paper presented at the annual meeting of the association ...renn/ashe2004technology.pdf · 1. what...

1

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher EducationNovember, 2004 ~ Kansas City, Missouri

Learning About Technology and Student Affairs: Outcomes of an Online ImmersionKristen A. Renn and Dawn Zeligman

Michigan State Universityfor more information: [email protected]

The topics of technology in higher education and online teaching/learning have for many

years received increased attention among higher education researchers. Research on faculty

development and on student learning abounds with examples of the ways in which technology is

influencing teaching and learning in higher education (e.g., Koehler, Mishra, Hershey, &

Peruski, 2004; Lewis, Coursol, & Khan, 2001; Palloff & Pratt, 2001; Twigg, 2004; Wingard,

2004). Ways that computers, in particular, have changed faculty and student attitudes, behaviors,

and identities have received increasing attention (e.g., Arabasz, Pirani, & Fawcett, 2003;

Tapscott, 1998), and a parallel body of research has emerged on how higher education

administrators are responding to these changes (e.g., Distance Learning Task Force [DLTF],

2000; Green, 2003). It seems clear that whether students earn degrees completely online,

participate in a combination of face-to-face (F2F) and online courses, or take courses that are

hybrid F2F/online formats, they will continue to require an array of student services (Barratt,

2001; Broughton, 2000; Schwitzer, Ancis, & Brown, 2001; WCET, 2003).

Recent research (Bowman & Cuyjet, 1999; Kretovics, 2003) has shown, however, that

the individuals charged with providing student services in face-to-face settings – typically

student affairs professionals – are not being well prepared to deal with the challenges of

integrating technology and online learners into their work. While many student affairs specialties

have moved ahead to incorporate internet use and task-specific software into daily operations

(e.g., DLTF, 2000; NACADA Tech Commission, 2003), student affairs graduate preparation

2

programs themselves lag behind in addressing technology and the needs of online learners

(Bowman & Cuyjet, 1999; Engstrom, 1997; Kretovics, 2002). The paper we propose reports on a

study designed to examine the experiential and learning outcomes of a hybrid F2F/online course

designed to teach student affairs master’s students about technology in higher education.

Background: Student Affairs Professionals and Technology

Immersed in a professional culture that holds involvement as a major tenet of

socialization and learning (DLTF, 2000), student affairs practitioners as a group have come

somewhat reluctantly to understand the importance of using technology to improve their work

(see Upcraft & Terenzini, n.d.). Online students, some professionals fear, will lose out on the

important socialization features that are believed to be associated with “going to college,” yet

there is a growing realization in the field that “there are very few things that cannot be translated

from a brick and mortar campus to a cyber campus” (DLTF, 2000, p. 2). Indeed, some areas

within student affairs have embraced technology to serve to improve services to students on

campus as well as online (see Baier & Strong, 1994; Treuer & Belote, 1997). Career

development is one such example; the National Career Development Association (NCDA)

included “technology” in its career counseling competencies (NCDA, 1997) and career centers

have been identified as sites of substantial expansion of services using online and other

technology (Behrens & Altman, 1998). Other specialties, such as residence life and student

unions, have historically been located – physically as well as philosophically – on campus in

ways that do not seem easily translated to cyberspace (e.g., Hammond & Shindell, 2000). Yet,

professionals in these fields have integrated technology into their daily operations and student

3

services. It would seem nearly impossible for a new student affairs professional to avoid

technology or to succeed in the workplace without computer skills and pro-technology attitudes.

In spite of mounting evidence that these skills and attitudes will be important, graduate

preparation programs in student affairs generally have not responded by including technology

education in their curricula (Bowman & Cuyjet, 1999). And although scholars and practitioners

have called for increased attention to technology in preparation programs (Baier, 1994; Bowman

& Cuyjet, 1999; Engstrom, 1997; DLTF, 2000; Kretovics, 2002, 2003; Lovell & Kosten, 2000),

the standards guiding graduate preparation program curricula (Council for the Advancement of

Standards, 2003) pay relatively scant attention to technology and computer-related competencies.

