Title: Directions for the future of student personnel services in Florida's community colleges /
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098875/00001
 Material Information
Title: Directions for the future of student personnel services in Florida's community colleges /
Physical Description: viii, 123 leaves : ; 28cm.
Language: English
Creator: Jonassen, Ellen Osterbind, 1949-
Publication Date: 1975
Copyright Date: 1975
 Subjects
Subject: Counseling in higher education -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Counselor Education thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Counselor Education -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography: Bibliography: leaves 113-122.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Statement of Responsibility: by Ellen Osterbind Jonassen.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098875
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: alephbibnum - 000163272
oclc - 02743238
notis - AAS9624

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 5 MBs ) ( PDF )


Full Text











DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES
IN FLORIDA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES















BY

ELLEN OSTERBIND JONASSEN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1975
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


To Dr. Robert 0. Stripling, for his continued support

and help, I would like to express my gratitude and appre-

ciation.

I am also indebted to Dr. David Lane and Dr. Richard J.

Anderson for their helpful suggestions and guidance.

This study could not have been completed without the

encouragement and positive support of my husband, Bill, and

my parents, Dr. and Mrs. Carter C. Osterbind.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . .

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . .

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . .

Statement of Problem . . . . .
Question Under Investigation . . . .

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . .

The Evolution and Development of Student
Personnel Services . . . . . .
The Role of the Community College . . .
The Development of Student Personnel
Services in the Community College . .
Research Methods Used in Study . . .

III. PROCEDURES AND METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS . .

Procedures . . . . . . . .
Analysis of Data . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX

A. BASIC STUDENT PERSONNEL FUNCTIONS . . ..

B. LIST OF FUNCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS FOR ROUND 1

C. LIST OF FUNCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS FOR ROUNDS
2 AND 3 . . . . .

D. FIRST ROUND LETTER AND CHECKLIST . . .

E. FIRST ROUND REMINDER LETTER . . . . .

F. SECOND ROUND LETTERS AND CHECKLIST . . .


Page

ii

v


1

2
5

7


7
14

19
27

33

33
39
58











Page


G. SECOND ROUND REMINDER LETTER . . . .. 94

H. THIRD ROUND LETTER AND CHECKLIST . . ... 95

I. THIRD ROUND REMINDER LETTER . . . .. 107

J. FINAL RANKED LIST OF FUNCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS 108

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 113

BIGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . ... 123















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES
IN FLORIDA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES


By

Ellen Osterbind Jonassen


August, 1975


Chairman: Robert 0. Stripling
Major Department: Counselor Education


The purpose of this study was to examine the future of

student personnel services in Florida's 28 public community

colleges. Specifically, data were gathered to answer one

fundamental question: what should be the functions of

student personnel services in Florida's 28 public community

colleges during the next 10 years, as perceived by the prac-

titioners in those colleges? Data were collected through

the use of a Delphi technique consisting of three rounds,

a consensus-gathering procedure characterized by multiple

iterations with controlled feedback.

The original corrected population involved 435 student

personnel services practitioners. In the first round, 74.1

percent of the practitioners responded, and 71.7 percent










responded to the second round. The third round was sent

only to those who participated in the second round. The

response for the third round represented 80.4 percent of

those who responded to round two and 57.7 percent of the

original population of 435.

In the first round, the practitioners were asked to

react and make additions to the list of 21 basic student

personnel functions which was developed by the National

Committee for Appraisal and Development of Junior College

Student Personnel Programs in a nation-wide study in 1965.

The functions were: precollege information, student induc-

tion, group orientation, career information, personnel

records, educational testing, applicant appraisal, student

counseling, student advisement, applicant consulting, co-

curricular activities, student self-government, student

registration, academic regulation, social regulation,

financial aids, placement, program articulation, in-service

education, program evaluation, and administrative organiza-

tion. As a result of comments and suggestions in round one,

13 additional functions were added to the original list of

21: services to special population groups, teaching, student

development, faculty consultation, athletics, community ser-

vices, curriculum development, child care, cooperative

education, information center, change agents, and para-

professionals and peer-group counseling.










In the second round, the participants were asked to

rate the 34 functions from the perspective of the relative

importance of inclusion of the item as a responsibility of

student personnel services in the next 10 years. For the

third round, the practitioners were given information on

how the group responded to each item in the second round,

and they were asked to rate the functions again, taking this

information into consideration.

After completion of the third round the functions were

ranked according to their means. The 10 functions which

the practitioners felt would be most important in 1985 were:

administrative organization, student counseling, career in-

formation and decision-making, student advisement, faculty

consultation, in-service education and staff development,

change agents, student development, financial aids, and

precollege information.

In summary the practitioners proposed an expanded role.

New functions were advocated, although not at the expense of

abandoning needed student-oriented traditional functions.

The practitioners indicated a desire to become more involved

with the college as a whole and to influence the future

directions and philosophy of the college. However, they

also expressed their continuing concern for meeting the

needs of the student as an individual. The participants

voiced a strong commitment to student-oriented functions

as opposed to regulatory functions.










Although the data reflected a blending of old and new

ideas in student personnel services, the responses and

ratings revealed the concern of present student personnel

workers for keeping abreast of new findings in the litera-

ture. The practitioners indicated that they had not be-

come stagnant and that they were aware of the need for

change and for new responsibilities which were required to

meet student needs.


viii












CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


The purpose of this study was to examine the future of

student personnel services in Florida's 28 public community

colleges. Both student personnel services and junior col-

leges1 have emerged in the twentieth century as distinguish-

ing features of American education. Their development has

been compared as being closely parallel with the founding

of the first public junior college in Joliet, Illinois, in

1902, and with student personnel work beginning as an organ-

ized movement about 1900. Both movements also reached

mutually high points of development and recognition in the

sixties. (O'Banion, Thurston, & Gulden, 1970).

The evolution of both generally has been adaptive in

nature, changing to meet the new needs of students and

society. As the role of the community college continues to

change to include new groups of students and provide new

types of services, curricula, and programs (Carnegie

Commission on Higher Education, 1974) it is important that

those in the field of student personnel services examine

its role in regard to these changes.

It was not until the sixties that student personnel

services became an area of much concern within community



IIn this study the terms community college and junior
college are used interchangeably.

1










colleges. Although these services have grown in importance

there is a belief that "the majority of . community col-

leges have a long road to travel before achieving the goals

of an ideal personnel services program" (Monroe, 1973,

p. 158).

Parker (1971) stated that "any modern social institu-

tion must use a percentage of its resources in the research,

planning, and development of its future" (p. 405). It was

hoped that findings from this study would contribute to

research needed in planning the future of student personnel

services in the 28 community colleges involved. Also, the

findings should be of interest to community colleges, both

public and private, throughout the United States.


Statement of Problem

In his book, Campus 1980, Eurich (1968) suggested that

by examining the future, we can "speed changes toward a

better future" (p. xvii). Thus, the purpose of this study

was to explore and identify what might be the functions of

student personnel services in the decade ahead in Florida's

28 public community colleges. In pursuing this study, it

was important to focus on three areas of research: the

evolution and development of student personnel services,

the role of the community college, and the development of

student personnel services in the community college.

Many studies (Johnson, 1970; Leonard, 1956; Mueller,

1961; Robinson, 1960; Williamson, 1961; Wrenn, 1951) have










outlined the historical evolution and development of student

personnel services in American education. This evolution

has occurred as societies' needs have changed, as the number

of educational institutions has increased, and as types of

students have become more diverse (Leonard, 1956).

The basic role of the community college has been a

frequent topic of discussion (Blocker, Plummer, & Richardson,

1965; Cohen, 1969; Cosand, 1968; Cross, 1974; Evans &

Neagley, 1973; Gleazer, 1974; Monroe, 1973). The dominant

feature of this role has been the assumption by the com-

munity college of the task of extending opportunities for

higher education to all citizens who might profit from the

experience (Evans & Neagley, 1973). This extension, com-

monly labeled the "open door policy," has resulted in highly

diversified student bodies in community colleges.

A third area of research, the development of student

personnel services in the community college, was most rele-

vant to this study. This area has also been widely repre-

sented in studies and in the literature (Collins, 1965;

Humphreys, 1952; Matson, 1967; McDaniel, 1962; Medsker,

1972; Monroe, 1973; National Committee for Appriasal and

Development of Student Personnel Programs, 1965; Priest,

1959; Richardson & Blocker, 1968; Thornton, 1972; Yoder &

Beals, 1966). Perhaps the best known of these is the nation-

wide study which was conducted by the National Committee

for Appraisal Development of Junior College Student Personnel










Programs (1965), more commonly known as the McConnell-Raines

study. T. R. McConnell, chairman of the committee stated,

"The conclusion of these studies may be put bluntly: when

measured against criteria of scope and effectiveness, stu-

dent personnel programs in community colleges are woefully

inadequate" (National Committee for Appraisal and Develop-

ment of Junior College Student Personnel Programs, 1965,

p. iv). In responding to this conclusion, Collins (1967)

noted, however, that, historically, the junior colleges have

stated an obligation to develop strong, comprehensive stu-

dent personnel programs to meet student needs.

The rationale for this study was therefore twofold.

First, with the role of student personnel services and the

role of the community college continuing to evolve, it was

important to examine what the functions of student personnel

services in Florida's public community colleges should be

in the decade ahead so that student needs could be met.

Toffler (1974) emphasized the need for examining the future

by stating that

. no educational institution today can set sen-
sible goals or do an effective job until its members
. subject their own assumptions about tomorrow to
critical analysis. For their shared or collective
image of the future dominates the decisions made in
the institution. (p. 5)

Toffler's statement also supported the other rationale

for this study, the need to have an institution's own

members analyze their assumptions and perceptions of the

future. It was therefore important to examine what the










student personnel practitioners who were presently working

in these 28 public community colleges perceived the func-

tions of student personnel services to be in the future.

These practitioners will be the major implementers and

therefore translators of student personnel theory and func-

tions into practice; thus it was important to analyze their

views on future directions.

It was assumed that feedback from the practitioners

could provide valuable information to student personnel

administrators and to the field as a whole. Moreover, such

feedback could provide valuable information regarding the

preparation of student personnel workers.

No effort was made to evaluate present programs or to

determine if in the 28 community colleges studied there

were resources available to meet the student personnel ser-

vices needs as defined by the practitioners in those institu-

tions.


