One of the specific questions they asked me is if they can add their webinars to the calendar.  As I was initially creating the calendar, I had to decide whether to include webinars or just conferences.  I opted to exclude webinars for two reasons.  First, there are so many of them that the calendar would get very busy, perhaps making it less useful and more confusing.  Second, I don’t know how often webinars are changed or rescheduled; I don’t make any promises or assurances but I hope we can keep the calendar up-to-date and correct.  However, NACA is going to add their webinars to the calendar.  We’ll see how that works out and maybe we’ll want to add webinars from the other organizations.

I’ve always been a bit suspicious of those NACA folks with their ridiculously fun conferences (they have many performers – musicians, magicians, etc. – at some of their conferences because those conferences are a great place to audition and book performers for campus events).  But I’m reevaluating my opinion after this wonderfully positive response!

This list says more about those who wrote the list than the students they are purporting to write about.  Moreover, it reveals assumptions that many of us make about college students: too many of us still think that the typical college student is just out of high school and enrolled full-time for four years before graduating and moving on.  That may be accurate on some campuses but at many colleges the student body is becoming increasingly “non-traditional:” older, part-time, and unlikely to graduate in four years.

With respect to Beloit’s list, we first observe that students beginning college now may not be in the “Class of 2014.”  The 4-year graduation rate for all first-time first-year students who matriculated in 2001, the most recent year for which these data are available, is 36.2%.  In other words, just over a third of the students* who began college graduated in four years.  Of course, Beloit College has a much higher 4-year graduation rate of about 75%.  But if we want to apply this list to all students at four-year institutions then maybe we title it the “Class of 2016 (We hope!)” list.

Second, this list assumes that the students matriculating this year are young, probably fresh out of high school.   This is probably the case for Beloit as it is a small, residential college with only a few transfer students and virtually no part-time students.  But the picture is different for many institution.  Nearly one-third (29.3%) of all college students are 25 years of age or older.  Further, of all of the nation’s students at four-year institutions, over one quarter (26.5%) are part-time students who are typically much older than full-time students.  (Edit: NPR has more about the growth of non-traditional students in U.S. higher education.)

This discussion fits the topic of this blog in at least two ways:

1. These assumptions about students are the same assumptions that lead so many to believe that all college students are technologically savvy.  That’s not a fair assumption and it’s simply not true.
2. It’s possible that these assumptions are particularly widespread among student affairs professionals, particularly younger or newer professionals whose experiences (residence life, student activities, greek advising, etc.) have only been with traditional students.  This is understandable given their experiences but it’s out of line with the reality of American higher education.

I admit that I’m a bit of a curmudgeon.  But we make too many assumptions about students and this list is an excellent example of a set of those assumptions.  We have to fight our natural tendencies to stereotype and make assumptions lest those tendencies continue to lead us astray (Irma Pelt gets what I’m trying to say).

* – Graduation rate is a tricky measure to interpret because of how it’s defined.  Basically, it doesn’t include all students, particularly transfer students.  But good or bad, it’s a widely-used measure so we’ll go with it for now.

This has all of the national and regional events currently listed on the websites of the following organizations:

• ACPA
• ACUHO-I
• ACUI
• NACA
• NACADA
• NASPA
• NIRSA

I did not include state-level events or Webinars.  I think you could make a good argument for including them; if you’re interested in making that argument then you’re more than welcome to add those events!  I’m also sure that there are many organizations and events missing from this calendar.  If you notice something, please let me know.

I don’t want to maintain this calendar.  I don’t think it should be one person’s job.  If I could immediately and automatically give everyone the ability to edit this calendar, I would do so.  But I can only give specific people permission to edit.  So if you are interested in helping to maintain this calendar, please contact me.

(A side note: It would be nice if we didn’t have to create and maintain this calendar by hand.  Most of the organizations already included in this calendar only had an HTML/text calendar on their website.  A few had RSS feeds for their calendar.  And only one had a more helpful calendar – a Google calendar – but it is embarrassingly out of date.  Once again, we can do much better than this.  And we can do it cheaply and easily. How wonderful it would be if these organizations all had up-to-date calendars to which we could subscribe, automatically updating our own calendars!)

ResNet preconference session

I was invited to present these sessions by one of the conference organizers who has a strong student affairs background.  As a profession, student affairs has tried to embrace outcomes assessment so this person is familiar with the issues.  We both share a perception that IT professionals and organizations in American higher education have not yet begun to understand and perform outcomes assessment so an introductory session at the ResNet Symposium would be beneficial for attendees.  I didn’t know how well it would be received but I was pleased with the turnout: 15-16 attendees were in the two sessions, a good representation of the 101 attendees of this small conference.