There are few examples in the literature of technology infusion and no evidence of what

outcomes might occur if technology skills and attitudes were the explicit focus of a graduate

course in student affairs. If faculty believe that it is important to respond to calls for increasing

attention to this area, then it is time to learn what works when it comes to teaching technology in

student affairs.

Purpose

This paper reports results of a case study exploring the experiences and outcomes of students and

instructors in an online course immersion, the topic of which was technology in student affairs.

We address the following questions related to the course immersion:

1. What is the experience of student affairs master’s students immersed in an online

course format where the focus of the instruction is technology and student affairs?

2. Does this immersion experience influence the attitudes of student affairs MA students

toward online teaching, learning, and student services?

4

3. Does this immersion influence their self-reported skill level with regard to technology

and student affairs?

Study Context and Method

Site and sample. Data for the study were generated throughout and immediately

following a one-semester course that is second in a pair of required courses that introduce first-

year students in Student Affairs Administration (SAA) to the profession. The course took place

at a public research extensive institution with an SAA master’s program that draws a national

student body and selects about half of applicants annually. The 19 students enrolled in spring

2004 and the two instructors (a faculty member and a doctoral student) participated in the study.

Neither instructor had taken or taught an on online course prior to this semester. It is important

to note that the instructors are also the co-authors of this paper, the implications of which we

discuss below.

The course was taught in three loosely linked units of five weeks each: assessment,

technology, and multicultural education in student affairs. The assessment and multicultural units

were taught in traditional classroom format, with minimal integration of technology or course

software. During the first five F2F weeks of the course, instructors provided tutorials on

technology-related skills (e.g., creating newsletters, PowerPoint presentations, and personal web

pages). The middle unit – on technology and student affairs – was taught entirely online using

the commercial courseware to which the university subscribes.

Data for the study consist of pre-, middle, and post-surveys of student attitudes and skills

in relation to technology and student affairs, transcripts of asynchronous online discussion,

student assignments (e.g., case study solutions, reflective essays, and sample projects), face-to-

5

face interviews with course participants, and instructor reflections. Data relevant to this paper

include the student surveys; scaled survey items and possible responses are included in Table 1.

Data analyses included descriptive statistics and analyses of variance generated from Likert-

scaled items on the surveys, as well as thematic analyses (see Boyatzis, 1998) of open-ended

survey responses and discussion board posts. To answer the general question of “experience in

the course” we conducted open-ended coding and generated grounded theory from text generated

by the open-ended survey questions (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).

Limitations. Our study is limited in several ways that bear noting. We (the authors) were

instructors in the course under investigation, and we did not intend at the outset to study the

teaching/learning experience in the course. Shortly after beginning the online course immersion,

we became interested in better understanding the phenomenon of online teaching/learning in the

context of a student affairs/higher education course. A consequent limitation is that we did not

design the course assignments, surveys, and online discussions with the purpose of data

collection in mind; an advantage is that data more accurately represent a “naturalistic” approach

to the scholarship of teaching – students did not go through the course with the idea that

everything they wrote or uploaded would become data1. Another limitation to note is the nature

of the sample. One graduate course at one institution cannot represent the universe of higher

education and student affairs master’s programs. In many ways, this sample reflects the student

affairs profession (majority white, majority female), but the particularities of the group prevent

simple generalizations beyond the sample.

1 We obtained human subjects permission from our institution, all data included in the study have

been reviewed by the students who posted them, and affirmative consent was obtained for all

data used in study.

6

Findings

Our research questions focused on experiences, attitudes, and skills in relation to the

online immersion. In this paper, data to address these questions comes from the pre-, middle, and

post-surveys. In this section we present survey findings then aggregate findings by experiences,

attitudes, and skills, acknowledging that some student responses cut across these areas and that

the categories are not mutually exclusive. That is, experiences may influence attitudes, just as

attitudes influence experiences; skill levels may influence experiences and attitudes and vice

versa.

Pre-, mid-, and post-surveys

Of the 19 students enrolled in the course, 17 students completed one or more of the

surveys. Ten students completed all three surveys, and two students complete the pre- and post-

surveys. The remaining six students completed the pre- and/or mid-semester surveys. The data

from these six students were included in the basic descriptive analysis but eliminated from

subsequent testing.

