Aim/Purpose: This study examined Higher Education/Student Affairs (HE/SA) programs’ curriculum alignment with the CAS Standards. Background: HE/SA programs have a limited number of credit hours (27-65) and must structure their curriculum within the confines. The CAS Standards guides HE/SA programs and recommends this curriculum include a focus on six content areas. Methodology: A quantitative study that examined the curriculum of the HE/SA programs in the United States (n = 230) and their offering of exclusive courses aligning with the six content areas recommended by the CAS Standards. Contribution: This study is the first to broadly examine the curriculum of the collective HE/SA programs in the United States. It can serve as a catalyst to encourage further research and scholarly discussion around the curriculum of HE/SA programs and the professional preparation of higher education administrators. Findings: Key findings included that of the six content areas, History and Counseling were the areas least likely to be offered in HE/SA programs (48% and 41%, respectively) compared to 82% and above for the other four areas. Evidence suggests that program offerings of 36-39 credit hours may be the “sweet spot” in balancing credit hours with their ability to meet CAS Standards. Recommendations for Practitioners: There is a need for HE/SA faculty and practitioners to communicate where HE/SA programs fell short meeting the CAS Standards so that practitioners can continue in the professional development of these young practitioners. This “handoff” between faculty and practitioners will further strengthen the field of student affairs. Recommendation for Researchers: The findings of this study illuminate the important future research question as to whether there is a difference in the academic preparedness (perceived and/or actual) of graduates who attend programs that are more closely aligned with the CAS Standards? Impact on Society: Recognizing the importance that student affairs professionals have on student development (in-and-out of the classroom), this study challenges educators and practitioners to ensure they are adequately developing the next generation of college administrative leaders. Future Research: Examination of the curriculum alignment in the future once the CAS Standards for Graduate Preparatory Programs are revised
Aim/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the factor structure of a newly developed Culture of Mattering survey (CoM) that evaluates mattering in the context of relationships with supervisors, colleagues, and the organization as a whole. Background: Mattering can be defined as the experience of feeling valued and adding value. Despite the importance of mattering in personal and occupational domains, there is very little research on organizational cultures that promote mattering. As far as we know, there is no research on the measurement and promotion of a culture of mattering in higher education settings. Methodology: Data were collected from 4,264 university employees across 469 work units using web-based surveys. CoM scores were aggregated into unit-level average scores, which were the focus of all analyses. Contribution: This study is the first to examine the measurement of a CoM in a higher education context. The specific context consists of a set of principles and behaviors enacted in relationship with supervisors, colleagues, and the organization as a whole. Findings: Factor analysis of the CoM resulted in one general factor (α = .90), and three sub-factors dealing with supervisors (α = .95), colleagues (α = .92), and the organization as a whole (α = .86). Recommendations for Practitioners: When trying to improve organizational culture, attention must be paid to how employees feel at all these levels. Recommendation for Researchers: This study shows that it is important to pay attention to three contextual levels when assessing mattering among faculty and staff: interactions with supervisors, colleagues, and the entire organization. Impact on Society: Mattering is a crucial aspect of organizational health and well-being. Future Research: It is important to study how mattering in higher education impacts the well-being of faculty, staff, and students.
Aim/Purpose: This paper illustrates the relationship between graduate students’ social identities and their ability to persevere in an academically rigorous graduate setting. Through our analysis we show that while many students experience marginalization and threats to their identity, they display no less grit than those who do not experience marginalization and threats to their identity. Background: There are contentious debates in higher education about the role that universities should play in promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion principles. Existing arguments rarely consider students’ social identity in conjunction with their academic mindsets and ability to succeed in the graduate school environment, but instead make assumptions of who students are and of what they are capable. Methodology: Survey methods and quantitative analyses, including regression and ANOVA testing. Contribution: While demonstrating that students who experience marginalization and social identity threat display no less grit than their counterparts, we claim that all students would still desire to live and work in a society in which their social identities are respected and honored. Findings: Many students, even those successfully navigating graduate school, still identify as oppressed or marginalized, which is strongly related to certain social identities and to social identity threat. No demographic or oppression-based variable alone correlates negatively or positively with perseverance as tested by the grit scale we used. Recommendations for Practitioners: We recommend that universities uphold a commitment to diversity and inclusion in order to create welcoming environments for all students to thrive. Recommendation for Researchers: We recommend that researchers focus on the intersections of identity, perseverance, and policy to fully address the issues of marginalization and social identity threat at graduate school campuses. Impact on Society: Our paper works to counter the often-negative perception of students who identify as marginalized and who demand more inclusive university environments. Future Research: In future studies, it would be beneficial for the field to address other social identities and examine their perceptions of marginalization and inclusion and assess impacts on academic mindset.
Aim/Purpose: Book Review: Student Learning and Development in Chinese Higher Education: College Students’ Experience in China Background: This book describes and interprets student learning and development as perceived by students in Chinese higher education institutions. Impact on Society: Overall, this book appeals to higher education scholars from all countries and regions. It is a good resource for faculty in Chinese higher education institutions to deepen their understanding of undergraduate students to promote their learning and development. Chinese student affairs professionals struggling with how to support the students they work with would benefits greatly from this book. Likewise, Chinese graduate students contemplating a career in higher education/student affairs would also benefit from reading this book. It also provides global higher education professionals a good perspective to understand Chinese higher education under the background of higher education globalization.
Aim/Purpose: The following questions guided this study: 1) What are the major types of four-year graduation policies and plans being implemented by public four-year colleges and universities? 2) What explicit and implicit messages do leaders convey in constructing four-year graduation policies and plans? 3) What messages might four-year graduation policies and plans send to minoritized student populations? Background: Four-year graduation is a common goal across public institutions; to this end, university leaders often construct a four-year graduation policy or pledge. Scholars have not systematically examined the discourse within these policies to uncover the underlying structural barriers that may hinder minoritized students from achieving this goal. A one-size-fits all approach in policy can inadvertently promote a discourse of individual success or failure. Methodology: In order to view policy as discourse and explore the tensions within the narrative of timely graduation, the authors utilized critical discourse analysis to explore the discourse within four-year graduation plans across 19 public, four-year universities. Contribution: Institutional leaders often attempted to create mutually responsible commitments with students, but our reading of four-year graduation plans suggests that the majority of leaders created a uniform narrative, failing to acknowledge and make provisions for disproportionate impacts on minoritized populations. Findings: Utilizing seven building tasks, we provided descriptive categories of four-year graduation initiatives, followed by interpretation and evaluation of the messaging conveyed by institutional leaders in constructing policies. Findings revealed that many universities often place expectations on students with varying levels of corresponding resources or without the needs of minoritized student populations in mind. Recommendations for Practitioners: The authors offer recommendations about ways that university leaders through policy creation can acknowledge the structural barriers that affect students’ pathways to completion. Recommendation for Researchers: Because of the underlying acceptance behind the problem that drives graduation policy (i.e., students should graduate in four years), a critical approach allows scholars to examine the text of policies in ways that might illuminate the viewpoints that leaders fail to consider. Impact on Society: Four-year graduation initiatives should move beyond inspiring rhetoric to tackle the true structural barriers (e.g. unavailable courses, weak advising, developmental courses as stumbling blocks) for which institutional leaders as the creators of policy should be held accountable. Future Research: Additional studies focusing on the rhetoric of student success initiatives can reveal language centered on dominant ways of knowing.