At the beginning of the session, I asked the attendees to write on the whiteboard the words they associate with “assessment.”  I wanted to gather a bit of information about the attendees and their preconceived notions and I also wanted them to begin thinking about the topic.  The words they wrote most often were analysis/analyze, data, measure(ment), and evaluation.  Not a bad start.

In the first half of the session, we talked about assessment in broad, general terms.  I began by trying to provide some context for the importance of assessment, concentrating particularly on the political context and how academic and student affairs have reacted.  Next, I tried my best to introduce topics that I believe are important to understand or least know exist such as direct vs. indirect assessment and formative vs. summative assessment.  I also tried to get attendees thinking about issues and collaborating with one another by having them brainstorm in small groups to generate a list of sources of data already available on their campuses.

In the second half of the session I focused on surveys and survey development.  Not only are surveys (unfortunately) one of the most common ways of gathering data, they are also a topic in which I have some expertise.  After discussing some survey methodology concepts, primarily sources of error as identified by Dillman in many of his publications, we looked at a survey instrument I recently put into the field.  More specifically, we looked at different iterations of the survey and discussed how and why the survey changed throughout the development process.  I closed with a brief list of survey tips.

I think the session was successful in introducing some of the important concepts in assessment.  It was hard to figure out what to concentrate on during this brief session (the Assessment Framework developed by NASPA’s Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Knowledge Community was very helpful!)  and I’m still not sure that I struck the right balance between introducing important ideas and engaging the participants and meeting their expectations.  It would have been easier, I think, if I had titled the session “Outcomes Assessment” and used that phrase throughout the session; that would have provided some needed focus and better described the topic I intended to introduce.

Outcomes assessment in IT

As mentioned above, this preconference session was developed because of a shared concern about the lack of outcomes assessment in higher education IT.  We’re doing a very poor job of not only establishing how we contribute to the bottom line of our institutions (and the bottom line, of course, is the production and dissemination of knowledge) but also if we’re actually succeeding in meeting those objectives.  I believe this is fundamentally important in justifying the resources expended on in-house IT operations.  You should know why you’re doing what it is you’re doing and you should know if you’re succeeding.

Student affairs professionals realized this a decade or two ago and began emphasizing assessment both in practice and in their graduate programs.  I think that was a very smart move in that it tries to move student affairs from the periphery of the academic enterprise to a place much closer to the center, making student affairs more visible and important in many ways.  Much of IT is in the same boat that student affairs was in a few decades ago where there is an implicit belief that their services are necessary but it’s hard to explain exactly why they’re necessary and should be supplied by the institution itself.  Simply arguing that the services are “important” or even that they’re in demand doesn’t give us a license for incorporating them into our colleges and universities.  Many services are important and desirable but we’re content to contract them, outsource them, or just rely on the outside world to provide them.

We have to prove that what we do significantly contributes to the mission of our institutions and that we do it better – more effectively, more efficiently, cheaper, etc. – than anyone else.  I know that it’s hard to do that; the rest of the campus has been trying to do that for some time and they’re still struggling!  But IT has to get on board and move beyond mere measures of satisfaction and internal metrics that are uncoupled from the mission of the institution.  It’s not even about self-preservation (although that should be a motive!).  It’s about know what you’re doing, why, and if you’re getting it done.

It is common in student affairs Master’s programs for faculty to require their students reflect on and document their professional philosophies, documents that are analogous to faculty teaching philosophies.  A recent thread on CSPTALK, a listserv for student affairs faculty, focused on these professional philosophies and it inspired me to look back at the document that I wrote as a Master’s student nearly 7 years ago.

Of course, it’s interesting to see how I’ve grown as a writer and as a professional.  I cringe at some of what I wrote, especially my naive citations of “the literature.”  It’s hard to be impressed with a paper that quotes Monty Python in the second paragraph.