Scaled survey items

Descriptive statistics were calculated for all survey questions. Pre-survey means ranged

from 1.50 (SD =.632) for comfort using web-authoring software to edit a web page, to 4.35 (SD

=.861) for comfort using word processing software. Answers to the mid-semester survey ranged

from 1.86 (SD =.351) for the question Do you believe student affairs can be practiced in an on-

line environment? to 4.80 (SD =.560). The post-survey mean responses ranged from 4.76 (SD

=.438) for comfort using word processing software, to 1.176 (SD =.438) for the question Do you

7

believe student affairs can be practiced in an online environment? See Table 1 for complete

descriptive data.

To compare student responses from all three surveys we conducted a one-way analysis of

variance with a Tukey-Kramer HSD post-hoc test of mean differences. This test showed

significant positive difference between pre- and post-survey for questions that asked about

comfort levels. These included: How comfortable are you making a newsletter? (F = 4.4, p < .01,

df = 2); How comfortable are you using web authoring software (Dreamweaver, FrontPage,

etc.) to EDIT a web page? (F =24.7, p < .000, df = 2); How comfortable are you using web

authoring software (Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc.) to CREATE an original web page? (F=

18.9, p < .000, df = 2); How comfortable are you using the internet to find information related to

student affairs practice? (F = 5.0, p < .011, df = 2); and How comfortable are you using the

[university] website to find research and professional literature related to student affairs

practice? (F = 3.3, p < .044, df =2).

Post-hoc testing further elucidated these variances. For the question How comfortable are

you making a newsletter? there was a significant positive difference between the pre-survey and

the post-survey (p < .028 ) but not the mid-semester survey. Comfort using the library website to

find research and professional literature related to student affairs practice also showed a positive

difference (p < .041) between the pre-survey and post-survey.

Three questions showed significant differences between the pre-survey, and both the mid-

semester survey and post-survey. The question How comfortable are you using web authoring

software (Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc.) to EDIT an original web page? evidenced significant

differences between the pre-survey and both the mid-semester (p < .001) and post-surveys (p <

.000). Comfort using web authoring software (Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc.) to CREATE an

8

original web page showed significant differences between the pre-survey and both the mid-

semester (p < .002) and post-surveys (p < .000). Level of comfort using the internet to find

information related to student affairs practice showed differences at the p <.037 for the mid-

semester survey, and p < .019 for the post-survey. See Table 2 for a full accounting.

The results of the analysis of variance demonstrate that comfort level for five specific skills

(making a newsletter, using web authoring software to edit and create web pages, using the

internet to find information related to student affairs practice, and using the library website to

find research and professional literature) increased from the beginning of the course to the end of

the course. While this study provides data to support the claim that immersion will increase self-

reported skill level with technology and student affairs, it fails to show significant changes in

attitudes regarding the use of technology in student affairs and the practice of student affairs in

an online environment. It should be noted that for the question, Do you believe student affairs

can be practiced in an online environment? the mean response declined throughout the semester

although the differences were not significant.

Open-ended survey questions

Two questions on each survey provided opportunities for open-ended short responses.

The first followed the skills items and asked What other technological skills do you have that you

can use in relation to student affairs work? Answers, which did not vary substantially from pre-

to post-surveys, included spreadsheet and database software (e.g., Microsoft Excel), drawing

programs (e.g., Visio, Arts & Letters), publishing software (e.g., Publisher, PageMaker), web

page authoring software (e.g., Netscape Composer), and instant message programs (e.g., AOL

Instant Messenger and Yahoo! Messenger).

9

The second open-ended question was a Why? follow-up to the question Do you believe

that student affairs can be practiced in an online environment? In keeping with the mixed

attitude responses in the pre-, middle, and post-surveys, answers to this question showed a range

of responses at each survey point, discussed in the attitudes section below.

Two additional open-ended questions were included in the final survey: Did [this course]

contribute to your learning any of the skills in questions 1-8 above? If so, please describe. And

Did [this course] contribute to your thinking on questions 12-15 above? If so, please describe.

