Learning About Technology and Student Affairs: Outcomes of an Online Immersion

Renn, Kristen A

The topics of technology in higher education and online teaching/learning have for many years received increased attention among higher education researchers. Research on student learning abounds with examples of the ways in which technology is influencing teaching and learning in higher education (e.g., Lewis, Coursol, & Khan, 2001; Twigg, 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. Although scholars and practitioners have called for increased attention to technology in preparation programs (Baier, 1994; Bowman & Cuyjet; DLTF, 2000; Engstrom, 1997; Kretovics, 2002, 2003), the standards guiding graduate preparation program curricula (Council for the Advancement of Standards, 2003) pay relatively scant attention to technology and computer-related competencies. While many student affairs specialties have moved ahead to incorporate internet use and task-specific software into daily operations, student affairs graduate preparation programs themselves lag behind in addressing technology and the needs of online learners (Bowman & Cuyjet; Engstrom; Kretovics, 2002).

In spring 2004, we attempted to address this issue in the curriculum of a required course in a student affairs administration graduate program through a hybrid F2F/ online course designed to teach student affairs master's students about technology in higher education. The study we report here was designed to examine the experiential and learning outcomes of this intervention. 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 master's students toward online teaching, learning, and student services?

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 participated in the study. It is important to note that the course instructors are also the co-authors of this article, 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 Collection

Data for the study consist of pre-, midsemester, and post-surveys of student attitudes and skills in relation to technology and student affairs, transcripts of asynchronous online discussion, and student assignments (e.g., case study solutions, reflective essays, and sample projects). Data relevant to this article are 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.

Limitations

Our study is limited in two 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. After beginning the online course immersion, we became interested in better understanding the phenomenon of online teaching/learning in this context. 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 move through the course with the idea that everything they wrote or uploaded would become data. (We obtained human subjects permission from our institution, all data have been reviewed by the students who posted them, and affirmative consent was obtained for all data used in study.) 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.

FINDINGS

Pre-, Midsemester, 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 completed only the pre- and post-surveys. The remaining six students completed the pre- and/or midsemester 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 midsemester 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 1.176 (SD = .438) for the question, "Do you believe student affairs can be practiced in an online environment?" to 4.76 (SD = .438) for comfort using word processing software. See Table 1 for complete descriptive data.

To compare student responses across 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

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

Three questions showed significant differences between the pre-survey, and both the midsemester 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 midsemester (p

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).

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-, midsemester, 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.

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 to explore the topic had an influence on their thinking. 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 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.

DISCUSSION

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. 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."

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

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: (a) the perceived necessity for student affairs to be practiced in a face-to-face setting, and (b) 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 midsemester 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."

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.

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

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). The 19 master's students entered the course with varying levels of comfort using computers. By midsemester, after tutorials and assignments related to developing 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.

IMPLICATIONS

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; DLTF, 2000; Engstrom, 1997; Kretovics, 2002, 2003), and that a combination of explicit instruction in technology-related skills, a brief (five week) online course immersion experience, and explicit discussion of rechnology in student affairs is related to positive changes in student skills and attitudes. 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 some professionals who can be leaders in this area and others who will, at a minimum, include technology among the many tools available to them to use in ways consistent with the philosophical and theoretical bases of the profession.

REFERENCES

Arabasz, 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 College 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 National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, Seattle, WA.

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

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. 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 the Michigan College Personnel Association, Toledo, OH.

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

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

Engstrom, C. M. (1997). Integrating information technology into student affairs graduate programs. In C. 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. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

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

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

Lewis, J., Coursol, D., & Khan, L. (2001). College students@tech.edu: A study of comfort and the use of technology. Journal of College Student Development, 42(6), 625-631.

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 and other forms of distance learning. Lanham, MD: American College Personnel Association, University Press of America.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

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

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

Kristen A. Renn is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Administration at Michigan State University. Dawn M. Zeligman is a doctoral candidate in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristen A. Renn, Assistant Professor, Michigan State University, 428 Erickson Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034; renn@msu.edu

Copyright American College Personnel Association Sep/Oct 2005
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved