This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.
The ecological perspective (Behavior is a function of the interaction
between person and environment) can serve with great utility when viewing
the many issues and questions that emerge from higher education's current
interest in studying outcomes. The elements of the ecological perspective can
be found in the work of Feldman and Newcomb (1969) which raised the
classical question regarding the impact of college on students. The question
was "Under what conditions have what kinds of students changed in what
kinds of ways?". This question translates in a straightforward fashion to an
ecological rendition as follows: "Under what environments have what kinds
of persons changed in what kinds of behavior?" or "What are the outcomes
(behavior) for students (persons) at your college or university (environment)?"
.
Behavior as Outcomes
The measuring of outcomes presents of number of issues of the "what,
how, where, when" variety. Ewell (1985) presents a very helpful discussion
which addresses many of the measurements issues. He points out that
outcomes can be cognitive - (gains in knowledge) or affective - (changes in
attitudes or values) and can be measured psychologically - (what's in the
mind) or behaviorally - (what is observable) and the timing of the outcome
within - (college) or after - (college). For example, testing graduating seniors
and comparing their scores to those they achieved as freshmen on a paper and
pencil achievement test would produce an outcome of the
"cognitive-psychological-within college" variety. Measuring how many
students were attending church regularly fifteen years from graduation would
be an outcome of the "affective-behavioral-after college" variety. The
following cube illustrates the multi-dimensionality of outcomes:
| Psychological | Behavioral | ||
| In-College | |||
| After-College | |||
| Cognitive | |||
| Affective |
Designed from:
Assessing Educational Outcomes
By Peter T. Ewell (1985)
The above can be viewed as a "structural" look at outcomes. Outcomes
are also related to "content". Within the traditional analysis of outcome
content three categories emerge: (1) general educational outcomes, (2)
discipline or college major outcomes, and (3) student development outcomes.
The general educational outcomes are focused on such content as
communications skills, general problem solving, basic knowledge,
appreciation of culture, etc. Specific knowledge of discipline subject matter
and related skills (often described by a student's college major) makes up the
content of the discipline outcome. Student development outcome content is
usually related to the various elements or dimensions of particular student
development theorists. For example, the Chickering ( 1969) model would
suggest measuring progress toward the following outcomes: (1) achieving
competence, (2) managing emotions, (3) becoming autonomous, (4)
establishing identity, (5) freeing interpersonal relations, (6) clarifying
purpose, (7) developing integrity. The complexity of the behavior dimension
of the outcome question is apparent just from a structural and content point of
view, not to mention the issues of methodology and psychometeric
consideration or the logistical issues of a testing program. The ecological
perspective, however, helps to underscore that an outcome is a behavior that
is related to students and their environment.
Persons as "what kind of students"
The person variable in the ecological formula represents a real
diversity. College students come in all sizes, shapes, colors and with a variety
of expectations and aspirations. In fact we know that this diversity is going to
increase in terms of ethnicity and cultural background, age, and patterns of
attendance (Keller, 1983). The ecological perspective helps prevent
researchers interested in outcomes from viewing students as a homogeneous
group, and allows them to view all the complexity that the concept of
"persons" implies.
Environment as "conditions"
As with the person variable, the concept of environment embodies the
issue of diversity. The college environment can be described by a variety of
dimensions. It is frequently described by various classification schemes such
as "two year vs. four-year", "public vs. private", "undergraduate vs. graduate",
"liberal arts vs. professional", etc. Outcome studies often relate to
subenvironments within the campus, for example, "residence halls vs. a
variety of other living conditions", "commuter vs. noncommuter",
"independent vs. greek", "liberal arts vs. physical sciences", etc. Environments
can also be described in more ecological terms. Translating the work of Moos
(1974), Banning and McKinley (1980) suggest the following environmental
dimensions for a college environment: (1) the ecological variables associated
with location and the natural and built environment of the campus, (2) the
concept of "behavioral setting" on campus, (3) the organizational structure of
the campus, (4) personal and behavioral characteristics of the campus
inhabitants, (5) psychosocial characteristics and the campus climate, and (6)
the reinforcement contingencies of the environment. Again an ecological
perspective helps to illustrate the complexity and diversity available within a
college and university campus.
Summary
The ecological perspectives can assist in not only formulating the
assessment of outcomes, but the ecosystem design process can be used to
outline the process by which environmental change can assist in producing
the desired student outcomes. Banning and Kaiser (1974) outline the use of
the ecosystem design process and Baird (1976) suggests how to structure the
environment to improve outcomes.