Of the nine students responding to the first question, seven students attributed their increase in

skills (questions 1-8) to the course, and cited their increase in comfort working with web site

creation and/or editing as the main area of increased comfort. One student wrote, “Not really. I

already knew how to do PowerPoint, newsletters, and to use MS Word. I would have liked to

spend more time on webpage design,” and another noted, “Still uncomfortable with actual web

design software.”

To the second question, relating to attitudes regarding technology and student affairs,

student responses reflected their mixed feelings about student affairs and technology, but

generally noted that the opportunity through the course to explore the topic had an influence on

their thinking (whether or not they began or ended the course favorably disposed to technology

in student affairs work). Some comments related to content of the course: “I heard both sides of

the case for using online tools in student affairs and I still think that personal interaction should

be the way we go.”

And:

It gave me an opportunity to look at the love-hate relationship between technology and

student affairs, look at various perspectives, but most importantly it allowed me to be at

10

peace with that relationship. I’ve always been on the ‘hate’ side of that equation, but I

think I’m slowly learning to ‘love’ it and I’m learning to work in a way where technology

can complement student affairs instead of hinder or damage it.

Other comments related to the online immersion experience itself, such as, “I really enjoyed the

online environment – it helped me to understand the impact that face to face interactions have on

students” and [Did course contribute to thinking?] “Yes, particularly during the online portion of

the course.”

Experiences

Findings about experiences related to outcomes derived from the immersion and to the

quality of the learning environment. The online immersion seemed to have the intended effect of

simulating for students the experience of being online distance learners (i.e., those students may

not ever be physically present and whose interactions with the postsecondary institution are

conducted online, by telephone, or using other distance learning communication media). For

some students, this was a positive experience, for others it was frustrating. In either case,

however, the immersion resulted in experiential learning. In the final survey, one student wrote,

“I really enjoyed the online environment – it helped me to understand the impact that face to face

interactions have on students.” Another student noted that without the online immersion, “I never

would have thought about the impact that technology can really have.” End-of-semester

evaluations suggested that the online immersion portion of the course should be retained,

because “No matter whether you liked it or not, it was a good way to find out more about online

courses and what it would be like to be in one.”

11

Having been immersed in an online course for five weeks, students came to understand

themselves better as online learners in an asynchronous course environment. For some students,

the medium created an effective learning environment:

What I enjoyed about [the online discussion] was that I could get all of my thoughts out

and make sure they sounded okay before I submitted. I also like the fact that I could read

and reread the thoughts of others. Sometimes in class when you should be listening to

others and processing their words, we are too busy thinking of what we are going to say.

With this online forum, we can not only be heard, but we can really let some things sink

in, before we choose to respond.

For others, it was less effective:

As an extrovert and someone who can’t sit still long enough to read all of [the posts], I

had to come back a couple of times to keep reading. I have come to the conclusion that I

am one of those types of students that can’t handle online discussions unless they are live

chats.

These sentiments – the ability to participate more fully in an online environment and frustration

at the process of interacting with peers only through the online medium – were common among

the group and revealed a degree of self-knowledge among students about their learning and

interaction styles in both online and face-to-face learning settings. It is not clear whether or not

these students knew these learning styles and preferences prior to the online immersion, but it is

clear that the online course context made these tendencies salient to the students.

Attitudes

12

Four survey items asked for students’ opinions regarding the use of technology in student

affairs and the practice of student affairs in online environments. Additional data regarding

student attitudes came from archived transcripts of course communication, including answers to

the discussion question: “What do we mean by ‘online student services’?” The general theme of

student attitudes about the use of technology in student affairs is that attitudes were mixed

before, during, and after the course. However, some student responses at the end of the course

indicate a more considered response based on increased experience and knowledge, rather than a

response based solely in preconceptions about technology and student affairs practice.

At the start of the course, students greeted the survey question “Can student affairs be

practiced in an online environment?” with a resounding “Maybe” (15 of 19). Free response

answers to the follow up “Why?” clustered around two main themes: 1. The perceived necessity

for student affairs to be practiced in a face-to-face setting, and 2. An understanding that

increasing use of technology is both inevitable and potentially efficient. Many students were

vehement in their philosophical opposition (“Student interaction/student services is what student

affairs is all about!!!”).