Question Under Investigation

The study focused on obtaining data to answer one

fundamental question: what should be the functions of

student personnel services in Florida's 28 public community

colleges during the next 10 years, as perceived by the

practitioners in those colleges? Approximately 460 pro-

fessional personnel in all areas of student personnel ser-

vices were asked to participate in the study. Data were

collected through the use of the Delphi technique, a





6



consensus-gathering procedure developed by researchers at

the Rand Corporation in the early fifties, a procedure

characterized by multiple iterations with controlled feed-

back. The Delphi has recently been widely used in higher

education for planning and gaining insight and consensus in

regard to future goals and objectives (Judd, 1972).













CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE


This review considered the evolution and development of

student personnel services, the role of the community col-

lege, and the development of student personnel services in

the community college, as well as information concerning the

use of the Delphi technique and information on the basic

student personnel functions used in the Project for Appraisal

and Development of Junior College Student Personnel Programs.

Also included was a review of literature relating to new

types of students in community colleges.


The Evolution and Development of Student
Personnel Services

From their beginning, American colleges and universi-

ties have had the freedom and therefore flexibility to ex-

press their own specific goals and desires. This freedom,

however, has caused these institutions to assume certain

responsibilities which were not assumed by educational

institutions in other countries. One of these, the concern

for the general welfare of students, was first a responsi-

bility of Colonial educational institutions (Leonard, 1956).

Williamson (1961) stated that perhaps the deeply

religious immigrants from Europe were threatened by the wild

American frontier and thus felt the need to be preoccupied










with student life outside the classroom, a preoccupation

which led to the institution of programs of extraclassroom

services.

Due probably to these forces and others, several events

in the nineteenth century marked the beginning of the develop-

ment of student personnel services. In 1833, Oberlin ap-

pointed women principals to oversee the problems of newly

admitted women students, and out of these appointments later

emerged the position dean of women. Harvard, in 1870,

employed the first college dean, whose duties were concerned

with the extracurricular activities of students. The first

faculty advisory system was developed at Johns Hopkins in

1889. At the University of Chicago in the 1890s the student

housing movement gained momentum. Many of these develop-

ments were due to changes in the duties of the college

president. As his responsibilities increased, so did his

need for assistants (Williamson, 1961).

These early developments were on somewhat shaky ground

because of the strong influence of German intellectualism

which pervaded American educational institutions from ap-

proximately 1870 to 1920. The effect of the German philosophy

was that student life outside the classroom was generally

ignored. However, Wrenn (1951), in citing an outline of

the development of student personnel work by W. H. Cowley,

stated that concern with student personnel services resumed

and became stronger after 1920 due to the interest of three

groups:










(1.) the humanitarians, educational leaders, and
frontier thinkers who protested against a lack of
concern for the well-being and happiness of the indi-
vidual in any type of situation, (2.) the college
administrators who saw varied student needs and wanted
them satisfied and (3.) the psychologists who became
interested in total behavior and supplied instruments
and procedures for understanding and dealing with
individual personalities. (p. 31)

As colleges and universities increased in numbers and

complexity, student personnel work evolved as a group of

loosely organized services. The various activities that

formed this group were derived from student and institu-

tional needs rather than from any theoretical or philosophi-

cal basis. As student personnel services continued to grow,

there was an increased interest in developing some type of

underlying philosophy. As a result, the Committee on

College Personnel of the American Council on Education

published in 1938 (revised in 1949) pamphlets describing

the philosophy of student personnel work at the college level.

These statements emphasized the underlying spirit of
the work, "the personnel point of view," based on
three assumptions: (1) Individual differences are
anticipated, and every student is recognized as
unique. (2) Each individual is to be treated as a
functioning whole. (3) The individual's current
drives, interests, and needs are to be accepted as
the most significant factor in developing a per-
sonnel program appropriate for any particular
campus. (Mueller, 1961, p. 56)

In evaluating the early development of student per-

sonnel work, O'Banion, Thurston, and Gulden (1970) stated

that programs developed "as a series of services in reac-

tion to forces within the college community rather than as

an action program for shaping forces" (p. 7). Thus, much










of the early history of student personnel work has been

reactive in nature, attempting to meet the needs of stu-

dents and the institutions. However, in meeting these needs,

services were established that would remain as basic func-

tions in the years to come.

It has been emphasized in the literature that one of

the primary purposes of student personnel services is to pro-

vide a climate which will supplement or complement academic

learning and promote the total growth and development of

the student (Feder, 1958; Miller, 1970; O'Banion, 1971b;

Teeter, 1975). Another primary purpose is to humanize and

individualize higher education and to meet the student's

need for individual attention (Berdie, 1970; O'Banion,

1971b). A third responsibility is to serve as resource

persons to students, faculty, and administrators in order

to provide information about services offered by the

college so that these services will be used to facilitate

the achievement of institutional and student goals (Berdie,

1970; O'Banion, 1971b). Generally, the main thrust of the

literature has been that student personnel work should

help the student grow and gain as much as is possible from

his college experience.

A survey of the literature also revealed a basic

group of common functions or services which became essential

to student personnel services programs. With few excep-

tions this same list of basic services has been repeated










throughout the literature (Arbuckle, 1953; Feder, 1958;

Hopkins, 1948; O'Banion, 1970; Russel, 1970; Williamson,

1961) and has included the following: selection for

admission; registration and records; counseling; health

services; housing and food services; student activities;

financial aid; placement; discipline; special clinics

(remedial reading, study habits, speech and hearing, and

special services); student orientation; veterans advisory

services; foreign student program; marriage counseling;

religious activities; and counseling (Feder, 1958). William-

son (1961) added testing as an essential function.

Many educators also have emphasized the importance of

student personnel professionals working with the instruc-

tional program (American Council on Education, 1950; Hodinko,

1973; Karman, 1974; Robinson, 1960). Brown (1972) main-

tained that "student personnel workers . and others who

profess to be concerned about total student development

must move into the academic world both to legitimize ex-

periences and programs now available and to humanize cur-

rent curricular offerings" (p. 46). By increasing coopera-

tion between the two groups, it was assumed that both could

work to provide a more complete and better educational

experience for the student.

Another function which has gained attention in the

literature is evaluation (Arbuckle, 1953; Devlin, 1968;

Hill, 1972; Ross, 1967). Student personnel specialists









need to insure that some method of evaluation is developed

and used so that the effectiveness of personnel programs

can be analyzed. Evaluation has been the topic of several

research studies (Beasley, 1969; Bradley, 1967; Johnson,

1968). In these studies, however, there seems to be no

similarity among campuses in regard to which functions are

rated more effective than others. This seems to indicate

that the quality and effectiveness of student personnel

programs are not always similar and vary greatly on differ-

ent campuses.

As interest in evaluation has increased, some educators

have become critical of student personnel services and as

a result have suggested the need for the development of new

models of services. Penny (1969) stated that preoccupation

with housekeeping functions and lack of a strong underlying

philosophy have caused the low esteem of student personnel

services on the campus and in the academic world. Mueller

(1970) emphasized the need for a more current philosophy.

Although many of the traditional principles are still sound,

the role, goals, and objectives of student personnel must

become more relevant in today's society. Terenzini (1973)

noted that the major problem seems to be an uncertainty in

regard to what should be the goals and objectives.

The questioning of what has evolved and the need to

develop new models has been discussed increasingly in the

literature (Crookston, 1972; Eddy & Klepper, 1972;









Wallenfeldt, 1971). O'Banion, Thurston, & Gulden (1970)

stated:

In the last years of the decade of the 1960s, stu-
dent personnel workers were examining with great
seriousness the status of the student personnel pro-
fession . Existing models of student personnel
work--regulatory, servicing, and therapeutic--are
inappropriate to needs of students in a changing
society. . As the student personnel profession
enters the decade of the 70's there is clear call for
a new model for the profession--a new model for the
role of the student personnel worker. (pp. 7-8)

The new model which O'Banion, Thurston, and Gulden

suggested focuses upon the concept of student development.

This model, as opposed to the more traditional program, is

preventive in nature rather than remedial and corrective.

In the student development model, the student personnel

worker functions to promote individual student development

rather than functioning as a control agent of student con-

duct (Grant, 1968). Crookston (1972) emphasized that the

student development model is aggressive and provides a

central teaching function to the college, rather than being

merely complementary or supplementary in nature. He sug-

gested doing away with the term student personnel and re-

placing it with the term student development. This view-

point is also supported by Tripp (1968), who stated that the

student personnel worker of the future must be a student

development expert. He envisioned the student development

expert as a leader on the campus in the role of helping to

make "man more personally effective and a more fulfilled

human being" (p. 143).










The role of the student development expert or special-

ist was more explicitly defined by Brown (1972). The

student development approach focuses on developing the

whole student; consequently the student development special-

ist must assume the roles of diagnostician, consultant,

programmer, technologist, college professor, administrator,

behavioral scientist, and researcher.

The student development model has been suggested most

often in the literature as the role for student personnel

services in the future. Regardless of what model is im-

plemented, however, student personnel services must remain

flexible and continue to evolve to meet not only the needs

of new types of students but also to meet the changing needs

of presently enrolled students (Parker, 1971; Shaffer, 1967,

1968; Wrenn, 1970).


The Role of the Community College

In order to analyze the future of student personnel

services in the community college it was important to examine

the role of the community college. Essential to this study,

therefore, was an understanding of the aspects of this role

which effected student personnel services.

The community college has been referred to as the only

truly American invention in the field of education (Collins,

1967). In establishing its role in education, the community

college has developed its own unique identity and is not a










two-year version of the four-year college (Cross, 1974;

Matson, 1967). The community college has also been the

most rapidly developing educational institution in the

United States (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,

1974; Collins, 1967). This has been due, in part, to

. their open admissions policies, their geographic
distribution across the country, and their unusually
low tuition policies. They also offer more varied
programs for a greater variety of students than any
other segment of higher education, provide a chance
for postsecondary education for many who are not
fully committed to a four-year college career, and
appeal to students who are undecided about their
future careers and unprepared to choose a field of
specialization. In addition, they provide an oppor-
tunity for working adults to upgrade their skills and
training. (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education,
1974, p. 97)

The most fundamental purpose and role of the community

college has been to provide educational opportunities to

all persons in its service area and to extend these oppor-

tunities to larger and more diverse groups of the popula-

tion (Blocker, Plummer, & Richardson, 1965; Collins, 1967;

Evans & Neagley, 1973; Matson, 1967). Medsker (1972) noted

that the community college "faces an enormous problem in

making education meaningful to its diverse student body

. . [and] . must be concerned about how to direct its

total effort toward the end of serving the many different

needs of students" (p. 3).

