a result of the literature reviewed in Chapter II and the findings described in Chapter IV, further research is indicated for determining the impact of staff development programming on practitioners, divisions, institutions, and students. With the present shortage of funds throughout higher education, this type of research is especially im­ portant to justify continued funding and expansion of staff development efforts. In conclusion, there are no indications that staff de­ velopment programming has experienced the loss of momentum so characteristic of other innovative ventures in higher education. Interest in staff development continues to grow. Thus, staff development programming is not a luxury or a frill; it is a vital means of keeping an expensive and sophisticated instrument functioning at its best to cope with the changes of the future. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MICHIGAN PUBLIC JUNIOR AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES APPENDIX A MICHIGAN PUBLIC JUNIOR AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES ONTONAGON BARAGA f ALGER 'CHIPPEWA _____ 1 [SCHOOLCRAFT* ~l [m a c k i n a c DELTA MENOM! EMMETxCNt 21 P R E S O U E ISL < CHA*LEVOix~\ '~ 1 f i T S E G O ]m W M O R - ] T l P E N A ’ ANTRIM 'P eMCr \k A L K A S H A iC R A W F O R d T o S C O C A 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Alpena Community College Bay de Noc Community College C.S. Mott Community College Delta College Glen Oaks Community College Gogebic Community College Grand Rapids Jr. College Henry Ford Community College Highland Park Community College Jackson Community College Kalamazoo Valley Community College Kellogg Community College Kirtland Community College Lake Michigan College Lansing Community College Macomb County Community College Mid Michigan Community College Monroe County Community College Montcalm Community College Muskegon Community College North Central Michigan College Northwestern Michigan College Oakland Community College St. Clair County Community College Schoolcraft College Southwestern Michigan College Washtenaw Community College Wayne County Community College West Shore Community College ALCONA N I S T E E ^ W E X F O r F ^ M I S S A U K E e Ir O S C O M - ~ \ ~ O G E M A W "mA S O n T l AKE ' J O S C E O L A ’[ ~ C L A R E ' ® OCEANA NEWATGO MECOSTA fG L A O W I n i IOSCO T a RENAC i" h u r o n I S A B E L L A 1M I D L A N D TUSCOLA MUSKE­ GON MONTCALM VGRATIOT i 19 KENT _ _ _ 1- - - - Lr_.4. IONIA •C L I N T O N TTAWA BARRY > V A N B U R E N [KALAMAZOO © L BERRIEN| ■ ST JACKSON CALHOUN I® . 182 ! [~OAKLAND jLIVINGSTON fASHTENAW \ M & t E I J O S E P H , B R A N C yP ^ I L L S O A L E . L E N A W E E © .j J GHAM EATON _________ 55 ' I f CLAIR SHiAWAS-, L. ._L. 1 i "i — -LAPEIR [GENESEE Sfl ALLEGAN \S A N I L A C .r \S A G I N A W ----- 1 , MONROE ! @ L.,@ [m A C O M B ) APPENDIX B NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CHIEF STUDENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS APPENDIX B NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CHIEF STUDENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS Mr. John McCormack Dean, Students and Administrative Services Alpena Community College Alpena, MI 49707 Dr. Carolyn Williams Dean of Student Services Highland Park College Highland Park, MI 48203 Mr. K. James Peterson Dean of Student Services Bay de Noc Community College Escanaba, MI 49829 Mr. Douglas Mowry Vice-President for Student Affairs Jackson Community College Jackson, MI 49201 Mr. Richard Johnson Dean o f Student Personnel Charles Stewart Mott Community College Flint, MI 48503 Dr. Bruce Kocker Dean of Students Kalamazoo Valley Community College Kalamazoo, MI 49009 Mr. Ellsworth Duguid Dean of Student Affairs Delta College University Center, MI 48710 Dr. Chris Zichterman Vice-President for Community and Student Services Kellogg Community College Battle Creek, MI 49016 Mrs. Lynn Wonnacott Director of Student Development Glen Oaks Community College Centreville, MI 49032 Mr. William Ingleson Career Advisor Kirtland Community College Roscommon, MI 48653 Mr. David Lindquist Dean of Student Personnel Gogebic Community College Ironwood, MI 49938 Dr. Tony Swerbinsky Acting Dean of Students Lake Michigan College Benton Harbor, MI 49022 Dr. Allen Jackson Dean of College Services Grand Rapids Junior College Grand Rapids, MI 49052 Dr. William Schaar Dean, Student Personnel Services Lansing Community College Lansing, MI 48914 Mr. Wallace Smith Dean, Student Personnel Services Henry Ford Community College Dearborn, MI 48128 Mr. Eugene Guswiler Dean of Students Macomb County Community College--Center Campus Mt. Clemens, MI 48044 183 APPENDIX B (CONTINUED) NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CHIEF STUDENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS Mr. Karl Wagner Dean of Student Services Macomb County Community College— South Campus Warren, MI 48093 Mr. Prentice Ryan Dean of Students Oakland Community College Highland Lakes Campus Union Lake, MI 48085 Mr. T. Allen Nichols Dean of Student Services Mid Michigan Community College Harrison, MI 48625 Mr. Charles Yeramian Dean of Student Personnel Services Oakland Community College Orchard Ridge Campus Farmington, MI 48024 Mr. Gerald Welch Dean of Student Personnel Services Monroe County Community College Monroe, MI 48161 Dr. Virginia Svagr Cooper Dean, Administration and Personnel Services Oakland Community College Southeast Campus Royal Oak, MI 48067 Mr. Robert Minnick Director of Student Services Montcalm Community College Sidney, MI 48885 Dr. F. B. Hauenstein Dean of Student Affairs St. Clair County Corrmunity College Port Huron, MI 48060 Dr. Preston Pulliams Dean of Students Muskegon Community College Muskegon, MI 49442 Mr. Dave Munger Dean of Students North Central Michigan College Petoskey, MI 49770 Mr. Edward V. McNally Vice-President for Student Affairs Schoolcraft College Livonia, MI 48151 Dr. Lornie Kerr Dean of Student Services Northwestern Michigan College Traverse City, MI 49684 Mr. David Schultz Vice-President for Student Services Southwestern Michigan College Dowagiac, MI 49047 Dr. George Mitchell Dean of Students Oakland Community College Auburn Hills Campus Auburn Heights, MI 48057 Dr. Calvin Williams Acting Dean, Student Personnel Services Washtenaw Community College Ann Arbor, MI 48106 184 APPENDIX B (CONTINUED) NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF CHIEF STUDENT SERVICES ADMINISTRATORS M r. Fred Novack S tu d en t S e rv ic e s D ir e c to r Wayne County Community C o lle g e C e n tra l O f f ic e D e t r o i t , MI 48201 M r. B ria n C allaghan S tu d en t S e rv ic e s Counselor Wayne County Community C o lle g e D ow nriver Region T a y lo r , MI 48180 Ms. M i l l i e Tanner S tu d en t S e rv ic e s D ir e c t o r Wayne County Community C o lle g e Downtown Region D e t r o i t , MI 48226 Ms. Casandra Lewis S tu d e n t S e rv ic e s D ir e c t o r Wayne County Community C o lle g e E a ste rn Region D e t r o i t , MI 48224 Ms. Yvonne McGee S tu d e n t S e rv ic e s D ir e c t o r Wayne County Community C o lle g e N orthw est Region D e t r o i t , MI 48228 Ms. J a n e t Maxey S tu d en t S e rv ic e s D ir e c t o r Wayne County Community C o lle g e W estern Region In g s t e r , MI 48141 Dr. Samuel Mazman Dean, S tu d e n t S e rv ic e s West Shore Community C o lle g e S c o t t v i l l e , MI 49454 185 APPENDIX C SIZE CATEGORIES OF INSTITUTIONS APPENDIX C