Goal: To consider five issues technology-related issues that affect our work as student affairs professionals› Student Expectations› Personal Relationships› Ethical Concerns› Professional Development› Access Issues

Reflecting on who we are, what we know, and where we are going

Student Expectations › How has technology changed students’ expectations of

us as professionals? Personal Relationships

› How are technological developments changing relationships within the campus community?

Ethical Concerns› What ethical challenges does technology present to our

students? What is our role in responding to them? Professional Development

› How are we staying current and innovative in our work with students?

Access Issues› How can we accommodate our use of technology to

include students with different levels of knowledge and access ?

Constantly “Wired” › Applied to college using online application

process› Utilize online registration and classroom

tools› Use cell phones and internet as means to

stay connected to peers, family, etc. Connect technology use with “good service”

› Frustrated by slow or out-dated information › Prefer to use technology as a way to gather

information over face-to-face interactions

As a division, we have to acknowledge the importance of technology to our students “in order to maintain the value of the [student affairs] profession and fulfill the promise to students who rely on [us] to advocate and understand their out-of-classroom needs” (Kleinglass, 2005, p. 26)

“The expectation that information and services will be available according to the 24/7 service demands and Web savvy of today’s students has resulted in efforts by colleges and universities to transition many routine and relatively simple institutional transactions to the Web” (Moneta, 2005, p. 6 )

In what ways does your office currently use technology resources?

How do we balance “good service” with encouraging more realistic expectations?

What aspects of your work are you committed to delivering through personal interactions with students despite student demands for technology?

Internet Communities› Facebook.com- 600 colleges and 2.4

million users (Maria Tess Shier)› Form community without geographic or

physical limitations (Maria Tess Shier)› Serve no true academic purpose › Often reinforce negative behaviors and

biases toward others› Complicate engaging students in campus

community

Family Involvement› Millennial generation views parents as

friends (Howe and Strauss, 2007).› High level of family involvement in

decisions regarding college admissions process persists throughout college experience (Coburn, 2006)

› New family concerns: mental health issues, campus safety, student’s level of satisfaction with campus services

Involving students in our campus community both “in and outside the classroom promotes greater social and academic integration, which can then lead to persistence” (Braxton, 2003, p. 319).

“The more successful we are in helping parents understand the normal stages of late adolescent development, the less anxious they are likely to be about their own child’s behavior. The less anxious they are, the more likely they are to support their child’s growth in appropriate and meaningful ways- and the less likely they are to intervene inappropriately” (Coburn, 2006, p. 10)

How can we use internet communities to develop new relationships with students? To connect students with peers?

How might we use technology resources to develop meaningful relationships with families?

How can we collaborate as a division to improve relationships as a campus community through technology?

Academic Integrity› Technology provides limitless access to

information and methods to cheat› NSSE 2003 survey: 87% of participating

students admit to copying information directly from an internet source without citation “at least some of the time” (Shier)

› “Students find it easier to rationalize or justify cheating” (McCabe in Levine)

Unhealthy Behaviors› Internet Addiction› Gambling› Illegal Acts- Stalking, File-sharing

Often, students do not realize that these behaviors are unhealthy or dangerous

“The technological tools for plagiarizing are always going to outstrip any technological tools for detecting it” (Tribble in Levine)

“The challenge… is to create policies and approaches that are flexible enough to meet changing times, however they may change” (McCollum, 1999, p.1)

Student affairs professionals are often charged with responding to these issues

What is our level of responsibility as professionals to address these kinds of behaviors?

How can we collaborate with each other to address these issues? With students? With academic affairs? With information technology services?

How can we use technology and these ethical concerns to educate students on personal and community responsibility? What do we want them to know?

