From the outset, Dr. Alexander W. Astin set the stage for collaboration. He illustrated, quite powerfully, how Student Affairs (Student Services, whatever your iteration) and Academic Affairs (Instructional Services, whatever your institution calls it) need to be not only aligned, but integrated, tightly. While his opening speech was inspirational throughout, three comments really resonated with me, and were quite preminitionarily-thematic based on the sessions I attended. One of those, “You can’t drop out until you fill out our form!” shows how intrusive advising is rearing its head in discussions and practice, whether we as a profession recognize it or not.
I attended several sessions that were themed and titled around two relatively “new” positions at some institutions, namely “Retention Coordinator/Specialist” and “Engagement Director/Coordinator/Specialist”. In each of those sessions, the presenters made compelling cases for “getting in the faces” of students, rather than allowing “freedom for discovery” as we might have focused on for a decade or two in our profession. Data-sharing, particularly between the traditionally separate domains of Academic/Student services divisions was critical for the positional duties. Diplomacy might indeed be making a comeback, as these new positions often led meetings with professionals and tenured faculty members that were neither direct nor indirect reports. One presenter made a recommendation, “take the first year to become friends with the faculty.” Practices ranged, as did policies on their campuses with respect to Family Educational Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA) interpretation at institutions. Faculty members have the most contact with students; the days of pretending that retention of learners is a function of the “student services side of the house” are over.
Another comment from Dr. Astin was also reflected in nearly every session I attended. Dr. Astin was admonishing the profession for relying on what we have traditionally called satisfaction surveys (what I and other evaluation professionals might call “smiley sheets”) with little substantive use other than for patting ourselves on the backs. He mentioned adding an item (or items) that actually got deeper into what the students were thinking: “What might derail you this semester” or “what might keep you from using what you learned in this session?” and then following up on that. The follow-up implied relationship-building. In later sessions, nearly every presenter I heard was extolling the virtues of creating relationships with students at some level. Faculty members have more chances for these types of transactions with students. If we (student affairs) aren’t able to communicate to faculty members about student concerns, we are doing everyone disservices. Partnering with faculty, who need research projects, might enable us all to dig deeper into what keeps students here and keeps them successful while they are here.
Dr. Astin frequently referred to his (1993) IEO (Input-Environment-Output) model during his speech. He chastised the early profession for relying on Outputs to signify accountability. His remarks alluded to trends that were reflected in earlier years for higher education: nearly all of the students (Input) were from significantly different backgrounds than the students (Input) we have today. Higher education institutions have barely changed their practices (Environments), yet have expected the same high results (output) as was yielded decades ago. Another of his comments, “You (the student) have to take these required courses even if we don’t know your aspirations” evidenced the continuation of the practice. We have to stop the black-box mentality, and begin to utilize student feedback for more than keeping our feelings intact.
One such way might be to utilize a “corporate” evaluation model, such as Kirkpatrick’s four levels. Levels three and four REQUIRE interaction with faculty if we want to monitor, encourage, reinforce, and reward positive behavioral changes. We utilized that with some success (forthcoming, JSARP) during a pilot-study in Idaho. As I embark on a new professional challenge with my current employer, we are considering several options for evaluation and assessment, but ALL involve faculty and administration partnership.