SIZE CATEGORIES OF INSTITUTIONS 1 - 4000 Alpena Bay de Noc Glen Oaks Gogebic H ighland Park K irk la n d Lake M ichigan Mid M ichigan Monroe Montcalm North C e n tra l N orthw estern M ichigan Southw estern M ichigan West Shore 4001 - 8000 2 3 6 5 6 4 3 4 4 4 3 9 4 3 Kalamazoo K e l1ogg Muskegon S t , C l a i r County S c h o o lc r a ft More Than 8000 3 6 8 6 16 C h arles S te w a rt M o tt D e lta Grand Rapids Henry Ford , Jackson Lansing Macomb — C enter South Oakland - Auburn H i l l s H ighland Lakes Orchard Ridge S o uth eastern Washtenaw Wayne County — C e n tra l Downriver Downtown Eastern N orthw est Western _______________________________________________________- — — ----------- 19 31 11 13 5 21 7 23 7 5 7 5 15 9 3 2 5 2 6 APPENDIX D LEVEL CATEGORIES OF STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS APPENDIX D LEVEL CATEGORIES OF STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS COMMUNITY COLLEGE COUNSELORS SECOND LINE FIRST LINE OTHER TOTAL Alpena 1 1 Bay de Noc 1 1 1 3 C h arles S te w a rt M o tt 4 7 1 7 19 D e lta 9 11 8 31 Glen Oaks 2 3 1 1 1 Gogebic 2 6 3 5 3 11 Grand Rapids 1 5 Henry Ford 9 1 1 2 13 H ighland Park 2 2 1 1 6 Jackson 2 2 1 Kalamazoo K ellogg 5 1 1 2 K irk la n d Lake M ichigan 1 Lansing 7 11 3 1 2 6 1 3 4 1 1 3 3 21 APPENDIX D (CONTINUED) LEVEL CATEGORIES OF STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS COMMUNITY COLLEGE COUNSELORS SECOND LINE FIRST LINE OTHER TOTAL Macomb County — C enter 2 5 7 11 4 4 4 23 Mid M ichigan 1 1 1 1 4 Monroe 2 1 1 Montcalm 2 2 Muskegon 4 1 2 North C e n tra l 1 1 1 N orthw estern 1 3 1 4 9 Auburn H i l l s 4 1 1 1 7 H ig h lan d Lakes 1 1 1 2 5 4 1 2 7 2 5 2 6 South 4 4 1 8 3 Oakland — O rchard Ridge S o uth east S t. C l a i r County 3 2 1 1 APPENDIX D (CONTINUED) LEVEL CATEGORIES OF STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS COMMUNITY COLLEGE S c h o o lc r a ft COUNSELORS 11 SECOND LINE FIRST LINE OTHER 2 2 1 16 3 1 4 1 4 15 1 9 Southwestern TOTAL 5 5 C e n tra l 2 6 Dow nriver 2 1 3 Downtown 1 1 2 E astern 4 1 5 N orthw est 1 1 Western 3 2 Washtenaw Wayne County - - 139 Westshore 2 2 1 1 6 3 r APPENDIX E A QUESTIONNAIRE TO ANALYZE STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING FOR STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS WITHIN MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES APPENDIX E A QUESTIONNAIRE TO ANALYZE STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING FOR STUDENT SERVICES PRACTITIONERS WITHIN MICHIGAN COMMUNITY COLLEGES D e fin itio n : A S t a f f Development Program in c lu d e s a l l a c t i v i t i e s , planned in accordance w ith s p e c if ic o r assumed o b je c t iv e s , t h a t a re in te n d e d to c o n tr ib u te to th e c o n tin u in g p ro fe s s io n a l a n d /o r perso nal growth o f i n ­ d iv id u a ls co m p risin g a s tu d e n t s e rv ic e s s t a f f . Some phases o f a S t a f f Development Program may be a p p lic a b le t o an e n t i r e s t a f f w h ile o th e r phases may be a p p ro p r ia te o n ly to c e r t a in s t a f f members. R e g u la r s t a f f m eetings d e a lin g w ith d a i l y r o u tin e m a tte rs a re n o t c o n sid ered a p a r t o f a S t a f f Development Program. D ir e c t io n s : Most item s can be answered by p la c in g a check {/) mark in th e b la n k box ( ) . P lease respond a p p r o p r ia t e ly where in fo rm a tio n is req u e ste d f o r o th e r q u e s tio n s . Com pletion tim e : 20 m in u te s . I. G eneral 1. What is th e s iz e ( ( ( 2. In fo rm a tio n : ) 1. ) 2. ) 3. (head c o u n t) o f y o u r i n s t it u t io n ? 1-400 0 stu d e n ts 4 0 0 1 -8 0 0 0 stu d e n ts More than 8000 s tu d e n ts P lease p r i n t th e t i t l e o f y o u r p o s itio n and d ep artm en t. A ls o , what is th e g en eral c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f yo u r p o s itio n ? 3. ( ( ) 1. ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) 4. How long have you been employed w it h in y o u r D iv is io n o f S tu d e n t S e rv ic e s ? ( ( ( ( ( 4. Guidance co u n selo r ( w it h in c o u n s e lin g o f f i c e ) S e c o n d -lin e a d m in is tr a t o r (c h a ir p e r s o n , d i r e c t o r , c o o r d in a to r , dep artm ent head) F i r s t - l i n e a d m in is tr a t o r ( v ic e - p r e s id e n t , dean, a s s is t a n t dean) O th e r p ro fe s s io n a l s tu d e n t s e rv ic e s p r a c t i t i o n e r ( w it h in ad m is s io n s , re c o rd s , s tu d e n t a c t i v i t i e s , f in a n c i a l a i d , p la c e m e n t, h o u sin g , o r d e a n 's o f f i c e ) ) ) ) ) ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Less than 1 y e a r 1 -2 y e a rs 3 -5 y e a rs 6 -9 y e a rs More than 9 years To y o u r know ledge, does y o u r D iv is io n o f S tu d en t S e rv ic e s p r e s e n tly have a S t a f f Developm ent Program? ( ) ( ) ( ) 1. 2. 3. Yes U nsure, do n o t know No 190 5. To y o u r know ledge, how long has y o u r S t a f f Developm ent Program e x is te d w it h in y o u r D iv is io n o f S tudent S e rv ice s? ( ( ( ( ( ( 6. ) ) ) ) ) ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. No program p r e s e n tly e x is t s Less than 1 y e a r 1 -2 years 3 -5 y ea rs 6 -9 y ea rs More than 9 y e a rs A p p ro x im a te ly , how many hours p er month do you p a r t i c i p a t e in D iv is io n a l S t a f f Development A c t i v i t i e s ? ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 0 hours p er month 1 -2 hours p er month 3 -4 hours p er month 5 -6 hours p er month 7 -8 hours per month More than 9 hours p e r month O b je c tiv e s o r Purposes 7. 8. In y o u r o p in io n , which g en eral purposes a re most im p o rta n t f o r yo u r D iv is io n a l S t a f f Development Program? P lease ra n k th e two ch o ices which b e s t d e s c rib e y o u r o p in io n . P lace a "1" in f r o n t o f y o u r f i r s t c h o ic e . P la c e a "2" in f r o n t o f y o u r second c h o ic e . Please do n o t ran k any o th e r ite m s . J u s t rank y o u r f i r s t and second c h o ic e s . ( ) 1. ( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) 4. ( ) 5. ( ) 6. ( ) 7. ( ) 8. O p p o rtu n ity to become aware o f th e many d i f f e r e n t s e r v ic e s , program s, and in v o lv e ­ ments o f th e D iv is io n o f S tu d en t S e rv ic e s . O p p o rtu n ity to e x p lo re tim e ly issues and tre n d s r e la t e d to h ig h e r e d u c a tio n and s tu d e n t s e rv ic e s work. O p p o rtu n ity to le a r n new s k i l l s and com­ p e te n c ie s r e la te d to jo b perform ance. O p p o rtu n ity to s o lv e o ld p roblem s, new p roblem s, and p e rp le x in g problems r e la t e d to s tu d e n t s e rv ic e s w ork. O p p o rtu n ity to design new programs to b e t t e r meet s tu d e n t needs and demands. O p p o rtu n ity to s tim u la te s t a f f tow ard personal growth and in tr o s p e c t io n . O p p o rtu n ity to i n t e r a c t w ith f e llo w p ro ­ fe s s io n a ls w it h in th e D iv is io n as w e ll as th e community c o lle g e . O th e r o b je c tiv e s (p le a s e e x p la in ) To y o u r know ledge, a re any o f y o u r purposes o r o b je c tiv e s f o r y o u r S t a f f Developm ent Program in w r itin g ? ( ) ( ) ( ) 1. 2. 