Underprepared Professionals› Unclear CAS standards for technology

education in student affairs graduate programs (Renn & Zeligman, 2005)

› Entry level professionals begin careers with different levels of training (Renn & Zeligman, 2005)

› High demand for more resources and skill development at all levels of profession (Dare, 2006)

“Individuals charged with providing student services in face-to-face settings…are not being well prepared to deal with the challenges of integrating technology and online learners into their work” (Renn, 2005, p. 547)

“Beyond developing the skills to use tools, professionals need to comprehend and envision how technology can be used.” (Kleinglass, 2005, p. 30)

What kind of technology training did you receive in graduate school or in prior positions?

How comfortable do you feel using technology in your position? Are there areas in which you would like to have more training?

What ideas do you have on better incorporating technology in our work? How can we as a Division of Student Affairs promote innovation and support new ideas?

Students enter college with a wide range of access to and comfort with technology.

Students benefit from early access to technology.› A Study Poll study done in 2003 showed that students

with an ACT score between 26 and 36 were more likely to have had access to a computer than  students with ACT scores of 21 or lower (97 vs. 88 %) (Gifford,

Briceno-Perriott,  Mianzo, 2005). Identity characteristics can affect access:

› Socioeconomic status› Race › Gender› Age

Almost every step of the college search and application process has become electronic.› Admissions & financial aid applications,

class registration, room selection, etc. Not all students are equally prepared to

meet these expectations.› Socioeconomic status surpasses all other

considerations related to the access to  technology, including ethic or minority group affiliation (Solomon, 2002).

In what ways do social identities and characteristics limit students’ access to college?

Do you have expectations of students’ technological knowledge and capabilities?  Is it realistic to have these expectations of all students?

How can we as a division ensure that all students are receiving proper technological training?

Commitment› The Division of Student Affairs will dedicate the

resources and support need to address the challenges posed by technology and to optimize the learning opportunities it creates.

Collaboration› In order to fulfill this commitment we will need to

partner with students, academic affairs, and each other.

Assessment› To begin this process we will evaluate where we

are on the five issues we have discussed today, create a strategic plan our divisions goals for technology, and continue assessing our progress for the upcoming year.

Ardaiolo, F. P., Bender, B. E., & Roberts, G. (2005). Campus services: What do students expect? In T. E. Miller, B. E. Bender, & J.H. Schuh (Eds.), Promoting Reasonable Expectations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Braxton, J. M. (2003). Student Success. In Komives, S. R., Woodard, D.B. & Associates (Eds.), Student Services (317-335).  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass .

Coburn, K. L. (2006)Organizing a ground crew for today’s helicopter parents. About Campus, 11,3,9-16.

Dare, L. (2006) Technology in Student Affairs: Seeking Knowledge, Craving Community. Student Affairs Online, 7,2.

Gifford, D., Briceno-Perriott, J., & Mianzo, F. (2005). Pen to mouse: Web-based technology’s impact on college admission applications. Journal of College Admission, 17-18.

Houtz, L.E. & Gupta, U. G. (2001). Nebraska High School Students' Computer Skills and Attitudes. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 316-327.

Howe, N. & Strauss, W. (2007). How is the millennial generation of students changing colleges and universities? Trusteesship, 15,4, 40.

Kleinglass, N. (2005) Who is Driving the Changing Landscape in Student Affairs. New Directions for Student Services, 112, 25-38.

Levine, J. H. (2001). What we are learning about academic integrity. About Campus, 6, 1, 9-16.

McCollum, K. (1999). On line, ways to misbehave can outpace college rules.  Chronicle of Higher Education, 46, 4, A35-37.

Moneta, L. (2005). Technology and student affairs: Redux. New Directions for Student Services, 112,3-14.

Poock, M.C. (2001). A model for integrating professional development in graduate education. Journal of College Student Development, 35(3), 345-352.Added

Renn K.A. & Zeligman D.M. (2005) Learning about technology and student affairs: Outcomes of an online immersion. Journal of College Student Development, 46,5,547-555.

Solomon, G. (2002). Digital Equality: It's not just about access anymore. Technology and Learning, 22(9), 18-24.

Shier M.T. (2005). The way technology changes how we do what we do. New Directions for Student Services, 112, 77-86.