I came across an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education this morning, “Many Colleges Assess Learning but May Not Use Data to Improve, Survey Finds”, that really underlines the importance of assessment not just for the sake of assessment, or purely because of some external requirements, but in order to collect information that we need and will use in a pre-planned manner.

As is elaborated upon in one of the A&PD Centers pages, “Why Assess?”, the term I prefer to “Assessment” is information gathering (and analysis). This gets more at the spirit of what assessment should mean to us — a process of discussing our priorities, thinking beforehand about the information we’d like to have and need to have, and deciding who the results will be reported to as well as the decisions it will be used to inform.

The discussion and decisions made beforehand would act as a road-map, allowing everyone to be on the same page, easing the process, and most importantly, ensuring that the information gathered and analyzed is used! Thus it becomes a useful integrated part of our daily procedure rather than a useless waste of time. Furthermore, when we carry out careful assessment/information gathering (and analysis) in this way, we do not have to then create material for external requirements such as accreditation, as we would already have a reserve of used information to pull evidence from of our assessment efforts. Yeah!

I am a huge fan of the Multicultural Center’s (Campus Life) Unity through Diversity forums! I was lucky enough to have been able to attend both last year’s and this year’s (4/16/09) forums, and it is fascinating to see how the structure is constantly evolving and kept fresh/interesting. The focus remains the same, exploring racial and cultural issues that impact us all.

Dr. Robin Kelley, a professor in the American Studies and Ethnicity department at the University of Southern California was the keynote speaker. He provided much food for thought, and below are some of the morsels I came away with:

- Dr. Kelley stated first two of the topics he wanted to talk a bit about, 1. the fact that many people seem to see the outcome of the most recent US presidential election as an end to racism, and 2. the current controversy over minority weekend recruitment.

- He questioned the current view many seem to have that a lack of racism equals not seeing color, and wondered how it is that we have moved so far away from Black Freedom movement’s vision of an actual remedy to racial inequalities.

- Dr. Kelley also challenged the definition of multiculturalism as being non-white/ethnic, where white is seen as the default, and non-white seen as having culture/multicultural.

- A suggestion was made that perhaps instead of multiple smaller targeted orientations, that aspects of the smaller orientations be incorporated into the full orientation, where issues relating to race, sexual orientation, etc, would be discussed for all to hear. Safe spaces could be provided too if needed.

What was especially interesting was hearing the student perspective. Several students were in attendance, and during the Q&A portion of the forum, different perspectives were given on orientations such as the Black Student Alliance Invitational (BSAI) and Latino Student Recruitment Weekend (LSRW). Thoughts included the weekend being the reason why students ended up matriculating to Duke, one view of the weekend being realistic, and other views of it not being realistic at all.

I think this highlights how important it is to hear students’ voices, going beyond a question or two asking “Did you like X event?” Just hearing those students talk for a few minutes gave so much information, and made me eager for more. What do most students think? What are the trends? What to they think before the recruitment weekends, a few months in, a year later, or even years later? What are their experiences, and how should that impact our programming? Listening made me think too of the need to be careful with qualitative analyses, being careful to listen to interesting individual examples, but also with an eye to trends, themes, and carefully calculating what most students think on various issues.

When we think of research we tend to think of numbers from surveys and crunching data. However, I do believe that the complete story about any topic comes from a combination of obtaining both quantitative and qualitative data. Generally (not always the case!) quantitative methods, using some sort of measurement, tend to tell you what is happening, and qualitative methods, usually some word description, tend to tell you why.

I attended a very interesting talk given by Dr. Michael Kimmel, a professor in the Sociology department at SUNY-Stony Brook on 4/14/09. The talk was cosponsored by Student Affairs’ own Duke Women’s Center, and the Kenan Institute for Ethics. The research Dr. Kimmel described was a great example of the abundance of useful and applicable information that can be obtained through qualitative methodologies.

As Dr. Kimmel explained in a very entertaining fashion, in the past adulthood started right after adolescence, around 18 years of age. There now exists a period between adolescence and adulthood of about a decade, where adulthood now seems to start more around 28 years of age. Adulthood was defined as achievement of the classic (in adolescence literature) markers, (a) moving out, (b) marriage/living with a romantic partner, (c) child-birth/adoption, (d) graduation, and (e) a full-time job.

It is this period of time that Dr.Kimmel identifies as “Guyland” and which was the topic of investigation. He interviewed approximately 400 young men across the US, including some at Duke University. Some of his analyses focused on the reasons for this extension of the period of time before adulthood for the young men. 5 themes identified included:

1. A longer life span versus those in the past. There is no rush then to have children or find a life partner (due to fertility issues there still tends to be time pressure on young women).

2. Serial jobotomy. A shift in being perceived as breadwinner puts less pressure on staying in one job regardless, leading to a longer period before settling down to one permanent job.

3. The different types of relationships with adults now. He was saying that parents of today’s college students tend for the most part to be helicopter until student arrive here, when the students then have an unprecedented amount of freedom. This differs from the previous in loco parentis attitude of colleges and universities.

4. A shift in the influence of adults. The major influences on students, family, teachers, and clergy, have shifted to peers and media.

5. The entry of women into every facet. He mentioned this may be perceived by some young men as an invasion, leading to defensive anger. The need to prove masculinity leads to increased homosociality and homoeroticism, but linked even more closely with homophobia.