3. Yes U nsure, do n o t know No 191 III. Components or Elements: The fo llo w in g c o n c e p ts , d e riv e d from th e l i t e r a t u r e a re gen­ e r a l l y c o n sid ered to be im p o rta n t in th e design o f a S t a f f Development Program (SD P ). C o n tro v e rs y e x i s t s , how ever, re g a rd in g which methods a re most e f f e c t i v e f o r im plem enta­ tio n . P lease check (✓ ) th e a p p r o p r ia te box ( ) to in d ic a t e y o u r o p in io n re g a rd in g th e c u r r e n t and p r e fe r r e d s ta tu s o f y o u r S t a f f Developm ent Program. C u rre n t S ta tu s P r e fe r r e d S ta tu s 1 = Is p a r t o f program 2 = U ndecided, no o p in io n 3 = Is n o t p a r t o f program 4 = Should be p a r t o f program 5 = U ndecided, no o p in io n 6 = Should n o t be p a r t o f program C u rre n t S ta tu s 1 Concept: S t a f f needs d e term in e th e b a s is f o r th e SDP. Method: S t a f f needs a re d eterm in ed by: 1. Survey 2. S t a f f d is c u s s io n 3. A d v is o ry com m ittee 4. A d m in is tr a tiv e decree 5. O th e r (p le a s e e x p la in ) 2 3 4 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ( ( ( ( ) ( 6 ( ) ( ) ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ( ( ( ( ( Specific responsibility for Staff Development Programming is assigned to one person. Method: Responsibility is assigned to: 1. Chi ef administrator ( ) () 2. Division chairperson ( ) ( ) ( 3. Division staff member ( ) () 4. Committee chairperson ( ) () 5. Special SDP officer ( ) () 6. Other (please explain) ( ) () ( ) ( ( ( ( C oncept: Participation is vital to the success of the SDP. ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Method: Participation is: 1. Voluntary 2. Mandatory 3. Contractual 4. Othe r (please explain) ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ( ) 5 Concept: 192 ( ) ( ( ( ( P r e fe r r e d S ta tu s ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) ) ( ) ) ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ( ) ( ( ( ( ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Barriers and Incentives: 10. In you r opinion, which general barriers most generally decrease or hinder the success and/or participation of yo u r Staff De ­ velopment Program? Please rank the three choices (1, 2, 3) which best describe your opinion. ( ) T i m e — scheduling of activities is inade­ quate or inflexible ( ) 2. L o cat ion- -site of activities is inconven­ ient or inaccessible. ( ) 3. Fu ndi ng--!imited or no money is available to c ov e r activity expenses. ( ) 4. Leadership--no particular person or group is responsible for planning activities. ( ) 5. Expertise^--knowledge or technique for organizing activities is insufficient. ( ) 6. Support--administrative support for staff development is lacking. ( ) 7. Promotioji--activities are not communicated or advertised to participants. ( ) 8. Interest— staff see little or no need for staff development activities. ( ) 9. Re leva nce — activities have little or no value, practicality, or applicability. ( ) 10. Dec entralization— staff coordination or unity is restricted or lacking. ( ) 11. Col 1 ecti ve B a rgai nin g— contractual a g r e e ­ ments prevent or limit activities. ( ) 12. Other barriers (please explain) 11. 1. In you r opinion, which general incentives would most likely increase or improve the success and/or participation o f you r Staff Development Program? Please rank the three choices (1, 2, 3) which best describe yo u r opinion. Also, please indicate which incentives are actually used within your Division of Student Services. Actual nion 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Released time Promotions Salary increases Participation payment Merit pay points Personal growth Professional growth Peer recognition Divisional recognition Institutional recognition Public recognition Travel to conferences or colleges Continuing education units Graduate credit Other incentives (please explain) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. A c tiv itie s : 12. In y o u r opinion, which general activities are the most wort h­ while or beneficial for y o u r Staff Development Program? Please rank two off-campus choices (1, 2) and two on-campus choices (1, 2) which best describe y o u r opiniorn Also, please indicate the number of times y o u have used each activity during the past year. Opinion Frequency Off-Campus Acti vities 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Conventions or professional meetings Summer or year-long institutes College visitations Staff retreats Sabbaticals, staff exchange programs, apprenticeships, or course work Other activities (please explain) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. On-Campus Activities ( ) 7. ( ) 8. ( ) 9. ( ) 10. ( ) 11. ( ) 12. In-house continuing seminars Short -te rm workshops Encounter groups, role playing, or case studies Packaged programs, tape recordings, or films Professional reading Other activities (please explain) 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. In you r opinion, what general topics were outstanding during yo u r past y e a r o f Staff Development Activities? 14. In you r opinion, what general topics should be emphasized during future Staff Development Activities? VI. Evaluation: 15. In y o u r o p i n i o n , which gen eral e v a lu a t i o n methods would be most u s e fu l f o r e v a l u a t i n g y o u r S t a f f Development Program? Please rank th e two cho ices ( 1 , 2) which b e s t d e s c r ib e y o u r o p in io n . A ls o , p le a s e i n d i c a t e which e v a lu a t i o n methods a r e a c t u a l l y used w i t h i n y o u r D i v i s i o n . Actual O pinion ( ) 1. ( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) 16. ( ) 5. ( ) 6. ( ) 7. ( ) 8. ( ) 9. ( ) 10. 1. __ 2. _ 3- _ 4. _ 5. _ 6- _ 7. _ 8- _ 9- _ 10 . In you r opinion, wha t is the priority given to you r Staff Development Program relative to other Division needs, opp o r ­ tunities, and/or problems? ( ( ( 17. 4. Q uestio nnai r e s - -used by program p a r ­ t i c i p a n t s t o r a t e s p e c i f i c programs. S e l f - r e p o r t s — used by p a r t i c i p a n t s t o v a lu e program a c t i v i t i e s . I n t e r v i e w s — used t o o b t a in th e o p in ­ ions and p e rc e p tio n s o f p a r t i c i p a n t s . Observed changes— used t o note d i f f e r ­ ences in b e h a v io r o r j o b perform ance. A ttendance and a t t r i t i o n r a t e s — used t o e v a lu a t e i n t e r e s t in a c t i v i t i e s . Completion o f MBO's o r ABO's by s t a f f members— used to r e c o g n iz e improvement. Program i n s t r u c t o r s , l e a d e r s , o r f a ­ c i l i t a t o r s --u s e d t o r a t e programs. O utside c o n s u l t a n t s — used t o decide which a c t i v i t i e s a r e m eetin g g o a ls . S u p e r v is o r s — used t o acknowledge changes in s e r v ic e s o r programs. O ther methods (p le a s e e x p l a i n ) ) 1. High priority item ) 2. Moderate priority item ) 3. Low priority item In you r opinion, what changes would you recommend to improve the Staff Development Program within yo u r Division of Student Services? THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND COOPERATION IN COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. YOUR COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS WILL BE USED TO IMPROVE FUTURE STAFF DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMING. 195 ' APPENDIX F MACCSPA LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT ;h ig a n a s s o c ia t io n o f c o m m u n it y - j u n io r 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 in is t r