an exploration of current practices in curricular...
TRANSCRIPT
Current practices in RA training
programs: Findings of a study of
U. S. ACUHO-I member institutions
Virginia Albaneso Koch, PhD* Associate Director Residential Life/Residential Services Northwestern University
ACUHO-I ACE
Anaheim, CA
July 9, 2012
* to be conferred Aug. 2012
Note: All material in this presentation is copyrighted. To request permission to use, please contact Virginia Koch at [email protected] or [email protected]
@valbanesokoch
@valbanesokoch
MY INTEREST
1986-1st RA training
1992-1st BCD 1992-1st Behind Closed Doors
2004 Job focused on RA training
2005 Started to assess RA training
2006 Created online training
2009 Started using ICD
CONTEXT
1986-1st RA training
1992-1st Behind Closed Doors
2004 Job focused on RA training
2005 Started to assess RA training
2006 Created online training
2009 Started using ICD
SIGNIFICANCE
1992-1st BCD
Provides a description of
current practices in RA training
Explores RA educators’ use of
a learning paradigm (ICD)
Provides a snapshot of RA
educators’ education and
professional development in
curricular design
Offers many implications for a
variety of audiences
@valbanesokoch
RESEARCH DESIGN
1992-1st BCD
Cross-sectional survey design
52 questions-quantitative & qualitative
Unit of analysis: RA training programs
designed for students serving as RAs
during the 2010-11 academic year
Endorsed by the ACUHO-I research
committee
Data collection administered online
October 14-November 4, 2011
Data analysis: Frequencies, Crosstabs,
ANOVA, simple regression
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1992-1st BCD
1. How are contemporary RA training
programs designed?
2. Are RA training programs designed
to create significant learning
experiences?
3. Do RA educators use knowledge
of curricular design to develop RA
training programs?
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
1992-1st BCD
Beneficence Minimal risk of harm to participants
Respect for all persons Informed consent
Voluntary participation
Compliance with IRB standards
LIMITATIONS
1992-1st BCD
Retrospective
nature of survey
Potential for a low
response rate
Integrated Course Design
1992-1st BCD
Significant learning
experiences engage
students at a high energy
level and result in learning
that is memorable and
long-lasting.
RESPONSE RATE
1992-1st BCD
POPULATION
1992-1st BCD
GLACUHO n = 38
AIMHO n = 19
WACUHO n = 15
NWACUHO n = 6
(incl. AK & HI)
SWACUHO n= 21
MACUHO n = 36
SEAHO n = 55
UMR-ACUHO n = 33
NEACUHO n = 41
No response = 74
POPULATION
1992-1st BCD
50.0%
23.1% 21.6%
4.2% 1.1%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Public 4-year Private 4-
year,
independent
Private 4-
year, faith
based
Public 2-year Private 2-
year
POPULATION
1992-1st BCD
Housing Capacity Average = 2,654
Range = 188 to 14,500
Number of RAs Employed Average = 70
Range = 3 to 400
2/3 of respondents employed 100 RAs or fewer
Number of Residents/RA 2/3 of RAs assigned to 40 or fewer residents
50.8%
25.8%
13.3%
7.3%
2.1% 0.7%
Pre-service
training
In-service
training
Not-for-credit
acdemic
course
For-credit
academic
courses
Institution
developed
online training
Commercially
developed
online training
CONTEMPORARY RA TRAINING
RA TRAINING TOPICS
98.2
98.2
98.2
98.5
98.8
99.1
99.1
99.1
99.4
99.4
99.4
99.7
99.7
99.7
99.7
100%
Sexual assault
Alcohol use/abuse
Peer helping/Counseling skills
Programming/event planning
Discipline/student conduct
Fire Safety
Institutional Policies & Procedures
Roommate Problems
Emergency Response
Conflict Resolution
Referral Procedures
Campus Resources
Administrative Tasks
Communication Skills
Community Development
Crisis Management
TOPICS NOT COVERED
33.1
35.8
38.8
39.6
41.4
42.6
44.7
49.1
53.8
66%
Bullying
Working with faculty
Active shooter response
White privilege
Spiritual development
Hall government advising
Hazing
Religious literacy
History of residence life
Gambling
TEACHING METHODS
60.7%
97.0%
11.1%
86.8%
85.0%
97.0%
94.9%
95.3%
70.9%
100%
84.6%
88.5%
86.5%
90.4%
Watching videos/DVDs/YouTube clips
Service learning
Role plays
Reflective essays
Reading assignments
Podcasts
Peer teaching/presentation
Observation
Lecture
Guest speakers
Games or simulations
Field trips
Discussion
Case studies
Pre-service
In-service
Not-for-credit
For-credit
82% (n = 280)
TEACHING METHODS
60.7
97.0
11.1
86.8
85.0
97.0
94.9
95.3
70.9
100
84.6
88.5
86.5
90.4
Watching videos/DVDs/YouTube Clips
Service learning
Role plays
Reflective essays
Reading assignments
Podcasts
Peer teaching/presentation
Observation
Lecture
Guest speakers
Games or simulations
Field trips
Discussion
Case studies
In-service
For-credit
Not-for-credit
Pre-service
Mean 3.17
4.42
2.51
3.63
3.68
3.56
2.95
3.14
1.13 3.65 3.67
3.79
2.27 3.02
Scale: 0 = Don’t know; 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4= Very Frequently; 5 = Always
TEACHING METHODS USED BY ≥ 85%
Discussion
Games or simulations
Guest speakers
Lecture
Role play
Case Studies
Reading assignments
Reflective essays
Watching videos/DVDs/YouTube clips
Observation
Peer teaching/ presentationsPre-service
In-service
Not-for-credit
For-credit
Not used by ≥ 85%:
Podcasts
Field trips
Service Learning
STUDENT DEVELOPMENT THEORY
1.90
1.96
2.37
2.37
2.39
2.56
2.66
2.67
2.67
2.73
2.75
2.78
Mean= 3.28
Development of faith and spirituality (52.8%)
Baxter Magolda's theory of self-authorship (53.5%)
Ethnic identity and acculturation (66.5%)
Schlossberg’s transition theory (66.5%)
Multiracial identity development (69.3%)
Gender and gender identity development (74.8%)
Perry’s Intellectual & ethical development (71.7%)
Sexual identity development (78.3%)
Kolb’s theory of experiential learning (71.4%)
Racial identity development (80.4%)
Kohlberg's moral development theory (81.4%)
Psychosocial identity development (80.0%)
Chickering’s identity development (91.6%)
Scale: 0 = Don’t know; 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4= Very Frequently; 5 = Always
ASSESSING RA LEARNING
1.90
1.44
1.56
1.70
1.72
2.03
2.14
2.16
2.32
2.33
2.73
2.86
Mean= 3.28
Research projects (12.5%)
One minute papers (21.7%)
Learning portfolios (22.9%)
Final exams (26.6%)
Debates (27.7%)
Reflective journals (41.7%)
Quizzes (49.0%)
Peer assessments (44.0%)
Written self-assessment (51.3%)
Rubrics (50.0%)
Peer feedback (56.3%)
Case studies (68.9%)
Comprehensive capstone project (BCD) (78.9%)
57.7% n = 195
Scale: 0 = Don’t know; 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4= Very Frequently; 5 = Always
SITUATIONAL FACTORS
1.90
2.23
2.31
2.43
2.51
2.64
3.11
Mean = 3.12
Learning disabilities (63.2%)
Nationality (59.6%)
Learning style preference (60.1%)
Racial/ethnic identity (45.9%)
Physical disability (55.4%)
Age (73.8%)
Gender/sex (63.3%)
Class standing (70.3%)
Scale: 0 = Don’t know; 1 = Never; 2 = Rarely; 3 = Sometimes; 4= Very Frequently; 5 = Always
ICD: COMPONENTS
3.27
4.00
4.30
4.54
4.66
4.68
4.86
Mean = 5.20
A system of grading or evaluating RA
performance during training
A system for holding RAs accountable for their
learning
A syllabus (or similar document) which explained
our RA training program
A plan to assess what RAs learned
A plan for providing feedback to RAs
Clear learning goals for our training program
A system for formally evaluating the training
program
A variety of teaching and learning activities
Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Slightly Disagree; 4 = Slightly Agree; 5 = Agree; 6 = Strongly Agree
ICD: USE
1992-1st BCD
11%
38% 26%
8%
9%
8%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Slightly Agree
Slightly Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
ICD: CONSIDER USE
1992-1st BCD
35%
35%
19%
0% 0%
11%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Slightly Agree
Slightly Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
ICD: BARRIERS
Time constraints
Lack of knowledgeable
staff
Inadequately staffed
departments
1992-1st BCD
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%Strongly agree
Agree
Slightly agree
Slightly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
ICD: LEARNING GOALS
ICD: ASSESSING LEARNING
1992-1st BCD
48.7
%
31.1
%
43.8
%
21.1
%
21.1
%
21.1
%
21.1
%
21.1
% 51.0
%
56.0
%
50.0
%
78.3
%
77.1
%
87.5
%
Always Very Frequently Sometimes Rarely Never
RA EDUCATORS
1992-1st BCD
Years FT Experience
Highest Level of Education
Professional Development
Educational Preparation
in Curricular Design
RA EDUCATORS
1992-1st BCD
10.4%
24.6%
30.8%
20.3%
11.2%
2.7% Years FT experience
0-3
4-7
8-12
13-20
21-38
Prefer not to
respond/Missing
RA EDUCATORS
1992-1st BCD
82.5%
8.3% 6.2%
1.8% 1.2%
Highest Level of Education
Masters
Ph. D. or Ed. D
Bachelors
Missing/Did not
respond
Prefer not to answer
RA EDUCATORS
Professional development in curriculum design
51.1% Regional & national
conferences
12.4% On-campus
professional development
10.9% ACPA Residential
Curriculum Institute
n= 137
RA EDUCATORS
40.9% BA Education
9.7% MA in Higher Ed
n = 97
Coursework in Curriculum
Development
RA EDUCATORS
1992-1st BCD
Neither
35.3%
Just professional
