A transformation is taking place in student affairs divisions in contemporary community colleges across the nation. Increased accountability demands for student learning outcomes and growing competition from for-profit educational institutions are prompting many colleges to redefine their missions. Many are choosing to progress towards learning colleges, which are outlined in the works of Barr and Tagg; Boggs; Myran, Zeiss, and Howdyshell: Colby; Toy; and O’Banion (as cited in O’Banion, 1997). As a result, student affairs professionals are clarifying their roles in the context of the learning college paradigm.
The evolution of student affairs as a construct is relatively new in higher education. However, Harvey-Smith (2005) points out that although some writers suggest student affairs has antecedents in Athenian education and European universities of the middle-ages, it is primarily an American higher education invention.
Historical Perspective
In January, 1925, the Intercollegiate Council on Personnel Methods (ICPM) was established to assist higher education institutions support students as individuals. In 1926, the ICPM solicited the American Council on Education (ACE) to sponsor a study of personnel practices in higher education. The outcome was the Hopkins Report, which reviewed student development practices at a select number of institutions. Within a decade, the Committee on Personnel Methods (CPM) had created the following set of tools which were being used to address individual student needs: (a) cumulative record cards, (b) personality rating scales, and (c) comparable achievement tests, which have had a lasting impact on the practices of student personnel methods.
In 1936, the Committee on Measurement and Guidance (CMG) was established to coordinate measurement activities for the organization. In 1937, the Committee on Problems and Plans in Education of the American Council on Education (CPPEACE) met in Washington, D.C. to formally recommended that the Committee on Student Personnel Work (CSPW) be established.
The philosophy and purpose of the CSPW was “to assist the student in developing to the limits of his potential and in making his contribution to the betterment of society” (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA), 1937, p. 39). By 1949, new goals and objectives were added to the CSPW philosophy that emphasized the importance of education on societal growth and positive influence on the education and development of each individual student (NASPA, 1949, p. 17). The major focus of the new objectives was the student’s full and balanced maturity as a major necessary means of development for each citizen. The recognition of differences in backgrounds, abilities, interests and goals were seen as necessary for optimal development of the individual. Specialists’ efforts were supplemented with preventative advising and counseling by trained faculty members. Mores and policies were recommended that supported favorable conditions of friendly, informal working relationships between teachers and students (p. 34).
More recently, in 1986, student affairs has been challenged to advance individual student learning supported in the learning college movement, including (a) assessing the educational and social experiences of students to improve programming, (b) facilitating faculty-student interaction in programs and activities to develop learning communities, (c) helping students clarify career objectives, explore options for further study, and secure employment, to ensure appropriate career planning and job placement and, (d) continuing to champion students’ rights to promote a highly involved student body interactive in all aspects of college life (as cited in McPhail, 2005). The Student Learning Imperative: Implications for Student Affairs (American College Personnel Association, 1996) was designed to stimulate discussion and debate on how student affairs professionals could intentionally create conditions that enhance student learning and personal development. Major assumptions highlighted in the report are that (a) learning and personal development of students are inextricably intertwined, (b) learning is influenced by a myriad of factors to include the cultures of both the institution and students, and (c) positive in-class and out-of-class settings both on- and off-campus contribute to student learning.
Modern Theories
Modern student development theories are categorized into four distinct areas, psychosocial, cognitive-structural development, social development, and developmental synthesis models (Komives, Woodward, Jr. & Associates, 2003). Psychosocial development theories are structured around what students think about; what their issues are. These theories suggest that the college experience helps students to evolve into mature individuals over time. Cognitive-structural development theories focus on how students think about their issues. “These theories propose cognitive structures, which might be thought of as filters or lenses, of increasing complexity through which one takes in information, perceives experiences, and constructs meanings” (p. 162). As the name implies, social identity theories examine how students see themselves in the world. Finally, the developmental synthesis models take a more holistic approach, viewing the students’ psychosocial and cognitive development as interconnected. Other relevant theories based on typologies, such as the Myers-Briggs theory of personality type, or theories that explore the environment, such as organizational theories, are also important.
Theories are useful to student affairs professionals because they can help the professional interpret what students are saying and can help them analyze the context in which the student speaks. For example, the professional who understands the Myers-Briggs personality types is better prepared to advise students on suitable careers. The application of theories in a learning-centered college environment takes on an even higher level of significance because professionals are better equipped to provide appropriate climates that optimize learning. In this context, student affairs professionals play an intricate role in facilitating learning because of their insight about student development and the stages students must go through to reach their academic, social, and personal potential, thus helping them to evolve into mature, self-confident individuals.
Future Trends and Challenges
Moneta (2003) provides guidelines for future practices in student affairs. He suggests that local campus politics drive the functions of student development and says that student affairs officials should focus on improving relationships with stakeholders to compliment academic programming. In addition, he posits that student affairs professionals should clearly define their role so that all stakeholders understand their vital contribution towards the transformation to a learning-centered college. It is also suggested that assessment methods and quality assurance measures will have to be developed in order to meet the needs of nontraditional and distance learning students.
The author contends that the concept of students as consumers and learners will force institutions to specialize services for the needs of the millennial student. He cited that increases in online and Internet classes and services are important to this generation of students. Further, the author predicts that student affairs professionals will have to serve as life managers, assisting students in a variety of ways, such as (a) facilitating character, self-esteem and fundamental human development, (b) counseling on mental and physical health, spirituality and moral issues, as well as (c) increasing their role in student advocacy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, new roles for educators are emerging as the shift to the learning paradigm occurs. As facilitators of student learning, student affairs professionals will be challenged to become more intentional, integrated, and inclusive with practices and processes. Student affairs will need to closely examine how its operations actually promote student learning, rather than merely provide services to students (Harvey-Smith, 2005).