In addition to this underlying role, Matson (1967)

stated that community colleges have claimed five major

goals:










1. To provide occupational education in all areas
which are appropriate for the needs of the economy
and the available human resources. 2. To provide two
years of lower division preparation that will enable
students to transfer to senior institutions with the
least interruption of progress toward their goals.
3. To offer a program of general education designed
for all members of the community, with special
attention to those who do not plan to transfer to
other educational institutions. 4. To provide a
system of community services, broad in scope and
purpose, that will meet the recognized needs of all
segments of the population and expand the social,
cultural, and vocational experiences available to them.
5. To provide out-of-class services to the college
students and staff which will facilitate the achieve-
ment of these basic purposes. (p. 162)

In its role as outlined above, the community college

has become an accepted part of American education; however,

there has been a call for the community college to estab-

lish new missions and to plan for further stages of develop-

ment (Cohen, 1969; Gleazer, 1974). One new mission sug-

gested is to become a dominant force in meeting the needs

of the community and in shaping the future of the community

(Cohen, 1969; Cosand, 1968). The community college should

not only meet the educational and professional needs of the

community, but also should provide avocational experiences

and outlets for all ages (Blocker, Plummer, & Richardson,

1965). Still another mission of the future would be to

increase efforts to help students meet and adjust to change

(Cosand, 1968; Sanford, 1967). The community college must

play a major role in preparing students for life outside

the education setting. The need to develop new types of

instruction and curricula has also been suggested (Cohen,










1969; Cosand, 1968). With new students and changing educa-

tional needs, other types of instruction and curricula

must be developed.

These examples represent some of the more frequently

suggested roles for the community college of the future.

Even though many new roles and functions may be assumed,

"[t]he community college will continue to be a place where

students earn credits, prepare for senior colleges, acquire

marketable skills, gain opportunities for social and economic

status and spend time in discovery of themselves while in

the transitional phase between childhood and adulthood"

(Monroe, 1973, p. 391).

In understanding the role of the community college, it

is also important to gain an understanding of the community

college student. The community college student does not

live on the campus; he is generally less academically able

than students at four-year colleges; he comes from a lower

socio-economic background than his four-year counterparts;

he works part-time while attending college; and he has less

interest in college-sponsored activities than four-year

college students (George & George, 1971; Morton, 1961).

Moreover, the community college student faces a very critical

time in his life in regard to vocational choice (Blocker,

Plummer, & Richardson, 1965).

The mixture of different types of students at the

community college has been another point of emphasis in the










literature (Collins, 1967, 1972; Gleazer, 1973; Thurston,

1972). Collins (1967), in his summary of the McConnell-

Raines study, described the community college student as

"almost as varied as humanity itself" (p. 12). However, if

the present population is diverse, there are indications

that in the future the types of community college students

will be even more varied (Collins, 1972; Gleazer, 1973).

Primarily, the present diversity and the predicted increase

in types of students can be attributed to the open-door

policy of the community college (Carnegie Commission on

Higher Education, 1973, 1974; Clarke, 1972). Clarke (1972)

stated that this policy "has made the community junior col-

lege the most important avenue to higher education for

minority group students" (p. 36).

In addition to providing access for minority students,

the open door will also provide an avenue to higher educa-

tion for increased numbers of students with low academic

ability (Cross, 1972a, 1972b; Sanford, 1968). Cross (1972a,

1972b) predicted that there will be an increased proportion

of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Still

another characteristic of community college students of

the future will be a greater age range (Sanford, 1968).

Williamson (1972) noted that many of these nontraditional

students would have been push-outs or dropouts in former

years.










Thus as the role of the community college evolves, it

will be greatly affected by the increasingly diverse stu-

dents. The way in which the community college does develop,

however, will greatly affect the role of student personnel

services. As McIntyre (1975) suggested, "The innovations

taking place in higher education suggest the need for

parallel innovations in student personnel" (p. 64).


The Development of Student Personnel Services in
the Community College

Prior to 1930, student personnel services in the

community college were mainly regulatory functions. In the

1940s there was increased interest in providing guidance

and counseling as well as testing programs for academic

placement of students. By the 1950s community colleges

had recognized the importance of a well-developed person-

nel services program (Monroe, 1973).

However, in recent years the policy of serving an in-

creasingly diverse population has emphasized even more the

need for student personnel services (Collins, 1972; Medsker,

1972; Thurston, 1972). The community college must be con-

cerned with making the educational experience meaningful

to these new students (Modsker, 1972).

The commitment by the community college to the concept

that student personnel services are an inherent part of its










program has been emphasized (Blocker, Plummer, & Richardson,

1965; Bray, 1967; Collins, 1972; Monroe, 1973; O'Banion,

1970; Pennington, 1970; Yoder & Beals, 1966). As stated by

Yoder and Beals (1966), there is a relationship between the

roles of the community college and student personnel ser-

vices which almost mandates the need and commitment to these

services:

The two-year college . is increasingly being recog-
nized as a multipurpose educational institution with
the development of the individual as its primary ob-
jective. The student personnel program in the community
college has a major responsibility in realizing this
objective; thus many community colleges across the
country have developed extensive student personnel pro-
grams directed toward the counseling, placement, and
social orientation of each individual. In fact,
probably on no other level do we find the kind of a
student personnel organization, and professional staff
that is provided in the community college. Community
college educators have recognized the importance of
this function, and have committed funds and effort to
making such a program possible. (p. 38)

The common purpose of the community college and

student personnel services of the development of the indi-

vidual student has also been noted (Humphreys, 1952; Matson,

1967; McDaniel & Lombardi, 1972; Priest, 1959). Priest

(1959) and Humphreys (1952) cited the development of the

individual student as a major purpose of the community

college. The need for individualized services and atten-

tion was emphasized by Clarke (1972) in regard to minority

students, whereas Harris (1973) maintained the importance

of meeting the special needs of the different types of

students in large urban areas.









Through this common commitment and purpose of meeting

the needs of the student as an individual, student per-

sonnel services has gained acceptance as a viable program

in the community college. Monroe (1973) stated that today

no responsible person in the community college movement

would deny the importance of these services.

Furthermore, it is being advocated that student per-

sonnel services play a more active role in the mission of

the community college (Mortvedt, 1972; Newton, 1974).

Mortvedt (1972) maintained that specialists in this area

shouldud become active in the development of the philosophi-

cal, curricular, and co-curricular experiences and activi-

ties of the community colleges" (p. 270-A). Thurston (1972)

stated that it is important for student personnel workers

to realize "that their work is an integral part of the

total educational program of the college" (p. 221). O'Banion

(1972) described the role of the student personnel worker

as action oriented, encountering, facilitating and interven-

ing. He stated that the student personnel worker is no

longer an interpreter of institutional philosophy, but rather

a developer of institutional philosophy.

The basic student personnel functions which were developed

for the McConnell-Raines study are representative of those

reported in other studies. They are orientation (pre-

college information, student induction, group guidance,

career information); appraisal (personnel records,









educational testing, applicant appraisal); consultation

(student counseling, student advisement, applicant consult-

ing); participation (co-curricular activities, student

self-government); regulation (student registration, aca-

demic regulation, social regulation); service (financial

aid, placement); and organizational (program articulation,

in-service education, program evaluation, and administrative

organization) (Raines, 1967). Similar lists have also

been cited in other studies (Blocker, Plummer, & Richard-

son, 1965; McDaniel, 1962; Thornton, 1972; Yoder & Beals,

1966). Yoder and Beals (1966) noted the importance of

having clearly defined statements of philosophy and objec-

tives. Research in areas related to student personnel

services is another responsibility of community colleges

which has been emphasized by Wattenbarger (1972).

In recent years, the pressing need to develop methods

of measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of student

personnel services has been underlined (Galligan, 1972).

Fordyce (1972) noted that evaluation of effectiveness is

one of the most important tasks facing the student personnel

administrator today.

In light of the open-door policy, the Carnegie Commis-

sion has recommended that the community college provide

counseling and guidance services to meet the needs of the

new types of students (Carnegie Commission on Higher

Education, 1974). Jones (1970) noted that junior college










students even more than other groups of students can benefit

from the help of professional counselors. Matson (1972)

stated that counseling is considered to be the

key student personnel service . it is the one
function in which there are readily identifiable
expertise and well-established training programs to
provide the essential skills and knowledge. In this
sense it is the most professionalized of all student
personnel functions and thereby occupies a central
position in the total student personnel field.
(p. 173)

Both Jones and Collins (1965) stated, however, that

the role of the junior college counselor is not that of a

psychiatrist or an in-depth psychologist. Collins emphasized

that counselors should focus more on vocational and edu-

cational counseling. He also suggested that counselors

should serve as catalysts in helping students with values

clarification. The increased use of groups was cited as

another method of providing counseling services in the

community colleges (O'Banion, 1972). These groups have a

variety of purposes, including orientation, vocational

planning, and personal exploration.

The literature also revealed a trend in providing

decentralized counseling services in community colleges

(Harvey, 1967; Matson, 1972; O'Banion, 1972; Richardson &

Blocker, 1968). O'Banion (1972) stated that the rationale

for this is that the counselor goes out where the students

are rather than waiting for them to come to his office in

the counseling center. At William Rainey Harper College

(Illinois), the counselors are assigned to an academic










division to assist the students who are majors in that

division (Harvey, 1967). Decentralized approaches are

gaining the most support from those stressing greater

cooperation between student personnel services and aca-

demic affairs. Many educators have emphasized the need for

encouraging faculty and counselors to work together on

student growth and development (Matson, 1972; Raines, 1967;

Robbins, 1972).

Still another function discussed in the literature is

academic advising. As noted earlier, the question of who

should be responsible for academic advising has not been

determined. In 1967 and 1968, the American Association of

Junior Colleges conducted a national survey on academic

advising in the junior colleges (O'Banion, Fordyce, &

Goodwin, 1972). The results indicated that a mixed system

involving both counselors and instructors was the most

prevalent (69 percent) as opposed to systems relying solely

on either counselors or faculty. Also, the survey indi-

cated that mixed systems would probably continue to increase

in popularity in the future.

As mentioned earlier, perhaps the best-known study

relating to evaluation of student personnel services was

conducted by the National Committee for Appraisal and

Development of Junior College Student Personnel Programs

(1965). This study, sponsored by the American Association

of Junior Colleges with financial support from the









Carnegie Corporation, covered the period August, 1963, to

November, 1965. Data were gathered from over 150 institu-

tions and involved approximately 600 junior college staff

members. McConnell concluded that "when measured against

criteria of scope and effectiveness, student personnel pro-

grams in community colleges are woefully inadequate" (National

Committee for Appraisal and Development of Junior College

Student Personnel Programs, 1965, p. iv). Collins (1967)

noted that on "almost every function, ratings of excellent

were found in fewer than 10 percent of the colleges" (p. 22).