After the online portion of the course, which focused on technology and student affairs,

the consensus remained “Maybe,” but the explanations for this response had changed. Key

themes at mid-semester were the complexity of the field of student affairs, the increasingly tech-

savvy student population, a fear of being replaced by software that could perform student affairs

functions, and a persistent belief that many student affairs areas require face-to-face interaction.

A typical response: “After our online experiment I am still unsure if student affairs can be

practiced online. I saw some ways that it could be enhanced, but I am not totally convinced that

it can work totally online.”

13

At the end of the semester, responses reflected more experience and insight, emphasizing

an application of technology in student affairs differentiated by function and intended outcomes

of the application. For example, one student wrote

I’m still a little hesitant about practicing all student services online. I still think that

advising should be in person. There are facial expressions and body language that cannot

be viewed online. Sometimes that is more telling than what the student says.

Another student wrote:

Exclusively online? no. Partially online? yes. I just think student interaction and contact

is essential for student involvement and development. Things like counseling and

advising are some aspects that should be carefully examined before committing them to

exclusively online service.

And a third student wrote:

80% of student affairs is relationship based, even though some things like advising, some

aspects of career services, etc. can be done online, other areas such as counseling, judicial

affairs, etc couldn’t function in the proper capacity without the human relationship piece.

What, are we going to have RAs on floor via AOL instant messenger, maybe have a web

camera on each floor, they could instant messenger the RA when they had an issue? OK,

maybe I went to far.

A clear theme from the start of the term through the end was the perceived need for face-to-face

interaction with students, especially in counseling-related functions within student affairs.

Skills

14

The survey captured self-reported data on student comfort – as a proxy for tested skill

levels – with a variety of computer and technology skills noted in the literature as important for

professional success (Bowman & Cuyjet, 1999), including word processing, presentation

software (PowerPoint), web page design and editing, and using the internet and campus library

website to find information related to student affairs practice. The 19 master’s students entered

the course with varying levels of comfort using computers for word processing, creating

newsletters and PowerPoint presentations, and designing and editing web pages. By mid-

semester, after tutorials and assignments related to these skills, all students indicated at least

“somewhat comfortable” with word processing, newsletters, and PowerPoint. Levels of comfort

increased in five specific areas by the end of the course: making a newsletter, using web

authoring software to edit and create web pages, using the internet to find information related to

student affairs practice, and using the library website to find research and professional literature.

Summary of Findings

In a limited amount of time, students gained comfort in using technology-related skills

and reported a range of experiences with the online learning experience. While there was no

measurable statistical difference in attitudes related to technology and student affairs, there were

shifts in students’ reasoning related to technology and student affairs, perhaps reflecting a more

considered approach to the question.

Implications and Future Research

From one perspective, the case study might appear to be an evaluation of an intervention

to teach technology to a single graduate class. We believe, however, that this case has features

15

with implications for educational practice and for future research. Higher education faculty

prepare graduate students to function as faculty and administrators in technology-saturated

workplaces. The ability to access information and/or conduct research and to make it available to

others – including students, the public, higher education leaders, or other faculty – will be

critical. Although we assumed that most master’s level students would come to graduate school

as savvy members of the Net Generation (Tapscott, 1998), this was not the case. Explicit

instruction in computer technology will be necessary, at least for the majority of students, if

graduate preparation programs aim to turn out professionals who can be leaders in this area.

We suggest that graduate programs ensure that students enter the workplace with skills

related to using specific software (e.g., presentation, communication, desktop publishing, and

web page authoring), hardware (e.g., personal computers, personal digital assistants, digital

scanners), and peripherals (e.g., still and video digital cameras, digital voice recorders). Our

findings indicate that master’s students can be taught at least some of these skills in a relatively

short period of time when provided with instruction, practice, and motivation. As important, our

findings indicate that explicit discussion and exploration of uses of technology to provide and

enhance student services can promote more considered attitudes toward the incorporation of

technology in student affairs work. It was not our agenda to convert students into technological

whiz kids ready to go out and transform all student affairs functions into computer-mediated

environments; we aimed to have students carefully consider the possibilities for using technology

in student affairs and to include technology among the many tools available to them to use in

ways consistent with the philosophical and theoretical bases of the profession.