It greatly pleases me, however, that the fundamental ideas expressed in this 7-year old document remain sound and close to my heart:

• We are all individuals: I continue to fervently believe this and I cite as evidence my distaste of generational stereotyping.  As someone who often conducts large-scale quantitative research, I struggle to balance this belief with the (natural) desire and need to generalize.  This belief may stem from a keen awareness of the importance of context, an awareness that some of my colleagues seem to lack or disregard at times (e.g. students who are “minorities” in some situations are not in others).  And this belief in and awareness of context is one of the primary drivers of my dissertation.
• We are all students: I’m back in graduate school so this one is a gimme.  But what I really meant – and still mean – is that in nearly all situations we have much to learn from one another, even as experienced professionals working with undergraduates.  I think that this belief contributes to my seemingly-misplaced admiration for well-conducted qualitative research, research where the reader and researcher find themselves moving with and learning from the research subjects as the boundaries between them blur.
• We are all teachers: This belief complements the previous one.  More specifically, I think that this belief speaks to a deeper belief in altruism, empathy, and perhaps even love.

If I had to write this all over again, I don’t think the big ideas would change, just the details (I might want to add something about empiricism or a belief in evidence but I’m not sure). Despite the immature writing, numerous APA errors, and poor grasp of (outdated) literature, I remain proud of the ideas expressed in this document.

Although I did my very best to keep my emotions in check as I worked on this proposal, this proposal was primarily motivated by emotions:  Incredulity.  Frustration.  Anger.  Disbelief.

First and foremost, I am appalled that NASPA denies me the right of full participation in this and other issues while never hesitating to ask for my time and money.  I am furious that my right to vote in this and many other matters was stripped from me when I made the audacious decision to return to school for my doctorate.  This anger is driven not only by the fact that my voice is being silenced but that it is being silenced by educators who not only purport to value education but also profess to have a deep concern for students and the future.  I don’t know how to reconcile those professional values with a set of bylaws that explicitly denies student members – including students who have many years of professional service within NASPA and many students whom NASPA has worked very hard to recruit – a voice in the most important decisions affecting the organization.

Moreover, unless I’ve made a mistake or missed something, student members are not even represented in any of the Divisions or the Board of Directors.  Not even one student member is listed in these groups on the NASPA website!  This complete lack of representation in these powerful groups is so out of line with our professional values that it beggars belief and I sincerely hope that I’ve made a mistake or looked in the wrong places on the website.  Not only does this lack of representation present a profound problem with respect to representation and diversity in these groups but it also denies student members incredibly valuable opportunities for professional development and education.

My tremendous disappointment in NASPA is tempered by the personal actions of the senior members who have guided me and my colleagues in putting together our proposal.  This is a terribly political issue so I will not write their names here (I’ve already thanked them in private) but I am tremendously grateful for their time and the knowledge and experience they shared with us.  Although I am profoundly confused and frustrated, I retain some hope that NASPA will correct its course and align its actions with its values because I have some trust in the influential and experienced people who provided us with guidance.  NASPA must learn to practice what its members preach.

A few weeks ago, I described how NASPA will not allow student members to vote on the issue of ACPA/NASPA consolidation if the issue is put to a vote by the NASPA membership.  Last night, I sent the following message to Dr. Elizabeth Griego, president of NASPA, and Ms. Gwen Dungy, Executive Director of NASPA.

Ladies,

Please find attached a proposed resolution for the NASPA Board of Directors to consider at its next meeting.  We trust that you and the Board will act on the spirit and merits of this proposed resolution, smoothing over any technical flaws or procedural missteps we may have made.

As previously discussed with both of you, this proposal requests that Student Affiliates be allowed full participation in any vote of the NASPA membership on the issue of ACPA/NASPA consolidation.  The signatories of this proposal are experienced, dedicated members of NASPA who firmly believe that our voices must be heard on this issue and given equal consideration.  We care deeply about NASPA and student affairs and we believe it unjust and unethical that our voices will be silenced on this important issue merely because we are currently pursuing further education.

We understand that some interpret the association’s bylaws as prohibiting Student Affiliates from voting on this matter.  We disagree with that interpretation.  However, even if we concede that the current bylaws prohibit Student Affiliates from voting on this issue, we assert that the bylaws are unjust and must be changed or overridden; bylaws that deny a voice to dedicated members in this critical issue are contrary to our professional and ethical values.

Finally, we hope that whatever the outcome of this resolution the Board understands and remembers that there are groups within NASPA that historically have been denied the right to vote, including Student and Associate Affiliates.  Even if circumstances do not permit the Board or the voting membership the ability to grant these groups voting rights, these groups must be allowed and encouraged to meaningfully participate in determining the future of this organization and our profession.