(These functions are listed in Appendix A.) Those rated

satisfactorily were concerned with institutional management,

such as registration, student self-government, academic

regulation, and co-curricular activities. Student counsel-

ing was being performed satisfactorily by only 40 percent of

the junior colleges sampled. Raines (1967) stated that

several factors contributed to the poor showing of student

personnel services:

Limited resources, unimaginative leadership, lack of ad-
ministrative support, and insufficient numbers of trained
staff have contributed to the inadequacies of current pro-
grams. Closely related is the apparent failure to con-
ceptualize the nature of a satisfactory program. (p. 152)

One of the major recommendations of the study was to en-

courage all public and private junior colleges to make self-

studies in order to map future plans for development. It was

also recommended that better methods for the communication and

distribution of career information be established.










In addition to the McConnell-Raines study, other

studies have focused upon evaluating and making recommenda-

tions in regard to community college student personnel

services programs. George and George (1971), in a study of

six midwestern junior colleges, found participation in

student activities "unbelievably low." As a result, the

recommendation was made that a survey of student interests

and needs be conducted.

In a study of junior colleges in Florida, students and

faculty indicated the need to place more importance on many

basic student personnel functions (Wattenbarger & Nickens,

1973). A survey in the southeastern United States by

Chevalia (1970) revealed similar needs. Recommendations

were made for the improvement of many basic student per-

sonnel functions such as extracurricular activities, finan-

cial aid, counseling, orientation, and placement and follow-

up. As a result of a project which evaluated personnel

services in the colleges in the Council of North Central

Junior Colleges, it was recommended that a high priority

be placed on improving counseling and advisement (Herren,

1969). In the New England and Middle Atlantic states, a

study revealed that services in all major areas except

health were generally adequate (Swanson, 1969).

O'Banion (1971a) recommended that student personnel

programs could best be improved through staff development.

He stated that "as a consultant to approximately fifty










community college student personal programs in twenty

states in the past five years, I have come to the conclu-

sion that ineffective programs are closely related to lack

of personal and professional identity of student personnel

workers themselves" (p. 77). Thus staff development is

perhaps another basic function of student personnel services.


Research Methods Used in Study

Basic Student Personnel Functions

For the present study, a list of 21 student personnel

functions (Appendix B) was included in the first round of

letters mailed to the student personnel services profes-

sionals in Florida's 28 public community colleges. The

researcher thought that this list might stimulate the par-

ticipants to create a more comprehensive list of functions.

According to Judd (1972), Uhl found that by providing some

type of structured framework for respondents to react to in

the first round of the Delphi, the researcher is likely to

get better responses in both quantity and quality.

The list of 21 functions was originally derived from

the Inventory of Selected College Functions (ISCF). After

reviewing the literature and conferring with authorities,

the ISCF was developed by the staff of the Project for

Appraisal and Development of Junior College Student Per-

sonnel Programs. These functions were classified into

seven categories: orientation, appraisal, consultation,

regulation, participation, service, and organization.










The Delphi Technique

As stated earlier, the Delphi technique is a consensus-

gathering procedure developed by researchers at the Rand

Corporation in the fifties, which has been used to elicit

and refine group judgments in regard to various questions

and subjects. "As the name Delphi suggests, the goal of

the technique is to collect judgments and establish con-

sensus about future probabilities in terms of such variables

as time, quantity, and/or the desirability of some future

state" (Rasp, 1973, p. 30). The Delphi technique is char-

acterized by three major features:

(1) Anonymous response--opinions of members of the group
are obtained by formal questionnaire. (2) Iteration
and controlled feedback--interaction is effected by a
systematic exercise conducted in several iterations,
with carefully controlled feedback between rounds.
(3) Statistical group response--the group opinion is
defined as an appropriate aggregate of individual
opinions on the final round. (Dalkey, 1969, p. v)

Dalkey stated that these features minimize the biasing

effects of dominant individuals, of group pressure toward

conformity, and of the influence of irrelevant communica-

tions. Other positive features of the Delphi are that it

"eliminates committee activity altogether thus further

reducing the influence of certain psychological factors

such as specious persuasion, the unwillingness to abandon

publicly expressed opinions, and the bandwagon effect of

majority opinion" (Helmer & Rescher, 1959, p. 47).










One of the first groups to use the Delphi was selected

experts in the Air Force who simulated the viewpoint of a

Soviet strategic planner by attempting to determine optimal

U.S. industrial target systems and the number of atomic

bombs required to destroy American productivity (Dalkey &

Helmer, 1963; Martin & Maynard, 1973). These experiments

were conducted in the early fifties, but because of security

reasons the findings were not released until 1963.

Another early experiment was the Long-Range Forecasting

Study sponsored by the Rand Corporation. This experiment

was primarily a trend-predicting exercise which covered a

period extending 50 years into the future. The Delphi tech-

nique was used to elicit predictions from experts in six

broad areas: scientific breakthroughs, population growth,

automation, space progress, probability and prevention of

war, and future weapons systems (Gordon & Helmer, 1964).

In a third experiment by Rand, in 1968, one of the

issues was to compare face-to-face discussion with con-

trolled feedback interaction to determine which method most

improved group estimates (Dalkey, 1969). In the experiment

the groups responded to questions to which there were

known answers. This was done so that the accuracy of the

group estimates could be compared. The results of the

study indicated that "more often than not, face-to-face

discussions tended to make the group estimates less

accurate, whereas more often than not, the anonymous










controlled feedback procedure made the group estimates more

accurate" (p. vi).

These early experiments produced a definite move toward

a consensus of opinion by the participants. Anderson, Ball,

& Murphey (1975) stated that the Delphi "has proved so

successful in producing consensus that it has outgrown its

use solely in forecasting; it is now often adopted in many

different kinds of situations where convergence of opinion

is advisable or desirable" (p. 121).

The Delphi has also been suggested for use in educa-

tion (Helmer, 1966a, 1966b). In a pilot study, Helmer

explored the potentialities of applying the Delphi tech-

nique to educational planning. This study specifically

explored ideas for possible educational innovations; and

as a result of their experience the participants found the

Delphi a helpful procedure and were thus encouraged to

apply the technique to similar problems. Moreover, Helmer

stated that the Delphi "can be applied to all phases of

educational planning, at the federal, state, local or

individual institutional level .. ." (p. 6).

According to Judd (1972),

at least five major uses of the Delphi method have
emerged in higher education: cost effectiveness;
cost-benefit analysis; curriculum and campus plan-
ning; college, university-wide and state-wide
educational goals and objectives; consensus on rat-
ing scales, values and other evaluation elements and
generalized educational goals and objectives for
the future. (p. 35)










Martin and Maynard (1973) used the Delphi technique

with a random sample of presidents of private colleges and

universities to identify the role of private institutions

of higher education. The presidents identified 11 basic

statements, with 2 showing the most convergence of opinion:

"to prepare students to think and act independently, to

assume roles in society guided by consciously chosen values;

and to develop personal initiative and competence, as well

as informal social responsibility" (p. 131).

In another study, the Delphi was used to assess the

needs, desires, and opinions of clients in order to identify

goals for the School of Education at the University of

Virginia (Cyphert & Gant, 1970, 1971). The participants

included persons on the campus, such as education faculty,

students and administrators, and persons off the campus,

such as local educators, leaders of professional educational

organizations, politicians, and nationally known teacher

educators. These persons were asked to suggest targets

upon which the School of Education should focus in the next

decade. The study resulted in 61 basic statements and

also provided additional visibility for the School of

Education.

Peterson (1971) cited the potential of the Delphi "for

providing an institution with (1) a range of ideas about

goals, (2) a priority ranking of the goals, and (3) a

degree of consensus about goals" (p. 10). In another










study, the Delphi was used by a school district to collect

data from which goals for improving and building better

programs could be developed (Rasp, 1973). Uhl (1971) found

the technique helpful in assessing present and preferred

goals of five colleges and universities. After participat-

ing in three rounds, the groups in the study reached a

greater agreement in regard to present and preferred goals

of the institution. Thus the Delphi has been found by

educators to be a useful technique in gaining consensus and

insight into a wide variety of areas. According to Judd,

an examination of the data presented suggests that
higher education can benefit from employing the Delphi
as a method for planning. Given the extent of educa-
tion's need for more and better planning, this is as
high a priority mission as any technique could wish
for. (p. 43)













CHAPTER III

PROCEDURES AND METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS


This study was designed to investigate what will be

the functions of student personnel services in Florida's

public community colleges in the future. The future was

defined as the next 10 years, or the period of time be-

tween 1975 and 1985.


Procedures


Participants

Professionals in all areas of student personnel ser-

vices in Florida's 28 public community colleges were asked

to participate in the study. Initially, the population

involved 462 individuals. Their names were obtained from

the Directory of Community College Student Personnel

Practitioners, 1974-1975, which listed 25 areas under stu-

dent personnel: academic advisement, admissions, alumni

affairs, athletics (intercollegiate), compensatory and

developmental education, counseling, programs for dis-

advantaged, discipline, drug abuse education, financial aid

and scholarships, follow-up,foreign student advisor, health

services, high school articulation, housing, intramurals,

occupational information, orientation, placement, registra-

tion, reports and research, staff and program development,










student activities, testing, and veterans affairs. Some of

the colleges noted in the Directory that certain areas in

this list of 25 were not assigned to student affairs at

their college. Individuals in these areas were not included

since their primary responsibilities were not in student

affairs. It was the intention of this researcher to in-

clude only members of the student personnel staff at each

college who would be most likely to have a background of

preparation and/or experience in student personnel work.


Data Collection

The study focused on obtaining data to answer one

fundamental question: what should be the functions of

student personnel services in Florida's 28 public community

colleges during the next 10 years, as perceived by the

practitioners in those colleges? The definition for func-

tion was adapted from the Project for Appraisal and

Development of Junior College Student Personnel Programs,

namely as a cluster of related activities of the college

provided to respond to student needs, to support and com-

plement instruction, and to promote institutional welfare.

This definition was provided to the participants in this

study.

A Delphi technique consisting of three rounds was used

to collect data. The calendar below which outlines the

time schedule of the rounds was designed to provide enough

time for individuals to respond, yet not so much time that










participants were lost in the process. Reminder letters

were sent to those who had not responded by approximately

two weeks after the beginning of each round (Appendices E,

G, and I).


Day 1

Day 14

Day 26


Day 28

Day 42

Day 56


Day 57

Day 70


(3/20/75)

(4/02/75)

(4/14/75)


(4/16/75)

(4/30/75)

(5/14/75)


(5/15/75)

(5/28/75)


Day 84 (6/11/75)


In the first round,


Mailed round one

Mailed reminder to return round one

Cut-off day for receipt of round
one data

Mailed round two

Mailed reminder to return round two

Cut-off day for receipt of round
two data

Mailed round three

Mailed reminder to return round
three

Cut-off day for receipt of round
three data

each practitioner received a letter


explaining the study and inviting him or her to participate

(Appendix D). Enclosed in the letter was the checklist for

the first round. The items on the checklist were the 21

basic student personnel functions which were developed for

the Project for Appraisal and Development of Junior College

Student Personnel Programs. The purpose of the first round

was to generate a comprehensive list of items which the

practitioners believed should be the functions of student

personnel services in their colleges in the future. Each

practitioner was asked to place a plus (+) by the enclosed










21 functions which he believed should presently be the re-

sponsibility of student personnel services in Florida's

public community colleges, and also to place a zero by

those which he believed should still be functions in 10

years. In addition, he was asked to add other items to the

list which be believed should be included as student per-

sonnel responsibilities at community colleges in the next

decade.

All data which were received by the cut-off day for

the first round responses were analyzed by this researcher

in order to develop and compile the comprehensive list of

functions. Criteria for including a function on the compre-

hensive list were (1) all items which received at least

one zero, and (2) additional responsibilities which were

suggested by at least one participant. Similar suggestions

were grouped together to form a representative summary state-

ment which defined the function. These statements were

written at the same level of "generality" and "specificity"

as the 21 functions sent to the participants in the first

round. As a result of input from round one, 13 additional

functions were added to the original list of 21. One of

the characteristics of the Delphi is to assure that the

opinion of every participant in the study is represented

in the final response (Dalkey, 1969).

After the comprehensive list of 34 functions was

developed, it was mailed with an explanatory letter to all










of the practitioners who were asked to participate in round

one (Appendix F). Even if the individual did not partici-

pate in round one, he was given the opportunity to partici-

pate in the second round. This procedure has been cited by

Judd (1972) in his discussion of the various uses of the

Delphi. For the second round, the practitioners rated each

function on a 5-point scale of importance ("should not be a

function of student personnel services programs in 1985,"

"of low importance," "of medium importance," "of high impor-

tance," "of extremely high importance"). This is the same

type of scale adopted by Uhl (1971) in which the Delphi was

used to develop institutional goals. In this second round

of the study, the practitioners were asked to rate the func-

tions from the perspective of the relative importance of

inclusion of the item as a responsibility of student per-

sonnel services in the future. In addition to rating the

functions, the participants had the option of making brief

comments regarding their ratings. The purpose of this pro-

cedure was to gain information on the reasons why partici-

pants responded as they did. One of the features of the

Delphi technique is to have controlled feedback between

rounds (Dalkey, 1969; Helmer, 1966b). The controlled

feedback provides participants with more information with

which to make decisions on the next round.

After the cut-off day for receipt of second round

responses, all data were analyzed to determine the modal









response of the group to each function. One of the purposes

of the Delphi technique is to encourage consensus. The

measures of central tendency which generally are used to

indicate consensus on questionnaires are either the mode or

the median, since the mean would not give information in

regard to consensus. In this particular study the mode was

more appropriate since a median and semi-interquartile range

would not be very meaningful in illustrating results on a

5-point scale. The percentage of those selecting the mode

illustrated the degree of consensus. Rasp (1973) stated

that the "median is often used in surveys focusing on judg-

ments about time or quantity, and the mode is frequently

used in efforts to gain opinions about desired future con-

ditions" (p. 32). Furthermore, Isaac and Michael (1972)

have stated that the mode is used when, "We wish to know

what is the most typical case" (p. 117).

Only the practitioners who responded to the second round

were mailed letters and checklists for the third round

(Appendix H). For this round, each participant received two

types of controlled feedback. First, he received a copy of

the comprehensive list of functions which indicated the group

modal response to cach item in the second round. The pur-

pose of this feedback was to give the participant informa-

tion on the consensus of opinion regarding each function,

so that he could assess his opinion in regard to that of

the group. In addition, each participant was also given a










summary of the comments made in the second round (Appendix

H). Participants were asked to rate again as to importance

each of the 34 functions, taking into consideration the

information developed in round two. Compilation of the

information from round three resulted in the final data for

the study. Thus, the final data consisted of information,

originally drawn from the participants, which was then twice

analyzed by the participants after exposure to controlled

feedback.

Data also were gathered on the practitioners participat-

ing in the study. These consisted of information in regard

to sex, age, present occupational position or title, and

number of years of experience in the field of student per-

sonnel services.


Analysis of Data

Data analysis was designed to focus on answering the

major question of the study: what should be the functions

of student personnel services in Florida's public community

colleges during the next 10 years, as perceived by the prac-

titioners in those colleges? In addition, the personal

data gathered on the practitioners who participated in the

study were examined since the final data regarding the rank

importance of each function were considered in light of the

personal characteristics of those whose opinions resulted

in the rankings.










The data collected on the personal characteristics of

the participants are listed in Tables 1 and 2. In all three

rounds men respondents outnumbered women by a ratio of ap-

proximately two to one. The greatest number of participants

in all three rounds were in the 41-50 age group. This age

group represented nearly one-third of all participants in

the study. The next largest was the 31-40 age group, fol-

lowed by the 51-65 age group, and then the 22-30 age group.

In round one the average number of years of experience in

the field of student personnel services was 8.62 years.

In round two this figure rose to 9.09, and in round three it

dropped to 8.84. In all three rounds the distribution

according to sex, age, and years of experience remained

fairly constant.

Table 2 illustrates the occupational positions of those

who participated. Although 462 practitioners were originally

asked to participate, 27 letters were returned in rounds one

and two because the individual was no longer working in an

area of student affairs. Thus, the corrected original popu-

lation for the study was 435 individuals. In all three

rounds the distribution according to occupational position

remained relatively constant and also remained consistent

with the distribution of positions in the original popula-

tion. As can be noted in Table 2, the greatest number of

participants (40 percent) in the three rounds were counselors.

Nearly 13 percent of the participants were deans, associate










TABLE 1

Personal Characteristics of the Participants


Round One Round Two Round Three


Sex:
Male 67.3%(220) 66.7%(208) 68.5%(172)
Female 32.7%(107) 33.3%(104) 31.5%(79)


Age:
Under 22 .6%(2) 0(0) 0(0)
22-30 15.6%(51) 15.1%(47) 15.5%(39)
31-40 29.1%(95) 28.8%(90) 26.7%(67)
41-50 33.0%(108) 32.7%(102) 33.5%(84)
51-65 20.2%(66) 22.4%(70) 23.1%(58)
No response 1.5%(5) 1.0%(3) 1.2%(3)


Average number 8.62 9.09 8.84
of years of
experience
in the field
of student
personnel
services.
No response 4.0%(12) 6.7%(21) 6.8%(17)


raw numbers


Note.--The figures in parentheses are the
which the percentages represent.









TABLE 2

Occupational Positions of the Participants


Occupational Position Original
or Area Population Round One Round Two


Round Three


Deans

Counselors

Placement and follow-
up

Career planning and
occupational informa-
tion

Student activities

Testing

Veterans affairs

Admissions, registra-
tion and recruitment

Athletics and intra-
murals

Financial aid


10.3%(45)

43.4% (189)

2.3%(10)


3.7%(16)



7.1%(31)

2.3%(10)

2.5%(11)

9.0% (39)


2.5%(11)


12.8%(42)

39.4%(129)

2.8%(9)


2.4% (8)



7.6% (25)

3.1% (10)

2.8%(9)

9.8%(32)


2.4%(8)


12.8%(40)

41.0%(128)

2.6%(8)


3.5%(11)



7.4%(23)

2.9%(9)

2.6%(8)

9.9% (31)


1.9%(6)


12.7%(32)

40.2%(101)

2.8%(7)


3.2%(8)



6.8%(17)

3.2% (8)

3.2% (8)

10.8% (27)


1.6% (4)


5.1%(16) 5.2%(13)


6.2% (27) 5.5% (18)










TABLE 2--(continued)


Occupational Position Original
or Area Population Round One Round Two Round Three

Health services 2.1%(9) 1.8%(6) 2.2%(7) 2.8%(7)

Academic advisement 3.2%(14) 3.4%(11) 3.5%(11) 3.6%(9)

Special services and 5.3%(23) 6.1%(20) 4.5%(14) 4.0%(10)
programs


Total (raw number) 435 327 312 251


Note.--The figures in parentheses are the raw numbers which the percentages repre-
sent.










deans, or vice-presidents of student affairs. Approximately

10 percent held positions in the area of admissions, registra-

tion, and records. This latter category also included per-

sons with responsibilities for recruitment and high school

articulation. The remaining 40 percent were distributed

among the other positions and areas shown in Table 2. The

area of "special services and programs" included individuals

with responsibilities for compensatory programs and pro-

grams for the disadvantaged, drug abuse, outreach, women,

community relations, alumni affairs, and cooperative educa-

tion. These programs and services were grouped together

since individually they represented such a small number.

Table 3 illustrates the original geographical distri-

bution of the participants according to their respective

community college and also illustrates the number who par-

ticipated in each round. At only eight colleges was the

final number participating in round three less than 50

percent of the original population of the college: Edison

Community College, Indian River Community College, Manatee

Junior College, Miami-Dade Community College, Santa Fe

Community College, Seminole Junior College, South Florida

Junior College, and Tallahassee Community College.

