Learning Outcomes:

Knowledge Outcomes

1. Define the historical roots and philosophical assumptions underlying the formation of the student affairs profession
2. Describe the various student affairs functions and discuss current issues of significance to select functional areas.
3. Identify and demonstrate application of the basic tools of inquiry (e.g., statistics, research design, evaluation models) to student affairs issues, problems, and programs.
4. Explain some of the basic patterns and processes of human growth and development (e.g., psychosocial, life-span, cognitive-developmental, personal style).
5. Demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between theory and practice by designing student development interventions that draw from the contribution of several theories.
6. Explain the dynamics of basic environmental dimensions (i.e., human aggregate, physical, organizational, and perceptual) associated with various campus environments.
7. Within the person-environment interaction paradigm, identify some of the key documented outcomes of college attendance and their relationship to various institutional characteristics.
8. Demonstrate an appreciation for students of diverse backgrounds by identifying the special needs of given student subgroups, including minority, adult, women, and international students.
9. Describe yourself in terms of a set of competencies that characterize your strengths as an emerging professional in student affairs.

Professional Skills Outcomes

1. Conflict mediationeellpracticum experiences. The capstone course (CSP 605) requires that each student integrate knowledge from the core curriculum with practitioner experiences in the composition of a Professional Skills Paper. Finally, the students’ knowledge of the program theory, professional practices and research methodology are all included in the Comprehensive Examination administered to second year students during their fourth semester before graduation.

The professional skill competencies are assessed through a combination of self-assessment by the students and i assessment of them by their nternship supervisors at the end of each semester. In addition, the practicum supervisor assesses those students taking practicum experiences.

For a summation of how the specific knowledge and professional skills outcomes are assessed, refer to Appendix I.

For Comprehensive Examination pass rates, refer to Appendix II.

For summative supervisor evaluation of internship performance, refer to Appendix III.

3. Inferences from Assessments:

In comparing the results of this year’s assessment to that of 2004, the last time such data were generated, the passage rate on two of three sections of the Comprehensive Examination (Appendix II) has improved. It declined on one section. The Theory section this past spring had a 87.9% pass rate (33.3 with honors) compared to a 96.8% pass rate (25.8 with honors) in 2004; the Research section had a 87.9% pass rate (9.1% with honors) compared to a 87.1% pass rate (19.4% with honors) in 2004; and the Professional Issue section had a 100% pass rate (21.2% with honors) compared to 93.5% (22.6% with honors) in 2004. Passage rates, particularly on the Professional Issues question are pleasing to the faculty since we have worked with our second year students in trying to improve their performance on this examination. The implementation of more time to complete the exam (first done in 2004) appears to have alleviated some of the pressure to perform on the examination. However, scores on the Research Question continue to be problematic with nearly 15% of the students continuing to fail that section of the examination.

With regard to the supervisors’ evaluation of student intern performance (Appendix III), the overall level of satisfaction remained very high (6.36) on a seven point scale, which was approximately the same as in 2004. When examining individual items, faculty rated interns higher than they had in 2004 on four items (i.e., Ability to assume active responsibility within the office or department; Development of practitioner skills and competencies; Ability to work effectively with people; and Ability to function independently of close supervision) and lower on three items (i.e., Degree to which the overall objectives and internship responsibilities were met by intern, Reliability and maintenance of appointments; and Ability to function independently of close supervision). Of interest in Appendix III is the students self-rating for the item “Overall satisfaction with their internship performance.” As is frequently the case students rated themselves lower on their experience than did their supervisors, demonstrating a more critical self-assessment than the rating of their work by others.

4. Actions Taken/Program Improvements:

One of the major challenges to the CSP program is to align the knowledge learning outcomes established for the core and elective curriculum of the program with the professional skills component of the program achieved through the internship experience. Traditionally, we have used a course entitled “Supervised Field Experience in College Student Personnel” in which the advisors meet regularly with their advisees, collect prompted reflections each month and otherwise serve as mentors for the students. Although sound in theory, the management of this course process previously has been left largely to the individual advisor. In Fall 2004, a more organized and prescribed method was implemented. The book Learning Through Supervised Practice in Student Affairs (2002) has been incorporated into the reflective practice process for the students. This is the second year we have used that resource and feedback from faculty and students has been positive. A more formal evaluation of the book and the content of the Supervised Field Experience course will be conducted during the 2005-2006 academic year.

During Fall 2004, the CSP program participated in the University Unit Review Process. The external reviewers for that process noted the following:

“The CSP program is arguably the premier one of its type in the nation and certainly in the top three. It is the acknowledged standard by which other programs are measured. When students ask for recommendations from practitioners and professors alike, BGSU is bound to be mentioned. The reputational value of this program cannot be overstated. Additionally, it should be noted that the program is actually two programs—one quite innovative, field-based program which relies on more than a dozen “partner” institutions and another that is a state of the art campus based program that is equally well-funded in terms of assistantships. Both programs have an image and a practice of being “high touch” in that there is a lot of student contact. CSP conservatively benefits from over one-half million dollars in graduate student support annually. They recruit and place students nationally and the quality and diversity of their students is excellent.”