He talked too about how traditionally in cultures, initiations to adulthood were carried out by adult men on young men, but now they tend to be carried out by slightly older young men (e.g. juniors) on slightly younger young men (e.g. sophomores).

This is just a snippet of his talk — there was lots of interesting information with many implications, and whatever helps us to better understand our students’ attitudes and environments makes for a more knowledgeable, effective, and efficient Division altogether. It made me wonder too what useful information we may have collected from students but which may be buried still. Buried treasure!

A topic gaining momentum is spirituality and how it relates to today’s cohort of college and university students.

The prevailing theory that “as societies modernize, religion falls away” (Speers, 2008) is being challenged. Both anecdotally (Schachter, 2008) and empirically, evidence suggests that not only are diverse religious and spiritual beliefs more prevalent and accepted on campuses, but additionally that students are actively involved in a quest for meaning/purpose in life, one of the indicators of spirituality.

Studies such as the multi-year Spirituality in Higher Education: A National Study of College Students’ Search for Meaning and Purpose through the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA see religion and spirituality as being related but separate. Why should we care about this research? Well, spirituality, religious commitment, and religious engagement are all associated with abstaining from alcohol and cigarettes, maintaining a healthy diet, and reporting above average physical health. Interestingly, spirituality is linked to increased psychological distress but also the ability to find meaning in and to cope with hardship. Spirituality too tends to be more correlated with constructs such as Ethic of Caring and Compassionate Self-Concept than religious commitment or religious engagement.

What are the implications presented by students’ quest for spirituality and their expectations that colleges and universities be their guides during this developmental stage? Is there a difference in the way that spirituality is defined by administrators and students? How much should spirituality be integrated into curricular and co-curricular experiences, and what are the potential benefits and detriments of doing so?

Two interesting tidbits. One tangential and one more higher education related.

First, a (slightly off-topic) cautionary tale against the use of ambiguous words. How exactly would you define a “child”? This is the problem Nebraska law-makers are facing as parents abandon their teens at Nebraska hospitals. Due to a safe haven law that was meant to apply to babies, the parents are currently immune to any legal changes.

Defining terms specifically, whether it be for outcomes assessment or state laws makes life easier (depending on how you define “easy” of course)!

Tidbit #2 is directly related to outcomes assessment and transparency. It was brought to my attention recently that an initiative discussed at many conferences this year has been implemented. A Chronicle of Higher Education article describes the “College Portrait” system, a part of the Voluntary System of Accountability (VMA) which is basically the commitment of over 300 and rising public institutions to public accountability. It provides a profile of institutions, with not only information included in common prospective student recruiting materials, but also statistics representing results of both curricular and co-curricular learning outcome assessments. Both potential pros and cons emerge in thinking about this system.

Such a system seems like a great way to give the public consistent and comparable information about what students at institutions are learning, but along this same vein, do the assessments it describes really measure the specific impact of different institutions on their students and the learning that results? Also, is this a future trend?

In a recent commentary in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Linda Sax discusses findings that lead her to conclude that for women and men the influence of college experience is significantly different.

She does not refer to just the curricular impact, such as academic engagement and student-faculty interactions, but also the co-curricular impact, such as the impact of diversity programs. The article is doubly useful as in addition to describing some interesting findings from decades of Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) research at the University of California at Los Angeles and from longitudinal research using the College Student Survey, she poses intriguing future research questions.

For example, Dr. Sax found that men seem to benefit more than women from co-curricular diversity experiences, yet feel more discomfort during these experiences. Possible future research suggested would be to investigate the reasons why men may feel this increased discomfort though greater impact from such diversity programming, and the specific features of the activities that may trigger discomfort.

Last week I had the opportunity to chat with a freshman in an informal setting. I asked her how her move-in had gone, and how she was settling in. She laughingly replied that it became more fun after her parents had left, as they had started to get very sentimental, then mentioned another student in her dorm whom she and other dorm-mates were a bit worried about and planned to include in as many activities as possible. The mentioned student’s parents had only left a day or so earlier, and the student had stayed with them the entire time that they were in town.

There is a short interesting article in the Summer 2008 issue of New Directions for Student Services, “Understanding Current Trends in Family Involvement“, summarizing research on parents’ influence, both before students even arrive and once they are on campus. Of the different attachment bonds possible, secure attachment is associated with positive college adjustment for both male and female students (Mattanah, Hancock, & Brand, 2004). Another example finding is from a study of 937 students at Ohio State University where it was found that female college students were more likely to exercise when supported by family, whereas male college students were more likely to exercise with the support of peers (“Encouraging College Students to Exercise,”2001).

We discussed factors that hinder or promote implementation of assessment and use of the results during our last session. Given the richness and salience of the discussion, you are invited to continue it here. Are there any other factors that you think may play a part in preventing or encouraging assessment in Student Affairs departments?

Feel free to expand the topic as well, for example, what kinds of resources do you think would be needed to create well-functioning assessment plans and cycles for departments? Currently, we are considering different types of organizational tools. Any thoughts on that, or on other potentially useful resources? Thank you for sharing your thoughts!!

Colleagues, we had rich discourse on this afternoon, but our time quickly came to a halt. Please feel free to share your thoughts on the book and more importantly, its implications for practice as Student Affairs professionals.