In the first round, 327 out of a possible 441 prac-

titioners responded. This represented 74.1 percent of the

original population. As stated earlier, the main purpose

of the first round was to develop a comprehensive list of










TABLE 3

Geographical Distribution of Participants


Original Round Round Round
Community College Population One Two Three

Brevard 20 16 19 16
Broward 16 13 13 10
Central Florida 9 7 8 6
Chipola 4 4 4 2
Daytona Beach 14 11 12 10
Edison 5 4 3 2
Florida Junior
College at
Jacksonville 34 24 25 19
Florida Keys 4 2 2 2
Gulf Coast 10 8 10 9
Hillsborough 13 10 9 8
Indian River 9 5 6 4
Lake City 14 11 8 7
Lake-Sumter 5 5 5 5
Manatee 9 5 5 4
Miami-Dade 69 46 42 30
North Florida 5 4 3 3
Okaloosa-Walton 8 6 6 6
Palm Beach 12 10 10 9
Pasco-Hernando 10 8 9 8
Pensacola 32 29 24 20
Polk 13 10 10 9
Santa Fe 34 20 19 11
Seminole 15 9 9 7
South Florida 2 1 0 0
St. Johns River 6 5 3 3
St. Petersburg 33 30 28 25
Tallahassee 8 5 3 3
Valencia 22 19 17 13


Total 327 312 251


327 312 251


Total










items which the practitioners believed should be the func-

tions of student personnel services in their colleges in

the future. As a result of comments and suggestions in

round one, 13 additional functions were added to the origi-

nal list of 21 (Appendix C). These included services to

special population groups, teaching, student development,

faculty consultation, athletics, community services, cur-

riculum development, child care, cooperative education,

information center, change agents, and para-professionals

and peer-group counseling. Also, applicant appraisal and

health appraisal and services were made two separate func-

tions instead of being combined as they were in the original

list of 21 functions. The practitioners indicated in

comments in round one that the two should be rated sepa-

rately. Although, para-professionals and peer-group counsel-

ing were grouped together on the list, a distinction was

made between the two activities in the definition of the

function. The two activities are similar since both in-

volve using other types of "helpers" in addition to pro-

fessional student personnel practitioners; however, the

two are separate and distinct activities.

In round one, in addition to generating more functions,

the practitioners were asked to rate each item as to whether

it should presently be a student personnel function, and

also as to whether it should still be a responsibility in

10 years (1985). The responses are presented in Table 4.










TABLE 4

Ratings of Original 21 Functions in Round One

Should Be a Function Should Be a Function
Item Now (1975) in 1985

1. 80.7%(264) 76.5%(250)
2. 74.9%(245) 68.5%(224)
3. 82.0%(268) 76.1%(249)
4. 83.2%(272) 80.7%(264)
5. 66.4%(217) 55.4%(181)
6. 78.3%(256) 70.9%(232)
7. 64.8%(212) 59.6%(195)
8. 83.5%(273) 81.7%(267)
9. 83.2%(272) 76.5%(250)
10. 70.3%(230) 63.0%(206)
11. 73.4%(240) 64.2%(210)
12. 73.1%(239) 59.3%(194)
13. 66.7%(218) 58.7%(192)
14. 66.7%(218) 58.4%(191)
15. 52.6%(172) 42.8%(140)
16. 80.7%(264) 74.6%(244)
17. 77.1%(252) 68.8%(225)
18. 79.5%(260) 75.5%(247)
19. 80.1%(262) 79.5%(260)
20. 72.8%(238) 68.8%(225)
21. 80.1%(262) 81.3%(266)

Responded but misunderstood, 14.1%(46)


Note.--The figures in parentheses
which the percentages represent.


are the raw numbers










Apparently 14 percent of the participants misunderstood how

to rate the functions, so this part of their response was not

usable. However, their comments and suggestions regarding

additional functions were used. This confusion did not

exist in rounds two and three, and thus did not effect the

final data of the study. All of the functions except one

(social regulation) were supported by at least 50 percent of

the practitioners as being responsibilities in 1975 and in

10 years. Generally the original 21 functions received

stronger support as responsibilities in 1975 than in 1985.

This decrease in support seemed to indicate that the respon-

dents may have been looking for new roles and responsibilities

which were not included in the list of 21 functions.

In the second round, 312 out of a possible 435 practi-

tioners, or 71.7 percent of the original population responded.

The data presented in Table 5 are the group response in

round two to the 34 functions.

For the third round, only those who responded to the

second round were asked to participate. In this final

round, 251 of a possible 312 practitioners participated.

This response represented 80.4 percent of those who re-

sponded to round two and 57.7 percent of the original

population of 435. The data presented in Table 6 are the

group response in round three to the 34 functions.

In comparing the group response in rounds two and three,

several characteristics of the data should be noted. First,









TABLE 5


Group Response for Round Two


Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Blank Total No.
Responding
Item to Item


.6(2)
1.6(5)
1.3(4)
1.0(3)
0(0)
6.4(20)
1.9(6)
6.1(19)
8.3(26)
1.0(3)
1.3(4)
7.1(22)
1.6(5)
3.5(11)
1.0(3)
5.8(18)
19.9(62)
7.4(23)
8.0(25)
17.9(56)
16.0(50)
4.8 (15)
12.8(40)
4.2(13)
26.3(82)
3.8(12)


4.8 (15)
11.2(35)
3.5(11)
3.5(11)
1.3(4)
12.8(40)
7.7(24)
11.5(36)
20.8 (65)
1.3(4)
4.8(15)
12.8(40)
5.8(18)
11.2(35)
2.2(7)
13.8(43)
14.7(46)
11.9 (37)
7.4(23)
8.7 (27)
13.5(42)
9.6(30)
20.8(65)
4.5(14)
20.2(63)
7.1(22)


20.5(64)
35.3 (110)
19.2(60)
28.5(89)
8.0(25)
26.0(81)
25.0(78)
26.0(81)
37.5(117)
8.0(25)
12.8(40)
27.6 (86)
16.7 (52)
32.7(102)
13.1(41)
36.2(113)
32.7(102)
31.4(98)
18.3(57)
16.3(51)
28.2(88)
22.4(70)
36.9(115)
13.8(43)
26.9(84)
21.8 (68)


36.9(115)
31.7 (99)
42.6(133)
38.5(120)
31.1(97)
21.8 (68)
37.2(116)
35.6(111)
22.1(69)
21.8(68)
25.3(79)
24.4(76)
30.4(95)
34.3(107)
37.8 (118)
26.9(84)
19.2(60)
29.2(91)
34.9(109)
24.0(75)
22.8(71)
35.3 (110)
21.2(66)
27.2(85)
17.6(55)
35.9(112)


37.2(116)
17.9(56)
31.1(97)
26.6(83)
57.7(180)
30.4 (95)
25.6(80)
18.6 (58)
9.0(28)
66.0(206)
53.8 (168)
26.6(83)
43.9 (137)
16.0(50)
44.2 (138)
15.4 (48)
11.9(37)
18.3 (57)
29.8(93)
31.1(97)
18.3(57)
26.0(81)
5.8 (18)
47.8 (149)
6.7 (21)
28.8(90)


0(0)
2.2(7)
2.2 (7)
1.9(6)
1.9(6)
2.6(8)
2.6(8)
2.2(7)
2.2(7)
1.9(6)
1.9(6)
1.6(5)
1.6(5)
2.2(7)
1.6(5)
1.9(6)
1.6(5)
1.9 (6)
1.6 (5)
1.9(6)
1.3 (4)
1.9 (6)
2.6 (8)
2.6 (8)
2.2(7)
2.6(8)










TABLE 5--(continued)


Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Blank Total No.
Responding
Item to Item

27. 13.5(42) 11.2(35) 24.4(76) 30.4(95) 18.3(57) 2.2(7) 305
28. 2.6(8) 4.2(13) 16.7(52) 39.7(124) 34.3(107) 2.6(8) 304
29. 2.6(8) 5.8(18) 25.3(79) 35.9(112) 27.9(87) 2.6(8) 304
30. 1.0(3) 3.5(11) 14.7(46) 37.2(116) 41.3(129) 2.7(7) 305
31. 1.6(5) 5.4(17) 19.6(61) 33.3(104) 37.8(118) 2.2(7) 305
32. 3.5(11) 7.7(24) 26.3(82) 37.5(117) 22.4(70) 2.6(8) 304
33. .6(2) 1.3(4) 8.0(25) 26.3(82) 60.9(190) 2.9(9) 303
34. 1.6 (5) 5.4 (17) 21.8 (68) 36.2(113) 32.7(102) 2.2(7) 305


Note.--The figures in parentheses are the raw numbers which the percentages represent
and the percentage underlined is the modal or most common response to each item.










TABLE 6


Group Response for Round Three


Rating 1 2 3 4 5 Blank Total No.
a Responding
Item. to Item


.8(2)
1.6(4)
.4(1)
.4(1)
.8(2)
6.4(16)
1.6(4)
2.4(6)
6.8(17)
.4(1)
1.6(4)
4.0 (10)
1.2 (3)
1.2 (3)
1.2(3)
5.2(13)
14.3(36)
4.8(12)
5.2(13)
10.8(27)
10.4(26)
2.0(5)
12.4(31)
4.0(10)
21.5(54)
3.2(8)


2.4 (6)
12.0 (30)
2.4 (6)
1.2 (3)
0(0)
6.0(15)
2.8 (7)
6.8 (17)
17.1(43)
.4(1)
.4(1)
14.7 (37)
.8(2)
4.4(11)
0(0)
16.3(41)
24.3(61)
16.3(41)
4.0(10)
6.0(15)
13.1(33)
3.2(8)
23.5(59)
2.8(7)
24.3 (61)
3.2(8)


12.0(30)
47.4(119)
23.9(60)
20.7(52)
2.4(6)
15.1(38)
20.3(51)
23.9(60)
53.4(134)
3.2(8)
5.6(14)
44.2(111)
10.0(25)
25.9(65)
5.2(13)
48.2(121)
37.1(93)
43.4 (109)
23.1 (58)
12.4(31)
43.8(110)
25.5(64)
47.0(118)
7.6(19)
33.9(85)
21.1(53)


27.5(69)
29.1(73)
50.2(126)
53.8(135)
18.7 (47)
20.3(51)
49.4(124)
52.2(131)
16.7 (42)
13.5(34)
15.9(40)
21.5(54)
25.9(65)
52.2(131)
26.7(67)
20.7(52)
17.5(44)
25.9(65)
43.0(108)
15.9(40)
24.3(61)
44.2(111)
10.4 (26)
19.5(49)
9.6(24)
46.2 (116)


57.4 (144)
8.4(21)
21.9 (55)
22.7(57)
76.9(193)
50.6(127)
24.7(62)
13.5(34)
4.4(11)
81.3 (204)
76.5(192)
15.5(39)
61.8(155)
15.9(40)
66.9(168)
9.6(24)
6.4(16)
9.2(23)
24.7 (62)
55.0(138)
8.4(21)
21.9(55)
3.2 (8)
62.9(158)
7.2(18)
22.3(56)