a t o r s APPENDIX F MACCSPA LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT October 15, 1980 ■-< Dear S tudent S e rv ic e s P r o f e s s io n a l: In r e c e n t y e a r s , s t a f f development, e s p e c i a l l y f o r s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a ls has begun to come to the f o r e f r o n t o f a t t e n t i o n in M ichigan community c o l l e g e s , The s t a r k r e a l i t y o f f i n i t e r e s o u rc e s , both human and f i n a n c i a l , cannot be ignored in j u s t i f y i n g th e many e f f o r t s made and e x p e n d itu re s in c u r r e d in th e name o f s t a f f d e v e lo p ­ ment. The enclosed q u e s t io n n a ir e i s being conducted by Carol Barnes, a d o c to r a l s tu d e n t a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , under th e chairm anship o f Dr. Max R aines. The survey i s e n t i t l e d "A Q u e s tio n n a ire to Analyze S t a f f Development Programming f o r Student S e rv ic e s P r a c t i t i o n e r s W ith in Michigan Community C o lle g e s ." The id e a f o r th e p r o j e c t began l a s t y e a r and was approved by the Board o f the M ichigan A s s o c ia tio n o f Community C o lle g e Student Personnel A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . The study i s now ready f o r you r p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Your c o o p e ra tio n is v i t a l to the success o f the study. MACCSPA encourages you and y o u r s t a f f to p a r t i c i p a t e and coo perate f u l l y in t h i s rese arch stu d y . MACCSPA con sid ers the enclosed i n v e s t i g a t i o n to be a w o r th w h ile and t i m e l y endeavor. The r e s u l t s o f the study should be o f v a lu e t o both you and you r s t a f f in p lan n in g and improving f u t u r e s t a f f development programming. Thank you f o r t a k i n g tim e from your busy schedules to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h i s im p o rta n t and p e r t i n e n t p r o j e c t . S in c e re ly , n D Dr. i A l l e n Jackson P r e s id e n t , MACCSPA 196 APPENDIX G GENERAL COVER LETTER APPENDIX G GENERAL COVER LETTER M I C H I G A N STA TE U N I V E R S I T Y EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN COLLEGE OF E D UCATION D E P A R T M E N T OF ADMINISTRATION A N D HIGH E R • 48824 E D U C A T I O N October 1 5 , 1980 ERICKSON HAL L Dear S tu d e n t S e rv ic e s P r o f e s s io n a l: A lthough t h e r e a r e numerous demands on y o u r t im e , w i l l you t a k e a few mo­ ments f o r a ta s k which may have s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r improving s t a f f d e v e lo p ­ ment programming among s t u d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o fe s s io n a ls ? A t a tim e o f decreased s t a f f m o b i l i t y and d r a s t i c budget c u t s , m a in ta in in g s t a f f m orale and e f f i c i e n c y i n community c o lle g e s is e x tre m e ly d i f f i c u l t . Because o f th e s e c o n d i t i o n s , s t a f f development f o r stu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s ­ s i o n a l s has a t t r a c t e d new i n t e r e s t . The purpose o f th e enclosed survey i s to a n a ly z e s t a f f development programming f o r f u l l - t i m e s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a ls w i t h i n th e t w e n t y - n in e M ichigan community c o l l e g e s . By o b t a i n in g comments and sug gestions from s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s i o n a l s , v a l u a b le in f o r m a t io n can be provided and shared to improve s t a f f d ev e lo p ­ ment programming among M ich igan community c o l l e g e s . The enclosed rese a rc h study i s being conducted under th e chairm anship o f Dr. Max Raines a t M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity . The p r o j e c t has a ls o been reco g n ize d and endorsed by th e M ich igan A s s o c ia t io n o f Community C o lle g e S tu d e n t Personnel A d m i n i s t r a t o r s . As a f u l l - t i m e s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a l w i t h i n Admissions, Records, C o u n s e lin g , S tu d e n t A c t i v i t i e s , F i n a n c ia l A i d , Placem ent, Housing, o r Dean's O f f i c e ; w i l l you t a k e a few minutes t o complete th e enclosed q u e s tio n n a ir e ? Your c o o p e ra tio n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e v i t a l to th e success o f th e s tu d y . Upon c o m p le tio n , p le a s e p la c e th e q u e s t i o n n a ir e in th e same w h it e e n v e lo p e , s e a l th e e n v e lo p e , and r e t u r n th e envelope to yo u r Dean o f S tu d e n t S e r v ic e s . Be assured t h a t th e i n f o r m a t i o n requested i s f o r summation o n ly and t h a t s t r i c t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f response w i l l be m a in ta in e d . No community c o l l e g e o r s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a l w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d . R e su lts o f th e study w i l l be forw arded to y o u r D i v i s i o n o f S tude nt S e r v ic e s . Thank you f o r y o u r prompt and v e ry s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s p r o j e c t . S in c e re ly , Enc. Q u e s t io n n a ir e Carol Barnes Home: (5 1 7 ) 332-6032 O ffic e : (5 1 7 ) 543-4340 197 APPENDIX H SPECIAL COVER LETTER APPENDIX H SPECIAL COVER LETTER M IC H IG A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN COLLEGE OF E DUCATION D E P A R T M E N T OF ADMINISTRATION A N D HIG H E R E D U C A T I O N • 48824 October 1 5 , 1980 ERICKSON HALL Dear Dean Although t h e r e a r e numerous demands on y o u r t im e , w o n 't you ta k e a few minutes f o r a ta s k which may have s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r improving s t a f f development program­ ming among s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a ls ? A t a tim e o f decreased s t a f f m o b i l i t y and d r a s t i c budget c u t s , m a in ta in in g s t a f f m orale and e f f i c i e n c y in community c o lle g e s i s e x tr e m e ly d i f f i c u l t . Because o f th ese c o n d i t i o n s , s t a f f development f o r s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a ls has a t t r a c t e d new i n t e r e s t . The purpose o f th e enclosed survey i s t o a n a ly z e s t a f f development programming f o r f u l l - t i m e s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a ls w i t h i n th e t h i r t y - e i g h t M ichigan community c o l l e g e campuses. By o b t a i n in g comments and sug gestio ns from s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s i o n a l s , v a l u ­ a b l e i n f o r m a t io n can be p ro v id e d and shared t o improve s t a f f development p ro ­ gramming among M ichigan community c o l l e g e s . The e n c lo s e d ‘ rese a rc h study is being conducted under th e chairm ansh ip o f D r. Max Raines a t M ichigan S t a t e U n iv e rs ity . The p r o j e c t has a l s o been reco g n ize d and endorsed by th e Michigan A s s o c ia tio n o f Community C o lle g e S tu d e n t Personnel A d m in is t r a to r s (MACCSPA). As head s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a l a t y o u r lo c a l o r r e g io n a l community c o l ­ l e g e , y o u r c o o p e ra tio n i s v i t a l t o th e success o f th e s tu d y . As mentioned in our te le p h o n e c o n v e r s a t io n , y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in v o lv e s : 1. D i s t r i b u t i n g th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s t o a l l y o u r f u l l ­ tim e s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a ls (b a c h e lo r degree o r beyond) w i t h i n Adm issions, Records, C o u n selin g , S tu d e n t A c t i v i t i e s , F in a n c ia l A i d , P lacem ent, Housing, and Dean's O f f i c e . 