It is possible that acquiring new skills then may lead to increased use of technology

among the students who participated in this course; it is also possible that the changes we

16

observed are not sustained over time, and a follow up study is in order. In the short term,

however, our evidence indicates an increase in students’ perceived competence using

technology. Studies designed to discover what works best in teaching technology to higher

education students may provide a foundation for improved practice in the field. Research on

instruction – as well as on outcomes – related to technology in graduate education in higher

education/student affairs has been identified as a gap in the professional preparation literature

(e.g., Bowman & Cuyjet, 1999; Engstrom, 1997; Kretovics, 2002, 2003).

Our findings indicate that it may indeed be possible to meet the calls for inclusion of

technology in student affairs preparation programs (Bowman & Cuyjet, 1999; Engstrom, 1997;

DLTF, 2000; Kretovics, 2002, 2003; Lovell & Kosten, 2000), and that a combination of explicit

instruction in technology-related skills, a brief (five week) online course immersion experience,

and explicit discussion of technology in student affairs is related to positive changes in student

skills and attitudes. Of course, technology is ever changing and it will never be possible to equip

graduate students with all of the technological skills they will need to be successful in the higher

education workplace. By introducing them to some skills and to the possibilities for providing

student affairs programs and services online, however, we may be providing a foundation for and

orientation toward future professional development in this area.

17

ReferencesArabasz, P., Pirani, J., & Fawcett, D. (2003). Supporting e-learning in higher education. Retrieved

April 24, 2004 from http://www.educause.edu/asp/doclib/abstract.asp?ID=ERS0303.Baier, J. L. (1994). Assessing and enhancing technological competencies of staff. In J. L. Baier & T. S.

Strong (Eds.), Technology in student affairs (pp. 15-26). Washington, DC: American CollegePersonnel Association.

Baier, J. L., & Strong, T. S. (Eds.). (1994). Technology in student affairs. Washington, DC: AmericanCollege Personnel Association.

Barratt, W. (2001, March). Managing information technology in student affairs: A report on policies,practices, staffing, and technology. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the NationalAssociation of Student Personnel Administrators, Seattle, WA.

Behrens, T., & Altman, B. (1998). Technology: Impact on and implications for college career centers.Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 58 (2), 19-22.

Bowman, R. L., & Cujyet, M. (1999). Incorporating technology: A comparison of preparation programtraining and student affairs practitioners’ expectations. College Student Affairs Journal, 18 (2), 4-15.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and codedevelopment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Broughton, E. (2000, October). Information communication technology (ICT) shaping student affairs.Paper presented at the combined Meeting of the Ohio College Personnel Association and theMichigan College Personnel Association, Toledo, OH.

Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2003). The book of professionalstandards for higher education 2003. Washington, DC: Author.

Distance Learning Task Force. (March 2000). Distance learning and student affairs: Defining theissues. Report of the Distance Learning Task Force. Washington, DC: NASPA.

Engstrom, C. M. (1997). Integrating information technology into student affairs graduate programs. InC. M. Engstrom & K. W. Kruger (Eds.), Using technology to promote student learning:Opportunities for today and tomorrow (pp. 59-70). New Directions for Student Services, 78. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitativeresearch. Chicago: Aldine.

Green, K. (2003). The campus computing project. Retrieved April 24, 2004 fromhttp://www.campuscomputing.net/.

Hammond, D., & Shindell, W. (2000). Strategic process core team final report. Bloomington, IN:Association of College Unions – International. Retrieved April 24, 2004 fromhttp://www.acui.org/Acui/About/Reports.

Koehler, M.J., Mishra, P., Hershey, K., & Peruski, L. (2004). With a little help from your students: Anew model for faculty development and online course design. Journal of Technology and TeacherEducation 12 (1), 25-55.

Kretovics, M. (2002). Entry-level competencies: What student affairs administrators consider whenscreening candidates. Journal of College Student Development, 43 (6), 912-920.

Kretovics, M. (2003). The role of student affairs in distance education: Cyber-services or virtualcommunities. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 6 (3). Retrieved April 26, 2004from http://www. Westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/kretovics63.html.