0(0)
1.6(4)
1.2(3)
1.2(3)
1.2(3)
1.6(4)
1.2(3)
1.2(3)
1.6(4)
1.2(3)
0(0)
0(0)
.4(1)
.4(1)
0(0)
0(0)
.4(1)
.4(1)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
3.2(8)
3.6(9)
3.2(8)
3.6(9)
4.0(10)


251
247
248
248
248
247
248
248
247
248
251
251
250
250
251
251
250
250
251
251
251
243
242
243
242
241










TABLE 6--(continued)


2 3 4 5 Blank


Rating

Item


Total No.
Responding
to Item


27. 7.2(18) 12.0(30) 27.9(70) 37.1(93) 12.4(31) 3.6(9) 242
28. 2.0(5) .8(2) 7.2(18) 45.8(115) 40.6(102) 3.6(9) 242
29. 2.8(7) .8(2) 13.9(35) 47.8(120) 31.1(78) 3.6(9) 242
30. .8(2) 1.2(3) 5.6(14) 25.5(64) 63.3(159) 3.6(9) 242
31. .4(1) 1.2(3) 8.4(21) 24.3(61) 62.5(157) 3.2(8) 243
32. 2.4(6) 3.6(9) 17.9(45) 50.2(126) 23.1(58) 2.8 (7) 244
33. .8(2) .4(1) 2.8(7) 11.6(29) 81.3(204) 3.2(8) 243
34. 1.2(3) 2.4 (6) 24.7(62) 38.6 (97) 29.1(73) 4.0(10) 241


Note:--The figures in parentheses are the raw numbers which the percentages represent
and the percentage underlined is the modal or most common response to each item.










none of the modal responses changed between rounds two and

three. The modal response for an item in round two remained

as the mode in round three. Moreover, in all cases, a

greater percentage of practitioners selected the mode in

round three than did in round two. This latter aspect of

the data illustrated the consensus-gathering characteristic

of the Delphi which has been noted by other researchers

(Anderson, Ball, & Murphey, 1975; Peterson, 1971; Uhl, 1971).

Another aspect of the data was that none of the items had a

mode of less than three. Nine items had a modal response

of three; 13, four; and 12, five. Thus, according to the

mode, all 34 items were rated at least of medium importance

by the practitioners.

As stated previously, the data analysis was designed to

focus on answering the major question of the study: what

should be the functions of student personnel services in

Florida's public community colleges during the next 10 years,

as perceived by the practitioners in those colleges? In

order to determine what the practitioners' opinions were in

regard to this question, it was necessary to assess the rank

importance of each of the functions. Although the mean

was not appropriate for indicating consensus, it was used

to rank the functions according to their degree of impor-

tance. Isaac and Michael (1972) stated that the arithmetic

mean is used when, "We wish to know the 'center of gravity'

of a sample" (p. 117). For each function the arithmetic










mean of the group's response in rounds two and three was com-

puted and the functions were ranked by their means in a

descending order of importance. Separate computations were

made for the two rounds. The data in Table 7 are the mean

scores for each function in the two rounds. With 28 of the

functions, their means moved closer to the mode in round

three. This indicated a move by the participants towards

the consensus opinion.

The data presented in Table 8 are the rank order of the

functions according to their means,and the functions them-

selves are listed according to rank in Table 9. In the

third round, over half (21) of the functions were not

changed in rank or were changed by only one position. The

correlation between the rankings of the two rounds was

.94408. This correlation was computed by the Spearman Rank

Order method (Spiegel, 1961). The greatest change in rank

was by student registration, which was moved from twenty-

sixth in round two, to fourteenth in round three. Student

registration had a mode of five in round two, and with more

of the participants selecting the mode in round three this

caused student registration to be moved to a much higher

ranking. Personnel records was moved from twenty-first in

round two to thirteenth in the third round for the same

reason. Other functions which were changed four or more

positions were services to special population groups, from

twelfth to eighteenth; placement, from sixteenth to twentieth;










TABLE 7

Mean Scores of Functions


Item Mode Mean-Round Two Mean-Round Three


4.05128
3.54426
4.00983
3.87908
4.48039
3.58552
3.78947
3.50163
3.02622
4.53594
4.28104
3.51465
4.11074
3.49180
4.24104
3.33066
2.88273
3.39869
3.72312
3.42483
3.13961
3.69281
2.85855
4.12828
2.57377
3.80921
3.29508
4.01644
3.82894
4.17049
4.02622
3.69407
4.49834
3.95081


4.38247
3.31174
3.91935
3.98387
4.72983
4.04453
3.93951
3.68548
2.94736
4.77016
4.65338
3.29880
4.46800
3.77600
4.58167
3.13147
2.77200
3.18400
3.78087
3.98406
3.07171
3.83539
2.67355
4.39094
2.54958
3.84647
3.36776
4.26859
4.07438
4.54958
4.52263
3.90573
4.77777
3.95850










TABLE 8

Rank Order of Functions According to Their Means


Rank Item Mean-Round Two


4.53594
4.49834
4.48039
4.28104
4.24104
4.17049
4.12828
4.11074
4.05128
4.02622
4.01644
4.00983
3.95081
3.87908
3.82894
3.80921
3.78947
3.72312
3.69407
3.69281
3.58552
3.54426
3.51465
3.50163
3.49180
3.42483
3.39869
3.33006
3.29508
3.13961
3.02622
2.88273
2.85855
2.57377


Item Mean-Round Three


4.77777
4.77016
4.72983
4.65338
4.58167
4.54958
4.52263
4.46800
4.39094
4.38247
4.26859
4.07438
4.04453
3.98406
3.98387
3.95850
3.93951
3.91935
3.90573
3.84647
3.83539
3.78087
3.77600
3.68548
3.36776
3.31174
3.29880
3.18400
3.13147
3.07171
2.94736
2.77200
2.67355
2.54958










TABLE 9

List of Rank Ordered Functions


Rank Round Two Round Three


1. Student counseling
2. Administrative
organization
3. Career information
and decision-making
4. Student advisement
5. Faculty consultation
6. In-service education
and staff develop-
ment
7. Financial aids
8. Student development
9. Precollege information
10. Change agents
11. Program articulation
12. Services to special
population groups
13. Para-professionals
and peer-group
counseling
14. Group orientation
15. Information center
16. Placement

17. Educational testing
18. Community services

19. Program evaluation
20. Curriculum develop-
ment
21. Personnel records
22. Student induction
23. Teaching
24. Applicant appraisal
25. Applicant consulting
26. Student registration
27. Student self-
government
28. Co-curricular
activities
29. Cooperative education
30. Academic regulation
31. Health appraisal and
services
32. Athletics
33. Social regulation
34. Child care


Administrative organization
Student counseling

Career information and
decision-making
Student advisement
Faculty consultation
In-service education and
staff development

Change agents
Student development
Financial aids
Precollege information
Program articulation
Information center

Personnel records


Student registration
Group orientation
Para-professionals and
peer-group counseling
Educational testing
Services to special
population groups
Program evaluation
Placement

Curriculum development
Community services
Applicant consultation
Applicant appraisal
Cooperative education
Student induction
Teaching

Student self-government

Co-curricular activities
Academic regulation
Health appraisal and
services
Athletics
Social regulation
Child care










community services, from eighteenth to twenty-second;

student induction, from twenty-second to twenty-sixth;

teaching, from twenty-third to twenty-seventh; and coopera-

tive education, from twenty-ninth to twenty-fifth. In com-

paring the rankings for rounds two and three, it was noted

that most of the movement in rank occurred in the middle of

the list, whereas items originally at the top and bottom of

the list remained relatively stable. This would seem to

indicate that the practitioners may have had more definite

opinions concerning the functions at each extreme.


Conclusions

As stated earlier, Peterson (1971) noted the poten-

tial of the Delphi technique "for providing an institution

with (1) a range of ideas about goals, (2) a priority rank-

ing of the goals, and (3) a degree of consensus about

goals" (p. 10). In this study the potential of the Delphi

has also been illustrated. The final data of the study

have provided (1) a range of ideas about student personnel

functions in the future, (2) a priority ranking of the

functions, and (3) a degree of consensus about the functions.

Both Judd (1972) and Helmer (1966a, 1966b) cited the use

of the Delphi in educational planning, and it is hoped that

the data derived from the Delphi in this study can be used

for planning future directions in student personnel ser-

vices.










Many of the functions on the final ranked list, such as

change agents, student development, and peer-group counsel-

ing, have not been a part of the more traditional student

personnel services program. However, in examining the

final ranked list of functions and their definitions (Appen-

dix J), it was noted that this list still reflected the

underlying philosophy and assumptions of "the personnel point

of view" developed by the American Council on Education in

1938 and revised in 1949. The basic assumptions of this

philosophy recognize individual differences and that every

student is unique, and that the "individual's current drives,

interests, and needs are to be accepted as the most signifi-

cant factor in developing a personnel program appropriate

for any particular campus" (Mueller, 1961, p. 56). Many

educators (Humphreys, 1952; Matson, 1967; McDaniel &

Lombardi, 1972; Priest, 1959) also have cited the common

purpose of the community college and student personnel

services in the development of the individual student. In

this study, the high priority rating of such functions as

student advisement, student development, and financial aids,

signified the continued concern of student personnel prac-

titioners for the individual student and his needs.

A survey of the literature has revealed a basic group

of common functions which were essential to student per-

sonnel services programs in the past (Arbuckle, 1953;

Feder, 1958; Hopkins, 1948; O'Banion, 1970; Russel, 1970;










Williamson, 1961). Some of these, such as registration and

records, counseling, and financial aids were still given a

high priority (rated in the upper half of the list) by the

practitioners as being important functions in 1985. However,

some of the other basic functions, such as health services,

student activities (co-curricular activities), discipline

(social and academic regulation), and selection for admission

(applicant appraisal) were rated by today's practitioners

as near the bottom of the list in importance. Another basic

function, housing and food services, was not even included

on the list of functions in this study. This may be pecu-

liar to the population of the study, since Florida's public

community colleges are considered commuter institutions and

do not provide housing.

The 21 functions from the McConnell-Raines study were

fairly evenly distributed throughout the final rated list

of 34 functions in this study and were not noticeably con-

centrated at the top or bottom of the ratings. Thus, al-

though new functions were added to the list, they did not

necessarily take priority over the original 21. This char-

acteristic of the data seemed to illustrate the desire of

the participants to blend the older traditional role with

new roles and responsibilities.