2. I n s t r u c t i n g y o u r s t a : ;f t o complete and r e t u r n th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s t o you in th e w h it e e n v elo p es. 3. R e tu rn in g a l l th e completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s t o me i n th e r e t u r n m a i li n g envelo pe by October 3 1 , 1980. Be assured t h a t th e i n f o r m a t i o n re q u e s te d i s f o r summation o n ly and t h a t s t r i c t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f response w i l l be m a in ta in e d . No community c o l l e g e o r s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a l w i l l be i d e n t i f i e d . R e s u lts o f th e study w i l l be forwarded t o you upon co m pletio n o f th e s tu d y . Thank you f o r y o u r prompt and v e r y s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h i s p r o j e c t . S i n c e r e ly Encs. MACCSPA endorsement l e t t e r Q u e s tio n n a ire s and envelopes Return m a i li n g envelope Return p o s ta l card Carol Barnes Home: (5 1 7 ) 332-6032 O ffic e : (5 1 7 ) 543-4340 198 APPENDIX I RETURN POST CARD APPENDIX I RETURN POST CARD Date We have r e c e iv e d s u f f i c i e n t o r i n s u f f i c i e n t copies o f th e " Q u e s tio n n a ire t o Analyze S t a f f Development Pro­ gramming f o r Student S e rv ic e s P r a c t i t i o n e r s W ith in Michigan Community C o lle g e s ." A d d it io n a l cop ies a re s t i l l re q u ire d . Head S tudent S e rv ic e s P ro fe s s io n a l Community C o lle g e 199 APPENDIX J FIRST FOLLOW-UP LETTER APPENDIX J FIRST FOLLOW-UP LETTER M I C H I G A N STA TE U N I V E R S I T Y COLLEGE OF EDUC A T I O N D E P A R T M E N T OF ADMINISTRATION A N D EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN NOVelTlber 14 HIGHER E D U C A T I O N ERICKSON H A L L • 48824 1 980 * Dear Dean _______________________ : A p p ro x im a te ly one month ago, a package o f survey m a t e r ia ls was forwarded t o you a t ______________________________________________ . The survey was e n t i t l e d "A Q u e s t io n n a ir e t o A nalyze S t a f f Development Programming f o r Student S e r­ v ic e s P r a c t i t i o n e r s W ith in M ichigan Community C o lle g e s ." The r e t u r n s on th e completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s have been f a n t a s t i c ! A lr e a d y , o f th e 38 community c o l l e g e campuses have re tu r n e d t h e i r completed s u r ­ vey s. An o v e rv ie w o f th e completed surveys i n d i c a t e s both a c o n tin u in g need f o r and i n t e r e s t in p r o f e s s io n a l development a c t i v i t i e s , even among many o f th e M ichigan community c o lle g e s which p r e s e n t l y do not have s t a f f development programs. As head s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a l on y o u r campus, t h e r e a re numerous de­ mands on y o u r t im e . Comments and suggestio ns from you and y o u r p r o fe s s io n a l s t a f f , however, a r e v i t a l to th e s h a rin g o f ideas among Michigan s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r a c t i t i o n e r s . W on't you t a k e a few minutes t o r e p r e s e n t _________ _________________________________ in th e p r o j e c t by: 1. D i s t r i b u t i n g th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s t o a l l y o u r f u l l ­ tim e s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s i o n a ls . 2. I n s t r u c t i n g y o u r s t a f f t o complete and r e t u r n th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s t o you as soon as p o s s ib le . 3. R e tu rn in g a l l th e completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s t o me by F r i d a y , November 2 8 , 1980. As mentioned in th e e a r l i e r package o f m a t e r i a l s , th e rese arch study i s being conducted under th e s u p e r v is io n o f D r. Max Raines a t M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . The p r o j e c t i s a l s o endorsed by th e M ichigan A s s o c ia tio n o f Community C o lle g e S tu d e n t Personnel A d m in is t r a to r s (MACCSPA). Be assured t h a t th e in fo r m a t io n req u e s te d i s f o r summation o n ly and t h a t s t r i c t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f response w i l l be m a in ta in e d . Thank you in advance f o r y o u r p r o f e s s io n a l a s s is t a n c e in th e com pletion o f th is p ro je c t. The r e s u l t s o f th e study w i l l be forwarded and should be o f v a lu e t o both you and y o u r s t a f f . I f a d d i t i o n a l copies o f th e survey a re r e q u i r e d , j u s t l e t me know and I w i l l be happy t o send them t o you. S in c e re ly , Carol Barnes Home: (5 1 7 ) 332-6032 O ffic e : (5 1 7 ) 543-4340 APPENDIX K EARLY THANK YOU LETTER APPENDIX K EARLY THANK YOU LETTER M IC H IG A N STATE U N IV E R S IT Y C OLLEGE OF E D U C A T I O N D E P A R T M E N T OF ADMINISTRATION A N D ERICKSON EAST LANSING ■ MICHIGAN HIG H E R E D U C A T I O N November 14, 1980 h a l l Dear Dean ________________________ : As head s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a l a t ___________________________ , I wish t o thank you and y o u r s t a f f f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g in th e s t a t e ­ w id e p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d "A Q u e s t io n n a ir e t o Analyze S t a f f Development Programming f o r S tudent S e rv ic e s P r a c t i t i o n e r s W ith in Michigan Com­ m unity C o ll e g e s ." The r e t u r n s on th e completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s have been f a n t a s t i c ! A lre a d y , o f the 38 community c o l l e g e campuses have re tu r n e d t h e i r completed su rv e y s . An o ve rv iew o f t h e completed surveys i n d i ­ c a te s both a c o n tin u in g need f o r and i n t e r e s t in p r o fe s s io n a l d ev e lo p ­ ment a c t i v i t i e s , even among many o f th e M ichigan community c o lle g e s which p r e s e n t l y do not have s t a f f development programs. So f a r , I have r e c e iv e d ____________ completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s from __________________________________________________ . I f any a d d i t i o n a l members o f y o u r p r o f e s s io n a l s t a f f would l i k e t o p a r t i c i p a t e in th e s t u d y , p le a s e fo rw a rd t h e i r completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s as soon as p o s s ib le so t h a t a n a ly s is o f t h e d ata can be com pleted. I f a d d i­ t i o n a l copies o f th e survey a r e r e q u i r e d , j u s t c a l l and I w i l l be happy t o send them t o you. A g a in , thank you f o r y o u r p r o f e s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e and s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s s t a t e - w i d e p r o j e c t . Through y o u r e f f o r t s , v a l u a b le in fo r m a t io n w i l l be p ro vid ed and shared among stu d e n t s e r ­ v ic e s p r a c t i t i o n e r s w i t h i n M ichigan community c o l l e g e s . The r e s u l t s o f th e study w i l l be forw arded t o you and should be o f i n t e r e s t t o both you and y o u r s t a f f . S in c e re ly , Carol Barnes Home: (5 1 7 ) 332-6032 O ffic e : (5 1 7 ) 543-4340 201 • 18824 APPENDIX L SECOND FOLLOW-UP LETTER APPENDIX L SECOND FOLLOW-UP LETTER M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN COLLEGE OF EDUCATION D E P A R T M E N T OF ADMINISTRATION A N D • 48824 HIG H E R E D U C A T I O N December 2 , 1980 ERICKSON HALL Dear Dean _______________________ : A p p ro x im a te ly s i x weeks ago, a package o f survey m a t e r i a l s was forw arded t o you a t __________________________________ . The survey was e n t i t l e d "A Q u e s tio n ­ n a i r e to A n alyze S t a f f Development Programming f o r Student S e rv ic e s P r a c t i ­ t i o n e r s W ith in M ichigan Community C o ll e g e s ." The r e t u r n s on the completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s have been f a n t a s t i c ! A lre a d y o f th e 38 community c o l l e g e campuses have re tu rn e d t h e i r completed s u r ­ vey s. In o r d e r t o o b t a in a 100 p e rc e n t campus response, I am a t t a c h i n g a "L in c o ln " t o cover th e c o s t o f refre sh m en ts ( c o f f e e and d on uts , eggnog and c o o k ie s , beer and p r e t z e l s , e t c . ) f o r you and y o u r s t a f f w h il e co m pletin g th e enclosed q u e s t i o n n a ir e s . The e s tim a te d co m pletio n tim e f o r t h e surveys i s between 10 and 20 m i n u t e s - - t h e tim e o f a morning o r a fte rn o o n " c o f fe e b r e a k ." As head s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a l on y o u r campus, w o n 't you t a k e a few minutes t o r e p r e s e n t ___________________________________ in t h i s s t a t e - w i d e p r o j e c t . Comments and suggestions from you and y o u r p r o f e s s io n a l s t a f f a r e v i t a l to t h e s h a rin g o f ideas among M ichigan s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Won't you o r your s e c re ta ry : 1. D i s t r i b u t e th e q u e s tio n n a ir e s t o a l l y o u r f u l l - t i m e s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s i o n a ls ( b a c h e lo r degree o r beyond) w i t h i n A dm issions, Records, C o u n selin g , S tude nt A c t i v i t i e s , F i n a n c ia l A i d , Placem ent, Housing, and Dean's O f f i c e . 2. I n s t r u c t th e s t a f f t o com plete and r e t u r n th e ques­ t i o n n a i r e s t o you o r y o u r s e c r e t a r y in th e w h ite env elo pes. 3. Return a l l th e completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s t o me in th e r e t u r n m a i li n g envelope by December 1 7, 1980. (P le a s e use F i r s t Class m a i l . ) As mentioned in th e e a r l i e r m a i l i n g , t h e p r o j e c t i s endorsed by th e M ichigan A s s o c ia t io n o f Community C o lle g e S tudent Personnel A d m in is t r a to r s (MACCSPA). Be assured t h a t th e i n f o r m a t i o n reque ste d i s f o r summation o n ly and t h a t s t r i c t c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y o f response w i l l be m a in ta in e d . Thank you in advance f o r y o u r p r o f e s s io n a l a s s is t a n c e and v e ry s i g n i f i c a n t c o n trib u tio n to th is s ta te -w id e p r o je c t. The r e s u l t s o f the study w i l l be forw arded to you and should be o f i n t e r e s t t o both you and y o u r s t a f f . S in c e re ly , Carol Barnes Home: (5 1 7 ) 332-6032 O ffic e : (5 1 7 ) 543-4340 202 APPENDIX M LATE THANK YOU LETTER APPENDIX M LATE T HA N K YOU LETTER M I C H I G A N STA TE U N I V E R S I T Y COLLEGE OF E D U C A T I O N D E P A R T M E N T e r i c k s o n OF ADMINISTRATION A N D EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN HIGHER E D U C A T I O N December 2 , 1980 h a l l Dear Dean ________________________ : As head s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p r o f e s s io n a l a t ________________________________ , I wish t o thank you and y o u r s t a f f f o r p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e s t a t e - w i d e p r o j e c t e n t i t l e d "A Q u e s tio n n a ire t o A nalyze S t a f f Development Program­ ming f o r S tu d e n t S e rv ic e s P r a c t i t i o n e r s W ith in M ichigan Community C o l­ le g e s ." The r e t u r n s on th e completed q u e s t io n n a ir e s have been f a n t a s t i c ! A l­ r e a d y , _________ o f th e 38 community c o l l e g e campuses have re tu rn e d t h e i r completed s u rv e y s , i n c l u d in g _________ completed q u e s tio n n a ir e s f r o m _______________________________ . An o v e rv ie w o f th e completed surveys i n d i c a t e s both a c o n tin u in g need f o r and i n t e r e s t i n p r o f e s s io n a l development a c t i v i t i e s , even among many o f t h e M ichigan community c o lle g e s which p r e s e n t l y do n o t have s t a f f development programs. A g a in , thank you f o r y o u r p r o f e s s io n a l a s s is ta n c e and s i g n i f i c a n t con­ t r i b u t i o n to t h is s ta te -w id e p r o je c t . Through y o u r e f f o r t s , v a lu a b le i n f o r m a t io n w i l l be pro vid ed and shared among s tu d e n t s e r v ic e s p ra c ­ t i t i o n e r s w i t h i n M ichigan community c o l l e g e s . The r e s u l t s o f th e study w i l l be fo rw ard e d to you and should be o f i n t e r e s t t o both you and y o u r s t a f f . S in c e re ly , Carol Barnes Home: (5 1 7 ) 332-6032 O ffic e : (5 1 7 ) 543-4340 203 • 1882-1 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES Alvarado, A., and Rinnander, E. "Sources and Information: Developing Staff Potential." In N ew Directions for Community Colleges: Developing Staff Poten­ tial , NcT 19*! Ir . O B anion (editor)!! San Fran­ cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1977, pp. 103-110. American Council on Education. A Fact Book on Higher Edu­ cation: Second Issue 1977. Washington, DC: U.S. Printing Office, 1978, pp. 77-79. Ancheta, B • Staff Development for Student Personnel Ser­ vices in the Los Angeles Community College District"! A paper presented at the California Community College Counselors Association Con­ ference. San Mateo, CA: November, 1978. Baier, J. "Competent Staff: The Critical Variable." In New Directions for Student Services: Estab­ lishing Effective Programs^ N o . 1 ~ . iC Barr and L. Keating (editors). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass, 1979, pp. 69-83. Beeler, K "Mini-U: A Promising Model for Student Affairs Staff Development." NASPA Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Winter 1977a): pp. 38-43. Beeler, K "Staff Development in Student Affairs: The Referral Process." NASPA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Fall 1977b): pp. Beeler, K ., and Penn, P. A Handbook on Staff Development in Student Affairs"! Corvallis, OR: OSU Book Stores, 1979. Bender, B "Job Satisfaction in Student Affairs." NASPA Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn 1980): pp. 2-9. Berdie, D , and Anderson, J. Questionnaires: Design and U s e . Metuchen, N J : Scarecrow Press, 1974. 204 205 Blake, L. "A Catalyst for Staff Development." Community and Junior College Journal, Vol. 43, No~[ 2 (October, 1972): pp . 