Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Student Affairs Models Spring 2013

No description
by

Lisa Erwin

on 15 July 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Student Affairs Models Spring 2013

Finally
Where is Student Life now?

How can our desired model match up with our institutional goals and cultures?

Can we move from one of the traditional to a more innovative model? What would that mean? What would that take?

How does our emphasis on learning, cultural competence and wellness inform our
choice of model(s)?
Extracurricular Model
Student Affairs Models
Greater student satisfaction and gains in student leadership skills, knowledge and experience
Improved retention
Emphasis on community
Administrative Centered Models
FUNCTIONAL SILOS
Difficult to identify origin
First used in 1994 ACPA Student Learning Imperative
Student Centered Innovative Models
Ethic of Care Model
Learning Centered Models
Competitive, Adversarial Model
Academic and Collaborative Innovation Models
Academic-Student Affairs Collaboration
One Size Does Not Fit All:
Traditional and Innovative Models
of Student Affairs Practice
Kathleen Manning
Jillian Kinzie
John Schuh
What model is right
for Student Life at UMD?
The answer will shape
the way we:
provide learning experiences
deliver services
work with students
work with each other
work with faculty and other colleagues
Extracurricular Model
1937 Student Personnel Point of View
Foundations in
psychosocial development and
leadership development
Lack of integration of student affairs and academic missions
Bifurcation of the "whole student" philosophy
Separation of social/emotional and cognitive learning
Confusion as to the purpose of college
Allegiance to specific functional areas and literature
Autonomy by function and often also by space and resources
Decentralization of supervision, professional development, and oftentimes, goals
Competition for resources
Philosophy that students are best served by distinct, separate offices
Organizational assumption of minimal division-level coordination
Specialized expertise in functional areas
Discrete budgeting and resources
Frees faculty to concentrate on teaching, research and service
Permits expansion of programs, services and activities
Characteristics
Characteristics
Strengths
Weaknesses
Staff member expertise
"Responsibility-centered" budgets
Administrative and organizational clarity
Strengths
Administration centered rather student centered
Potential for professional isolation
Easier to eliminate stand-alone operations in times of financial difficulty or shifts in approach
Weaknesses
Student Services Model
Functions are clustered together (financial aid, registrar, & admissions or orientation, academic advising, & admission)
Often not organized as "student affairs"
Assumptions include:
Main purpose of student affairs is to deliver services (not developmental education)
Students deserve and benefit from convenient organization of services
Students use services as the need arises
Institutions use enrollment management, TQM and "consumer approaches"
Individual relationships between students and staff are not emphasized
Hard to fit this model to all student affairs units
Characteristics
Convenience for students
Creates for space who teach - they are unimpeded by service demands
Services are sometimes better coordinated with institution-wide initiatives
Strengths
Lack of integration of various functions and services
Lost opportunity for collaboration between staff in the student services model and faculty
Weaknesses
Specialization followed academic affairs
Distinct missions in academic and student affairs
Independent work in the two divisions
Certain forms of learning are conceptualized in certain places
Organizational boundaries
Characteristics
Co-curricular Model
Maturation of the previous model
Academic and student affairs divisions should both be concerned with cognitive and personal development
Complementary, separate missions
Contributions to student learning, but within the Student Affairs sphere of influence
Certain kinds of learning are conceptualized in certain places
Organizational boundaries
Characteristics
Seamless Learning Model
Followed seminal publications like NASPA's 1989 Points of View, ACPA's The Student Learning Imperative
Collaborative missions
Collaborative efforts
Everyone contributes to student learning
In and out-of-the classroom learning is blurred
Boundaries are indistinguishable
Characteristics

May or not complement the academic mission
Duplication of effort
Inefficiencies
Student affairs work is viewed as "social" by faculty
Doesn't recognize that student experiences can be complimentary
Weaknesses
Based on Carol Gilligan's work
Model acknowledges that some students come to college inadequately prepared to succeed, academically and/or socially
Moral and educational obligation to provide support
Focuses attention on students most in need of support
Goal of a student affairs division in this model is to facilitate student success and maximizing student development
Characteristics
Level of service to students
Atmosphere of care
Strengths
Highly time consuming
Possibility of treating students in a child-like manner
Weaknesses
Student-Driven Model
Roots in Astin's involvement theory, Kuh, et al student engagement and Schlossberg's mattering
Emphasizes student involvement
Also emphasizes student engagement, with the institution channels students' energy into activities that contribute to student learning and development
Student responsibility and achievement
Integration of students into the institution
Characteristics
Enriches student learning outside the classroom
Leadership experiences and meaningful experiences leads to increased persistence and quality of student life
Strengths
Doesn't always adapt well to current institutional realities
Employing paraprofessionals has challenges
Weaknesses
Student Agency Model
Bandura, Social Cognitive Theory
Students play a role in their self-development and learning
Students are the agents of the learning process
Hands-off rather than hands-on approach in student affairs
Student affairs professionals empower students to take initiative - activities, programs and responsibility of the students
Characteristics
Students feel invested in their learning and success
Students learn rights AND responsibilities
Reliance on para-professionals
Strengths
Can be a conflict from a task-oriented student affairs approach and student agency
Programs and services can be messy
Difficult with high involvement with external stakeholders
Weaknesses
Student Affairs is a partner in the learning enterprise
Student and Academic Affairs are tightly coupled (great influence on one another)
Structural bridges link the two divisions
Shared educational mission and language concerning student learning
Characteristics
High quality learning environment
High levels of student affairs staff satisfaction with their work
Team oriented environment, creativity, and increased coherence in the undergrad program
Ability to extend resources
More time spent in educational activities that build upon one another
Strengths
Some schools find that student affairs carries more of the work burden
A challenge can be lack of understanding of academic and student affairs cultures
Weaknesses
Academic-Centered Model
Return to the foundational documents
Return to the early days of American education
Draws from the liberal arts approach
Strong emphasis on educational mission, creating an intellectual environment - student affairs plays a supportive role in achieving these goals
Student learning and educational enrichment are the key objectives
Shared reporting lines
Strongly influenced by academic school culture
Characteristics
Clarifies role of student affairs
Aligns with growing importance of student affairs in learning
Opportunities for team members to showcase skills as educators
Strengths
Faculty may not appreciate or understand student affairs work
Dependent on faculty- staff interaction, and if the rules changes, it could be a challenge
Weaknesses
Full transcript