Lewis, J., Coursol, D., & Khan, L. (2001). College [email protected]: A study of comfort and the useof technology. Journal of College Student Development, 42 (6), 625-631.

18

Lovell, C. D., & Kosten, L. A. (2000). Skills, knowledge, and personal traits necessary for success as astudent affairs administrator: A meta-analysis of thirty years of research. NASPA Journal, 37 (4), 553-572.

NACADA Tech Commission. (2003). National Academic Advising Association Technology inAdvising Commission. Retrieved April 26, 2004 from http://www.psu.edu/dus/ncta/index.html

NCDA. (1997). Career counseling competencies, revised version. Retrieved April 26, 2004 fromhttp://www.ncda.org.

Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of onlineteaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Schwitzer, A. M., Ancis, J. R., & Brown, N. (2001). Promoting student learning and student

development at a distance: Student affairs concepts and practices for televised instruction andother forms of distance learning. Lanham, MD: American College Personnel Association,University Press of America, Inc.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.Treuer, P., & Belote, L. (1997). Current and emerging applications of technology to promote student

involvement and learning. In C. M. Engstrom & K. W. Kruger (Eds.), Using technology to promotestudent learning: Opportunities for today and tomorrow (pp. 17-44). New Directions for StudentServices, 78. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Twigg, C. A. (2004). Using asynchronous learning in redesign: Reaching and retaining the at-riskstudent. Journal of Asynchronous Learning, 8 (1). Retrieved April 26, 2004 fromhttp://www.aln.org/publications/jaln/v8n1/v8n1_twigg.asp

Upcraft M. L., & Terenzini, P. T. (n.d.). Technology. Retrieved September 2, 2004 fromhttp://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorscholars/trends/trend5.htm

WCET. (2003). Beyond the administrative core: Creating web-based student services for onlinelearners. Retrieved April 24, 2004 from http://www.wcet.info/projects/laap/index.asp.

Wingard, K. (2004). Classroom teaching changes in web-enhanced courses: A multi-institutional study.EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 27 (1). Retrieved April 27, 2004 fromhttp://www.educause.edu/pub/eq/eqm04/eqm0414.asp.

19

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics from Pre-, Mid-, and Post-Surveys

SurveyN Mean Std.

Deviation

How comfortable are you using word processingsoftware? §

pre-testmid-semester

post-testTotal

17151345

4.35294.80004.76924.6222

.861

.560

.438

.683How comfortable are you making a newsletter? § pretest

mid-semesterpost-test

Total

17151345

3.11763.93334.07693.6667

1.111.883.862

1.044How comfortable are you using PowerPoint tomake a presentation? §


post-testTotal

17151345

3.35294.13334.23083.8667

1.411.743.832

1.120How comfortable are you using web authoringsoftware (Dreamweaver, Front Page, etc.) to EDITa web page? §


post-testTotal

16151243

1.50002.73333.83332.5814

.632

.7031.2671.276

How comfortable are you using web authoringsoftware (Dreamweaver, Front Page, etc) toCREATE a web page? §


post-testTotal

17151345

1.52942.60003.38462.4222

.624

.6321.1921.117

How comfortable are you using the internet to findinformation related to student affairs practice? §


post-testTotal

17151345

4.00004.60004.69234.4000

.790

.507

.630

.719How comfortable are you using [university]library website to find research and professionalliterature related to student affairs practice? §


post-testTotal

17151345

3.76474.26674.53854.1556

.903

.883

.660

.877How often do you use the internet (not countingemail) in your student affairs work?(1 = not at all; 2 = once or twice/week; 3 = everyday; 4 = many times/day)


post-testTotal

17151345

2.70592.73333.46152.9333

.919

.961

.776

.939How important do you think technology is to thepractice of student affairs administration? (1 = not at all; 2 = a little; 3 = a lot; 4 = veryimportant; 5 = essential/critical)


post-testTotal

17151345

3.82354.00004.30774.0222

.808

.925

.751

.839How important do you think technology will be tothe practice of student affairs in 10 years? (1 = not at all; 2 = a little; 3 = a lot; 4 = veryimportant; 5 = essential/critical)


post-testTotal

17151345

4.58824.60004.69234.6222

.712

.632

.480

.613Do you believe student affairs can be practiced inan online environment?(Yes = 1, Maybe = 2, No = 3)


post-testTotal

17151345

1.88241.86671.76921.8444

.485

.351

.438

.424§ 1 = Never used; 2 = Not comfortable; 3 = Somewhat comfortable; 4 = Very comfortable, I use it but couldn’t teachit to someone else; 5 = Very comfortable, I use it and could teach it to someone else