On behalf of my colleagues,

Kevin R. Guidry

PhD Student, Higher Education & Student Affairs Indiana University

I have privately thanked them many times but I once again offer my sincere thanks to everyone involved in putting forth this proposal.  Elizabeth Griego and Jan Walbert were extraordinarily gracious with their time in helping us put together this proposal with the full benefit of their experience, knowledge, and support.  The signatories of the proposal were wonderful in their moral and material support.  And, most importantly, my behind-the-scenes team of Dan Bureau, Nick Grainger, Chris Medrano, and Nolan Yaws were there every step of the way to keep me on the right path and ensure that this proposal expressed our emotions in a professional and respectful manner.

Here are my current and upcoming projects, listed in no particular order…

• Continue editing and submit for publication (EDUCAUSE Quarterly?) the paper (A Comparison of Student and Faculty Academic Technology Use Across Disciplines) I just presented with Allison BrckaLorenz at the AIR Forum.
• Finish preparing for my ResNet 2010 assessment preconference session.
• Continue working with the ResNet 2010 hosts to schedule and conduct attendee focus groups to supplement the survey data we recently collected regarding the current state and future direction of the ResNet organization.
• Two potential AERA proposals:
  • Discourse analysis of #sachat.  I wrote a solid paper for the discourse analysis class I took in the spring but Rey Junco will be helping me to redo some of the analysis and edit the paper.
  • Historical analysis of student affairs and technology.  I have a solid draft of this paper already done (another class paper) but it’s very long and needs to be edited down to a more manageable, readable length.  Additionally, I’ve recently discovered that we have in the library stacks at Indiana University proceedings from NASPA and ACPA meetings held during the first half of the twentieth century.  I need to spend time in the library with those proceedings as I haven’t yet incorporated them into my study (I didn’t know where I could find them; I certainly didn’t expect to find them at my home institution!).
• Begin a new project analyzing the demographics of student affairs professionals.  I wanted to use these data in my Twitter research but no one has done this work in 15 years so I’ll have to do it (I hope that I’m wrong and that I simply haven’t found a current or recent source!).
• Wait to hear back from ASHE to know if our Wikipedia proposal has been accepted.  If so, then we need to do more work on it to update it and get it into shape for the conference later this year.

Of course, I have other things going on and coming up: quals in 2 months, ongoing projects at work, and beginning data collection for my dissertation.  I thought that summer – especially the summer after you finish coursework – was supposed to be quiet and relaxing?

In brief, the proposal argues that Student Affiliates:

• Are the future of NASPA and have a significant stake in the future of NASPA and the broader student affairs profession
• Include in their ranks members who are experienced student affairs professionals dedicated to NASPA and those who have proven their dedication to NASPA deserve a voice in its future
• Likely represent the most diverse group of NASPA members and are not proportionately represented by Voting Delegates or Professional Affiliates

If you are a Student Affiliate of NASPA, please:

1. Add your name to the proposal by editing it directly, leaving a comment below, or sending me an e-mail at krguidry@gmail.com.  Please include your name, current institution, degree status (i.e. Master’s student, Doctoral student, or Doctoral candidate), and any current or former leadership positions you’ve held in NASPA.
2. Spread the word to your colleagues and fellow students by sending them a link to this blog post (http://mistakengoal.com/blog/2010/05/24/naspa-will-not-allow-student-members-to-vote-on-acpanaspa-consolidation/ or http://tinyurl.com/29oqh9h).

If you are not a Student Affiliate of NASPA, please share this with students by sending them a link to this blog post (http://mistakengoal.com/blog/2010/05/24/naspa-will-not-allow-student-members-to-vote-on-acpanaspa-consolidation/ or http://tinyurl.com/29oqh9h).

If you have any questions or suggestions about this topic, the proposal, or how we should proceed from here, please share them by leaving a comment or e-mailing me directly.

We are the future of NASPA and student affairs.  Let’s ensure we have a voice in that future.

During this event, my primary technology-related thoughts were about how students could use technology to remain connected to one another to network and provide support.  Several students expressed frustrations about how (dis)connected they feel at their institution, particularly those from small programs or in unique situations like those who commute or take primarily distance ed courses.  It seems that we could find ways for those who attended this seminar to remain connected to provide that support for those students and open up new opportunities for one another.  Maybe it’s as simple as a Facebook group?  I don’t know if such an effort is sustainable or would be used by many participants but it might be worth a shot…

Unrelated to the doc student seminar: NASPA is making a big push to get attendees and members to use tools like Twitter and blogs.  NASPA has a blog set up for the conference and they are pushing – hard – for people to use the #NASPA10 hashtag for their Twitter posts.  And the #sachat folks are very active, too, with a demo planned for tonight at 6:00 Central followed by a physical meetup (a “tweetup”).