Editor's note: The sited references plus additional resources on outcomes can
be found on the backpage of the newsletter.
contributed by
Theodore J. Chapin, Ph.D.
Paraprofessional programs are not new to the University environment.
They are commonly utilized in a variety of Student Affairs and Academic
capacities. Some of these include: academic advising, tutoring, academic
adjustment, counseling, health education, career development and placement,
admissions, drug and alcohol education, and sex education (Dotson, 1984,
Davis & Ballard, 1985; and Elliot 1985).
Historically, the main issue which inhibited the development of
paraprofessional programs was the question, "Can paraprofessionals provide
effective professional service?" Many debated this issue (McArthur, 1970 and
Gruver, 1971). Today this question has been undeniably answered by the
overwhelming utilization of paraprofessionals and research evidence which
supports their effectiveness (Drulak, 1979).
The problem which faces higher education now is not one of
recognizing and utilizing this valuable resource. It is one of effectively and
efficiently managing it. Across the University paraprofessionals are being
selected, trained, and supervised to provide a wide variety of specific services.
Dozens of personnel and hundreds of hours are expended to prepare these
students for their respective tasks.
Utilizing the campus ecology model, the University of Wyoming has
begun to implement a Student Affairs based paraprofessional program. The
design process presented by Banning and Kaiser (1974), Kaiser (1975), and
Banning (1980) was used to organize the process. A seven member Student
Affairs committee was selected to the project.
Stage 1. The first step in the process was to recognize the values held
by faculty, students, and staff. These values were generally developmental and
educational in nature. That is, to provide an environment which supports the
pursuit of academics while responding to and encouraging personal
development. More specifically the values for this project were recognized as
1) effective use of University resources, 2) encouragement of student
leadership, and 3) an enhance development of sense of community.
Stage 2. The second step involved goal setting. Two goals were established. The first was to establish a pool of qualified student leaders
(paraprofessionals). The second was to establish paraprofessional job sites
across the University community.
Stage 3. Once established the project goals lead directly to
programming. Four program components were defined. These were adopted from previous work (Delworth, Sherwood, and Casaburri, 1974; Sherwood, 1980; and Ender and
Winston, 1984).
They included recruitment of students and placement sites, training of
student, placement of trained paraprofessionals, and evaluation of the entire
program.
Students, faculty and staff were provided the opportunity to participate
in the project informational meetings, conferences, and workshops. These
announced program opportunities and invited both community support and
input. The initial response was high. Over 75 students attended informational
meetings and 35 faculty and staff attended the conferences and workshops.
Support and resources for program implementation were attained
administratively, academically, and financially. Release time was given for
conference participation and project leadership. Course credit was made
available for the proposed training experience, and over $6000.00 was
allocated for student salaries and program rationales.
Step 4. The fourth step in the project was fitting the campus to the student. Many paraprofessional programs already existed on campus; such as New Student Orientation and Resident Hall Assistants. The committee chose philosophical stance of flexibility and growth by voluntary participation. Coersion, authority and steadfast policy statement were rejected, while encouragement,
consultation and support were offered. Only a single job placement site was
slated for the first year, this approach, however, resulted in the establishment
of six additional sites before the year's end.
Step 5. The fifth step of mapping was conducted through assessment of student, faculty and staff response. Twenty-five students, after attending the information meeting, enrolled in the paraprofessional training course.
Nine job placement sites were established. Written and oral feedback were
positive and the committee met regularly to attend to suggestions offered by
participating individuals and departments.
Step 6. After the first year the project was evaluated. This was the sixth step of the process. The pilot project resulted in a consolidation of
University resources. Student leadership programs referred their students to
the paraprofessional training course. Twenty-five new student leaders were
trained and placed in paraprofessional job opportunities. Students have begun
contributing to the University environment and faculty and staff have
positively accepted student's contributions.
Step 7. The seventh step is presently occuring. Feedback from the first year has been collected and is being used to plan next year's program.
Students offered changes for the training course. Job placement sites offered
alternate funding strategies from full support to matching funds, and the
development of volunteer opportunities. The committee reassented its
philosophical stance of flexibility and encouragement. This feedback has
strengthened the project design as the program cycles back through the seven
step campus design process.
Conclusion
Paraprofessional programs are developing throughout the University
environment. They can be an effective and efficient resource if centrally
managed and environmentally designed. They not only enable expanded
services but also enrich leadership opportunities and encourage community
affiliation.