20

Table 2: Multiple Comparisons of Pre-, Mid-, and Post-Survey

Dependent Variable (I) Is this the pre-test,mid-semester, orpost-test?

(J) Is this the pre-test, mid-semester,or post-test?

MeanDifference

(I-J)Std. Error Sig.

pre-test mid-semester -.4471 .23568 .152post-test -.4163 .24512 .218

mid-semester pre-test .4471 .23568 .152post-test .0308 .25210 .992

post-test pre-test .4163 .24512 .218

How comfortable are youusing word processingsoftware?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester -.0308 .25210 .992pre-test mid-semester -.8157 .34407 .057

post-test -.9593* .35785 .028mid-semester pre-test .8157 .34407 .057

post-test -.1436 .36804 .920post-test pre-test .9593* .35785 .028

How comfortable are youmaking a newsletter?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester .1436 .36804 .920pre-test mid-semester -.7804 .37840 .110

post-test -.8778 .39356 .078mid-semester pre-test .7804 .37840 .110

post-test -.0974 .40477 .969post-test pre-test .8778 .39356 .078

How comfortable are youusing PowerPoint to make apresentation?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester .0974 .40477 .969pre-test mid-semester -1.2333* .31434 .001

post-test -2.3333* .33401 .000mid-semester pre-test 1.2333* .31434 .001

post-test -1.1000* .33875 .007post-test pre-test 2.3333* .33401 .000

How comfortable are youusing web authoringsoftware (Dreamweaver,Front Page, etc.) to EDIT aweb page?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester 1.1000* .33875 .007pre-test mid-semester -1.0706* .29391 .002

post-test -1.8552* .30569 .000mid-semester pre-test 1.0706* .29391 .002

post-test -.7846* .31440 .043post-test pre-test 1.8552* .30569 .000

How comfortable are youusing web authoringsoftware (Dreamweaver,Front Page, etc) toCREATE a web page?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester .7846* .31440 .043pre-test mid-semester -.6000* .23427 .037

post-test -.6923* .24366 .019mid-semester pre-test .6000* .23427 .037

post-test -.0923 .25060 .928post-test pre-test .6923* .24366 .019

How comfortable are youusing the internet to findinformation related tostudent affairs practice?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester .0923 .25060 .928* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

21

Table 2 (cont.)

Dependent Variable (I) Is this the pre-test,mid-semester, orpost-test?

(J) Is this the pre-test, mid-semester,or post-test?

MeanDifference

(I-J)Std. Error Sig.

pre-test mid-semester -.5020 .29549 .218post-test -.7738* .30733 .041

mid-semester pre-test .5020 .29549 .218post-test -.2718 .31608 .668

post-test pre-test .7738* .30733 .041

How comfortable are youusing MSU library websiteto find research andprofessional literaturerelated to student affairspractice?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester .2718 .31608 .668




How often do you use theinternet (not countingemail) in your studentaffairs work?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester .7282 .33940 .093




How important do youthink technology is to thepractice of student affairsadministration?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester .3077 .31617 .598




How important do youthink technology will be tothe practice of studentaffairs in 10 years?

TukeyHSD

mid-semester .0923 .23741 .920

pre-test mid-semester .0157 .15272 .994post-test .1131 .15884 .758

mid-semester pre-test -.0157 .15272 .994post-test .0974 .16336 .823

post-test pre-test -.1131 .15884 .758

Do you believe studentaffairs can be practiced inan online environment?(Yes = 1, Maybe = 2, No =3)

TukeyHSD

mid-semester -.0974 .16336 .823* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

paper presented at the annual meeting of the association ...renn/ashe2004technology.pdf · 1. what...

Documents