12-T3 . B r a d b u m , N ., and Sudman, S . Improving Interview Method and Questionnaire PesTgn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1979. Brethower, K . , and Rummler, G. "Evaluating Training." Improving Human Performance Quarterly, Vol. 5, No. 3-4 (Fall/Winter 1976-1977) : ppT 103-120. Brown, D . , and Hanger, W. "Pragmatics of Faculty SelfDevelopment. " Educational Record, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Summer 1975): p p . 201-206. Brown, R. "How Evaluation Can Make a Difference." In New Directions for Student Services: Evaluating Pro­ gram Effectiveness, N o . T ~ . G ~ . Hanson (editor) . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1978, pp. 57-75. Centra, J. "Reading the Enrollment Barometer." Change Magazine, Vol. 11, No. 3 (April, 1979): pp. 50-51. Cheek, K. "The Impact of National Trends in Higher Educa­ tion." NASPA Journal, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Summer 1975): pp. 25-32. Chickering, A. "College Advising for the 1970s." In New Directions for Higher Education: Services for Students, No. 31 J. Katz (editor). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1973, pp. 69-80. Claxton, C. Community College Staff Development: Basic Issues in Planning7 Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Board, 1976. Claxton, C. "Comprehensive Staff Development Programs: Implications for the Office of Institutional Research and Planning." Faculty Development and Evaluation in Higher Education, V o l . 2', No. 4 (Winter 1‘977) : pp. 6-14. Coan, D. "Effects of a Workshop on Perceptions About Eval­ uation." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 17, No. 3 (May, 1976)7 pp. 186-189. Conroy, B . Staff Development and Continuing Education Pro­ grams for Library Personnel: Guidelines and Cri­ teria . Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, 1974. 206 Cross, K. "The New Learners--Changing Perspectives on Quality Education." Change Magazine, Vol. 5, No. 1 (February, 1973J ~ : p p . 31-34. Dorris, J "Evaluation: The Proof of the Pudding." In New Directions for Student Services: Training Competent Staff, No. T ' . XL Delworth (editor)7 San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1978, pp. 83-91. Duke, D ., and Corno, L. "Evaluating Staff Development.” In Staff Development/Organization Development. B. Dillon-Peterson (editor). Alexandria, VAT Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981, pp. 93-112. Dutton, T ., and Correnti, R. "Impact of External Regula­ tion on Institutions of Higher Education." NASPA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Summer 1978): pp. 33-39. Ellison, ; N. "The Challenge of Student Development and Steady State Issues in Higher Education." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 18, No. 5 (September, 1977) :p p . 413-418. Federico, J. A Staff Development Model for Student Per­ sonnel Services. Schnecksville, PA: Lehigh County Community College, 1975. Foxley, C "A Workshop for the Support Staff." Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 51, No. 3 (September, 1972): pp. 203-205. Frohman, ]H. "An Empirical Study of Model and Strategies for Planned Organizational Change." Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, 1970. Gaff, J. Toward Faculty Renewal. Jossey-Bass, 1975. San Francisco, CA: Grasha, A Assessing and Developing Faculty Performance: Principles and Models. Cincinnati, OH: Commu­ nication and Education Associates, 1977. Griffin, IJ. "Guidelines for the Evaluation of Staff De­ velopment Programs." In Staff Development: New Demands, New Realities, New Perspectives. A. Lieberman and L. Miller (editors). New York, N Y : Teachers College, Columbia University, 1979. Gross, R. "Faculty Growth Contracts." Faculty Develop­ ment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 2, N o . 1 (Spring 19*76) : pp . 9-14. 207 Gross, R. "A Study of Inservice Education Programs for Student Personnel Workers in Selected Colleges and Universities in the United States." Doctoral Dissertation: Michigan State University, 1963. Hammons, J . , and Wallace, T. "Planning for Staff Develop­ ment m e n t ." Community College Frontiers, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 19/4): p p . 38-43. Hammons, J . , Wallace, T . , and Watts, G. Staff Development in the Community College: A Handbook. Topical Paper No. (jfT! Los Angeles, C A : ERIC Clearing­ house for Junior Colleges, University of Cali­ fornia, June, 1978. Harcleroad, F. "Graduate Programs and Changing Community College Students." In Graduate Education and Community Colleges: Cooperative Approaches to Community College Staff Development. £T Martorana, W . Toombs, and D. Breneman (editors). Washington DC: National Board on Graduate Education, August, 1975, pp. 17-30. Harris, B. Improving Staff Performance Through In-Service Education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, Inc., T980. Ifervey, T. "Student Development and the Future of Higher Education: A Force Analysis." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 17, No. 2 (March, 1976): pp. 90-95. Harvey, V., Helzer, T . , and Young, J. "The Retreat: Key­ stone to Staff Development." NASPA Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4 (April, 1972): pp. 274-278. Hickerson, J. "Transactional Analysis and the Student Per­ sonnel Worker." NASPA Journal, Vol. 10, No. 4 (April, 1973): pp. 307-310. Hodgkinson, H. "Guess Who's Coming to College: New Learners, New Tasks." NASPA Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Sum­ mer 1976): pp. 2-14. Hunter, W. "Recommendations for Community College Staff Development Programs." In Proceedings: The Con­ ference on Questions and Issues in Planning Com­ munity College Staff Development Programs, July 1-3, 1974. University Park, PA: Center for the Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University, June, 1975. 208 Jones, J. "Student Personnel Work: Current State and Future Directions." NASPA Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Spring 1978): pp. 2-11. Kirkpatrick, D. "Evaluation of Training." In Training and Development Handbook. R. Craig and L. Bittel (editors). New York, N Y : McGraw Hill, 1967. Lambert, J., and Geffen, M. "On the Campus." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 15, No"] 4 (July, 1977+)T “ p p . 317-318. Lane, E. "The Use of Leaderless Encounter Groups in Staff Training." NASPA Journal, Vol. 8, No. 3 (January, 1971): pp. 185-188. Laudicina, R . , and Laudicina, E. "Staff Evaluation and the Administrative Process." NASPA Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2 (October, 1972): pp. 114-117. Leach, E. "Consumer-Oriented Student Development and Col­ lege Services." In New Directions for Community Colleges: Managing in a New E r a , N o . 28. R] Lahti (editor). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1979, pp. 41-53. Leventhal, A . , and Pumroy, D. "Training in Behavior Therapy: A Case Study." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 10, No.”3 (September, 1969): p p . 296-301. Lewis, C. "ACPA President’s Assessment and Proposals." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 10, No. 3 (May, 1969): pp. 147-151. Lewis, C. "College Student Personnel: A Current Estimate.” Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 14, No. 1 (January, 1973): p p . 5-9. Londoner, Carroll A. "Staff Development: A Mandate for Organizational Survival." In New Directions for Continuing Education: Attracting Able Instructors of Adults7 No~ 5"! M] Brown and H. Copeland (editors). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1979, pp. 25-38. Lovell, K . , and Lawson, K. Understanding Research in Edu­ cation. London, England: University of London Press Ltd., 1970. 209 Meyerson, E. "Mini-University Provides Staff Training for a Big University." College and University Busi­ ness , Vol. 56, No. 2 (February, 1974): p p . 31-32. Miller, T Moe, J. "Staff Development Activities in Student Affairs Programs." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 16, No. 4 (July, 1975): pp. 258-264. "A Staff Development Model for Part-Time Instruc­ tors." In New Directions for Community Colleges: Developing Staff Potential^ No'. 19. T . 0' Banion (editor). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1977, pp. 35-46. Monroe, C Profile of the Community College: A Handbook. San Francisco, C A : Jossey-Bass, 1972. Morphy, D "A Descriptive Study of the Professional Develop­ ment Activities of Student Affairs Professionals in the Two-Year Post-Secondary Educational System of Alberta, Canada." Doctoral Dissertation: Michigan State University, 1978. Nelsen, W "Faculty Development: Prospects and Potential for the 1980s." Liberal Education, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Summer 1979) : pp. 141-149. "Florida and Illinois: Views on Novak, C. , and Barnes, B. Staff Development." In New Directions for Commu­ nity Colleges: Developing Staff Potential, No. 1 9 . T . O ’Banion (editor). San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass, 1977, pp. 11-18. 0'Banion, T. "Editor's Notes." In New Directions for Com­ munity Colleges: Developing Staff Potential, No. 1 9 . T\ O'Banion (editor) . San Francisco , CA: Jossey-Bass, 1977, pp. vii-xi. 0'Banion, T. Organizing Staff Development Programs That Work. Washington, DC: American Association of Community Junior Colleges, 1978. O'Banion, T. "Patterns of Staff Development." In New Directions for Community Colleges: Toward a Professional Faculty, No. T! A. Cohen (editor). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1973, pp. 9-29. 0'Banion, T. "Staff Development: Priorities for the Seventies." Community and Junior College Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2 (October, 1972a): p p . 10-11. 210 O'Banion, T. "Staff Development for Student Development." Community College Frontiers, Vol. 2, N o . 2 (Winter 1974): pp. 12-20. 0'Banion, T . Teachers for Tomorrow: Staff Development in the Community Junior College. Tucson, A Z : Uni­ versity of Arizona Press, l972b. O'Brien, C . , and Johnson, J. "Promoting Professional De­ velopment Skills." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 21, N o . 5 (November, 1980): pp. 568-569. Orlich, D. Designing Sensible Surveys. Pleasantville, NY: Redgrave Publishing Company, 1978. Passons, W. "In-Service Training for Student Personnel Staff: A Pilot Project." Journal of the National Association of Women Deans and Counselors, V o l . 33, No. 1 (Fall 1969) : pp. 34-38. Paul, W . , and Hoover, R. "Chief Student Personnel Adminis­ trators: A Decade of Change." NASPA Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Summer 1980): ppT 33-39. Poole, D. "Motivation and Staff Development." In The Pro­ cess of Staff Development: Components for Change. H. Tobin, P. Yoder, P. Hull, and B. Scott (editors). St. Louis, MO: The C. V. Mosby Company, 1974, pp. 24-30. Priest, D . , Alphenaar, W . , and Boer, W. "Long-Range Plan­ ning: Implications and Applications for the Chief Student Personnel Administrator." NASPA Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Summer 1980): pp. 2-7. Rhatigan, J . , and Crawford, A. "Professional Development Preferences of Student Affairs Administrators." NASPA Journal, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Winter 1978): p p . 45-52. Richardson, R. "Staff Development: A Conceptual Framework." Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 46, No. 3 (May/ June, 1975): pp. 303-312. Rose, C. "Evaluation: The Misunderstood, Maligned, Mis­ construed, Misused, and Missing Component of Professional Development." Faculty Development and Evaluation in Higher Education, V o l . 2, N o . 3 (Fall 1976) : pp. 22-25. 211 Schultz, R. "Low Turnover Creates Staff Development Prob­ lems." Community College Review, Vol. 1, No. 1 (April, 1973): pp. 22-28. Shaffer, R. "Staff Development--Key to Survival." NASPA Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3 (January, 1972):p p . 261W T. Shaffer, R. "Suggestions for a Continuous In-Service Train­ ing Program for Student Personnel Workers." Per­ sonal memo to members of Commission III, National Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Bloomington, IN, 1961. Smith., A. "Evaluating Staff Development Programs." In New Directions for Community Colleges: Developing Staff Potential , N o . 19. T"! 0 Banion (editor) . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1977, pp. 91-101. Stamatakos, L . , and Oliaro, P. "In-Service Development: A Function of Student Personnel." NASPA Journal, Vol. 9, No. 4 (April, 1972): pp. 269-273. Stordahl, B. "Faculty Development: A Survey of Literature of the '70s." American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, Research Currents, March, IW T : pp. 7-10. Tilley, D. "Student Services and the Politics of Survival." In New Directions for Higher Education: Services for Students, No. 3"! J. Katz (editor). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1973, pp. 113-125. Tobin, H., Yoder, P., Hull, P., and Scott, B. (editors). The Process of Staff Development: Components for Change. S t . Louis, M O : The C . V. Mosby Company, 1974 Toombs, W. "Evaluation and Staff Development Programs." In Proceedings: The Conference on Questions and Issues in Planning Community College Staff Develop­ ment Programs July 1-3, 1974. University Park, PA: Center for the Study of Higher Education, The Pennsylvania State University, June, 1975. Truitt, J. "Factors Underlying the Need for In-Service Development Programs in Student Personnel Work." Terre Haute, IN: Indiana State University, 1969. Truitt, J . , and Gross, R. "Inservice Education for College Student Personnel." NASPA Bulletin No. 1, June, 1966: pp. 1-21. 212 Wanzek, R. (editor). Staff Development. Developmental Series Monograph N o . 1. DeKalb, I L : Division of Student Affairs, Northern Illinois University, 1977. Wanzek, R . , and Canon, H. "Professional Growth in Student Affairs." Journal of College Student Personnel, Vol. 16, No"! 5 (September, 1975): pp. 418-421. Watts, G . , and Hammons, J. "Staff Development: A Time for Appraisal." A paper presented at the National Conference of the National Council for Staff, Program, and Organizational Development. Des Moines, IA: November 16, 1980. Wergin, J. "Evaluating Faculty Development Programs." In New Directions for Higher Education: Renewing and Evaluating Teaching, No. 17. J\ Centra (editor). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1977, pp. 57-76. Williamson, E . , and Biggs, D. Student Personnel Work--A Program of Developmental Relationships. New York , N Y : John Wiley & Sons" 1975. Wood, F . , and Thompson, S. "Guidelines for Better Staff Development." Educational Leadership, Vol. 37, N o . 5 (February"! 1980) : pp. 374-378. Wood, F . , Thompson, S., and Russell, F. "Designing Effec­ tive Staff Development Programs." In Staff Development/Organization Development. B. DillonPeterson (editor). Alexandria, V A : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1981, pp. 59-92.