development
29.9%
Just coursework
15.4%
Both 19.3%
Did not complete
coursework or
professional
development
Completed professional
development but no
coursework
Completed coursework
but no professional
development
Completed coursework
and professional
development
RA EDUCATORS
ICD and Use of Significant Learning Goals
Level of education Formal education
Professional development
Years of FT Experience
3.9%
CONCLUSIONS
Many RA educators are not prepared to design RA training programs that produce significant learning experiences—or
deep learning. There a gap between preparation and expectations
Student development theory is not
sufficiently used to frame training programs
Safety and security topics have displaced multicultural and community development
topics
There is little room for new content in RA
training Learning—and learning assessment— is not
the focus of training programs
RA educators need use a learner-centered
approach such as ICD which incorporates
campus situational factors and significant learning goals
FOR-CREDIT RA COURSES
OVERVIEW • Nearly all respondents said the course was mandatory • 40.4% offered course after selection • 42.3% offered the course after RAs began serving in the position • 43.4% of course were offered by [school] of education • Worth one (37.4%) or two (35.8%) credits • 75% of institutions had the HRL professionals as instructors
• Content themes • Four most popular teaching methods
Textbooks: The Resident Assistant (Blimling), 26.4% Course Readers, 26.5% Other 20.7% None 16.9% Foubert, 9.4%
THEN & NOW: FOR-CREDIT RA COURSES
DIFFERENCES
• Six topics covered more frequently
• Three topics covered less frequently
• Books
• Model SIMILARITIES
• Participation
• Instructors
• Faculty involvement
• Use
NOT-FOR-CREDIT RA COURSES
OVERVIEW
• Content themes
• Four most popular teaching methods
• Nearly all respondents said the course was mandatory
• Two-thirds offered course after selection
• 16.3% offered the course after RAs began serving in the
position
• 43.4% of course were offered by [school]
of education
• Worth one (37.4%) or two (35.8%) credits
• 41% of institutions had the HRL
professionals as instructors
Textbooks:
None 51.5%; Course Reader, 27.1%
The Resident Assistant (Blimling) 26.4%; Other 10.0%
@valbanesokoch
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
1992-1st BCD
Designers of RA Training Programs
Embrace their roles as educators
Shift from an instructional paradigm to a
learning paradigm
Use an ICD approach
Dream big and create exciting learning goals
Maximize use of campus-specific situational
factors
Frame RA training programs in student
development theory
Conduct assessments of student learning
Share what they learn with others
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
1992-1st BCD
Post Baccalaureate Higher Education Programs Evaluate programs to ensure that graduates have
foundational knowledge in student learning and
development professional competencies
Review and, if necessary, revise their curriculum
requirements for students and/or add courses which
address curriculum development
Consider making courses in teaching and learning
and/or curriculum development required for degree
completion
Have faculty design courses to ensure
that students can assess student
learning using authentic, formative,
and summative evaluations
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
1992-1st BCD
Senior Student Affairs Officers Encourage and expect staff to enhance their
professional competencies
Advocate for faculty/teaching excellence or
academic technology support centers to also aid
student affairs educators
Invite experts to campus
Provide professional development funds
Actively recruit and retain student affairs professionals
with knowledge, experience, and skill sets in teaching
and learning, curriculum development, and
assessment
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
1992-1st BCD
Professional Associations • Continue to offer (or start!) and promote
opportunities for designers of RA training and program and student employment programs
• Develop skills enhancement programs • Thoughtfully assess all current programs,
strategic partnerships, and member services to emphasize student learning and development
FUTURE RESEARCH
1992-1st BCD
Qualitative 1. Document analysis
2. Multi-case study design
3. Interviews with RA designers
Quantitative 1. Re-administer this survey
2. Assess the effectiveness of
integrated course design (ICD)
applied to RA training (pre-post test)