References:
Banning, J.H. (1980). The campus ecology manager role. In U. Delworth,
G.R. Hanson, & Associates (Eds.), Student services: A handbook for the
profession. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banning, J.H., & Kaiser, L.R. (1974). An ecological perspective and model
for campus design. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 375.
Davis, B.B. & Ballard, M.R. (1985). Peer advisors: Agents of change for high
risk students. NACADA Journal, 5(1), 9-15.
Delworth, V.L. (1984). The effects of training and selection on undergraduate
students helping skills as measured by the Danish-Haur Helping Skills Verbal
Responses Inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marquette
University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Durlak, J. (1979). Comparative effectiveness of paraprofessional and
professional helpers. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 80-92.
Elliot, E.S. (1985). Academic advising with peer advisors and college
freshman. NACADA Journal, 5(1), 1-7.
Ender, S.C. & Winston, R.B. (Eds.). (1984). Students as paraprofessionals.
New Directions for Student Services,27. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Grauwe, G. (1971). College students as therapeutic agents. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 111-128.
Kaiser, L.R. (1975). Designing campus environments. NASPA JournaL 13(1),
33-39.
McArthur, C. (1970). Comments on effectiveness of counselors and counselor
aides. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 17, 335-336.
Sherwood, G. Allied and paraprofessionals. In U. Delworth & G.R. Hanson
(Eds.). (1980). Student services: A handbook for the profession. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
"But it was the buildings, the trees, the walkways, the well-kept lawns that
overwhelmingly won out. The appearance of the campus is, by far, the most
influential characteristic during campus visits, and we gained the distinct
impression that when it comes to recruiting students, the director of buildings and grounds may be more important than the academic dean." (Page 17)
Boyer, Ernest L, (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers.
Astin, Alexander W. (1978). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs,
attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Baird, L.I. (1976). Structuring the environment to improve outcomes. In O.T.
Lenning (Ed.), Improving educational outcomes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Banning, J.H. and Kaiser, L. (1974). An ecological perspective and model for
campus design. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 52, 370-375.
Banning, J.H. and McKinley, D. (1980). Conceptions of the campus
environment. In W. Morril, J. Hurst, & G. Oetting (Eds). Dimensions of
intervention for student development (pp. 39-57). New York: John Wiley.
Blocher, D.H. (1974). Toward an ecology of student development. Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 52, 360-365.
Bowen, Howard R. (1977). Investment in learning The individual and social
value of American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Boyer, E.L. and Levine, A.W. (1981). A quest for common learning: The aims
of general education. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Foundation for
Advancement of Teaching.
Chickering, W. (1969). Education and Identity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Erwin, T.D. (1983). The Scale of Intellectual Development: Measuring Perry's
scheme. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 6-12.
Erwin, T.D., and Delworth, U. (1980). An instrument to measure Chickering's
vector of identity. National Association of Student Personnel Administrator's
Journal, 17m 19-24.
Ewell, Peter T. (Ed.) (1985). Assessing educational outcomes. New directions
for institutional research. No. 47. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ewell, Peter T. (1983). Information on student outcomes: How to get it and
how to use it. Boulder, CO.: NCHEMS.
Ewell, Peter T. (1983). Student outcomes questionnaires: An implementation
handbook, 2nd edition. Boulder, CO. NCHEMS.
Dressel, P.L. (Ed.). (1954). Evaluation in general education. Dubuque, Iowa:
Wm. C. Brown.
Feldman, K.A. and Newcomb, T.M. (1969). The impact of college on
students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Forrest A. and Steele, J. (1982). COMP: Defning and measuring general
education knowledge and skills (Technical Report 1976-81). Iowa City: The
American College Testing Program.
Gaff, J.C. (1983). General education today: A critical analysis of
controversies, practices, and reforms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Heywood, John (1977). Assessment in higher education. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in
American higher education. Baltimore, MD.: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lenning, O.T. (1976). Previous attempts to "structure " educational outcomes
and outcome-related concepts: A compilation and review of the literature.
Boulder, CO.: NCHEMS.
Lenning, O.T. (Ed.) (1976). Improving educational outcomes. New Directions
for Higher Education. No. 16. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moos, R. (1979). Evaluation educational environments: Procedures,
measures, findings, and policy implications. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morris, L.L. and Fitz-Gibbo, C.T. (1978). How to measure achievernent.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Pace, C. Robert (1979). Measuring the outcomes of college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
This material resides on an Indiana State University server and is maintained by
Will Barratt.
Please forward any problems and comments to him.