Counseling, of all the functions, has been most synony-

mous with student personnel services. The data in this

study also indicated that the practitioners still considered










counseling a key student personnel service, since it was

rated second in importance.

Another point of emphasis made by many educators has

been the importance of student personnel professionals work-

ing with faculty and the instructional program (American

Council on Education, 1950; Hodinko, 1973; Karman, 1974;

Matson, 1972; Raines, 1967; Robbins, 1972; Robinson, 1960).

The practitioners also voiced their support for this func-

tion by rating faculty consultation fifth in importance.

Academic advisement is another function which has been

discussed frequently in the literature. The focus of dis-

cussion has been on who should be responsible for academic

advisement. In this study the practitioners stated that

they at least want to play a major role in this area.

Academic or student advisement was ranked fourth in impor-

tance. However, many of the participants also commented

that this should be a shared responsibility with faculty.

The need for methods to evaluate the effectiveness of

programs has been stressed by several educators (Arbuckle,

1953; Devlin, 1968; Fordyce, 1972; Galligan, 1972; Hill,

1972; Ross, 1967). However, program evaluation was rated

only nineteenth in importance by the participants. One

respondent stated that program evaluation should be a func-

tion of the research office, not of student affairs.

The open-door policy has enabled many new types of

students to pursue further education at the community










colleges. As a result, it was recommended that counseling

services be provided to meet the needs of the new types of

students (Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1974).

The results of this study indicated an interest in this

function, since many of the participants suggested that

services to special population groups be added to the list.

However, this function did not appear to be a high priority

item among the practitioners since it was rated eighteenth.

In his experiences as a consultant to various com-

munity colleges, O'Banion (1971a) recommended that student

personnel programs could best be improved through staff

development. In rating in-service education and staff

development sixth, the practitioners indicated that they

also felt that this was an important responsibility.

Although the above has outlined how the ratings of

some of the individual items compared with findings in the

literature, it is also important to look at the trends re-

flected in the findings of this study. Generally the data

indicated that student personnel professionals were in-

terested in playing a more active role at their colleges.

The high percentage of participation by the practitioners

in the study itself seemed to denote an interest in voicing

their opinions on what they felt should be the future of

student personnel services. The high priority of such func-

tions as in-service education and staff development, adminis-

trative organization, faculty consultation, change agents,










and student development, underlined the interest of the

practitioners in not only influencing and improving their

own program, but also in having an influence on the faculty

and the college as a whole. On the average, the practi-

tioners in the study have had eight or nine years of ex-

perience in student personnel services, yet they also in-

dicated interest in areas outside the traditional student

personnel role. Although the practitioners were interested

in making changes in their responsibilities, they did not

seem to be advocating a radical change in their role. Many

of the more traditional functions such as student counseling,

student advisement, financial aids, personnel records, and

student registration were rated high.

The large number of counselors (40 percent) in the

population should also be considered in examining the data.

Several of the items which received the highest priority

ratings are typical counselor functions such as student

counseling, career information and decision-making, and

student advisement.

The participants placed more emphasis on student

development as contrasted with student regulation. Func-

tions which focus on the growth of the student such as stu-

dent counseling, career information and decision-making,

and student development, were at the top of the list,

whereas social and academic regulation were rated near

and bottom. This change of emphasis may have also









illustrated the desire of the practitioners to move away

from the in loco parents role which colleges have assumed

in the past.

Although the practitioners indicated an interest in

broadening their role on the campus, they did not seem to

want to become "all things to all people." Functions such

as child care, teaching, cooperative education, community

services, and curriculum development were all rated as

lower priority items in relation to the other functions.

The feedback from the participants also was examined

in light of the Standards for the Preparation of Counselors

and Other Personnel Services Specialists (standards),

adopted in 1973 by the Association for Counselor Education

and Supervision (ACES). The standards outlined a common

core of areas considered to be necessary in the preparation

of student personnel workers. In comparing the common core

areas with the data derived in this study, it was noted

that many of the areas were given a high priority rating

by the practitioners. The standards included counseling

and career development as fundamental parts of preparation,

and these functions were given a very high priority by the

practitioners. Consultation was another area included in

the standards and the participants of this study rated it

fifth in importance. The need for professional orienta-

tion was emphasized by ACES, and the practitioners noted

their concern for this by placing a high priority on










in-service education and staff development, and administra-

tive organization. Research and evaluation (including pro-

gram evaluation) was another fundamental area cited; how-

ever, program evaluation was rated below (nineteenth) other

functions. In general, however, the standards included

areas of preparation which the practitioners noted should be

the responsibilities of student personnel services in the

future. Thus, the guidelines regarding preparation are

consistent with what present professionals stated would be

needed in the next 10 years.

In summary, the practitioners have proposed an ex-

panded role, yet a role that is narrow enough to be effec-

tive. New functions were advocated, although not at the

expense of abandoning needed student-oriented traditional

functions. The practitioners indicated a desire to be-

come more involved with the college as a whole and to

influence the future directions and philosophy of the col-

lege. However, they also expressed their continuing con-

cern for meeting the needs of the student as an individual.

The participants voiced a strong commitment to student

development and growth as contrasted with student regulation.

Although the data reflected a blending of old and new

ideas in student personnel services, the responses and rat-

ings revealed the concern of present student personnel

workers for keeping abreast of new findings in the litera-

ture. The practitioners indicated that they had not become










stagnant and that they were aware of the need for change

and for new responsibilities which were required to meet

student needs. In round one, the practitioners suggested

additional functions were needed, such as faculty con-

sultation, curriculum development, change agents, community

services, and para-professionals and peer-group counseling.

Several of these responsibilities did not receive high

ratings; however, the fact that they were suggested demon-

strated the interest of the participants in examining other

areas into which student personnel services might expand.

Therefore, the response to this study illustrated that

student personnel practitioners were aware of new ideas

and were concerned with the growth and development of their

future role.

Since 80 percent of the participants were in the 22-50

age group, many of these individuals in all probability

will be in leadership roles in 1985, and, therefore, they

can have a significant influence on the directions of

student personnel services in the next decade. Thus, the

data may reflect some of the trends which will actually

occur during this time. This study has presented the

practitioners' opinions of what should be the functions

of student personnel services in the community colleges

in the next 10 years. It is, therefore, the intent of this

researcher that this input should provide information which

will be used to plan more accurately and effectively for










a future that will best meet the needs of the students,

the community colleges, and the practitioners.

As indicated earlier, no attempt was made to determine

if in the 28 community colleges studied there were re-

sources available to meet the student personnel services

needs as defined by the practitioners in those institutions.

Furthermore, this study was confined to the opinions of the

student personnel practitioners. It is also important to

get the viewpoints of other groups such as administrators,

teaching faculty, students, and citizens of the community.

All of this information would be used to develop a compre-

hensive set of goals for student personnel services in

Florida's public community colleges in the next 10 years.

Then it would be necessary to assess the resources in each

institution to determine what resources are needed to

implement the goals.










APPENDIX A


BASIC STUDENT PERSONNEL FUNCTIONS



Orientation Functions
Precollege information
Student induction
Group orientation
Career information

Appraisal Functions
Personnel records
Educational testing
(a) Basic skill diagnosis
Applicant appraisal
(a) Health appraisal

Consultation Functions
Student counseling
Student advisement
Applicant consulting

Participation Functions
Co-curricular activities
Student self-government

Regulation Functions
Student registration
Academic regulation
Social regulation

Service Functions
Financial aids
Placement

Organizational Functions
Program articulation
In-service education
Program evaluation
Administrative organization


Source: From the National Committee for Appraisal and
Development of Junior College Student Personnel Programs.
Junior College Student Personnel Programs Appraisal and
Development--A Report to Carnegie Corporation. American
Association of Junior Colleges, 1965.










APPENDIX B


LIST OF FUNCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS FOR ROUND 1



1. PRECOLLEGE INFORMATION: Dissemination of information
by brochures, counselor visitations, on-campus visits, etc.,
to encourage college attendance, to note special features
of the college, to further understanding of requirements
for admission and for special curriculums, to develop
proper attitudes, and to give all pertinent information
contributing to student decisions and planning.

2. STUDENT INDUCTION: Geographical, academic, social,
attitudinal and other psychological orientation of the
student to the college.

3. GROUP ORIENTATION: All information-giving associated
with induction into college, attitude development, effec-
tive study skills, test interpretation, vocational decision,
educational planning, involvement in activities, rules and
regulations, etc., which lends itself to the group process
as well or better than through individual contact.

4. CAREER INFORMATION: Provision of occupational informa-
tion toward narrowing of vocational choice. Basic curric-
ulum decisions and planning is contingent upon possession
of maximum occupational information made available through
comprehensive libraries, brochures, seminars, consultation
services, faculty advisement, and particularly through
local or regional occupational information centers.

5. PERSONNEL RECORDS: Maintenance of accurate, functional
records to be compiled into a cumulative file reflecting
educational, psychological, physical, and personal develop-
ment.

6. EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Measurement of aptitude, inter-
ests, values, achievement, and personality factors of stu-
dents as well as assessment of the pervasive characteristics
and tone or climate of the institution.

6a. BASIC SKILL DIAGNOSIS: Evaluation of past record
and testing in the skills of reading, listening, speak-
ing, composition, and mathematics to assure proper
placement of students in courses of varying levels of
difficulty. Coordination with instruction in these
fields remains integral to this service.

7. APPLICANT APPRAISAL: Subsumes all devices, such as
transcript and test interpretation, individual case studies,










interviewing of students, conducting staff inquiries, etc.,
to obtain, organize and evaluate significant background
information to determine admission and curriculum eligibil-
ity, to effect proper placement and to assist students
toward the self-knowledge needed for decision-making and
planning.
7a. HEALTH APPRAISAL: Canvass of health and physical
condition, review of health records, health counseling,
establishment of referral system, apprising parents,
and other such checks on the health and physical well-
being of students made possible by the employment of a
public health nurse.

8. STUDENT COUNSELING: Professional service to students in
clarifying basic values, attitudes, interests and abilities;
all phases of decision-making; formulating vocational edu-
cational plans; in identifying and resolving problems inter-
fering with plans and progress; and in providing appropriate
resources for more deep-seated personal problems.

9. STUDENT ADVISEMENT: Giving of information pertinent to
selection of courses, occupational prerequisites, transfer
requirements, effective study methods, academic progress,
availability of resource agencies, and other such areas of
concern to students.

10. APPLICANT CONSULTING: Giving of information pertinent
to interpretation of tests and other data, and proffering
educational and occupational service to applicants prior to
formal admission.

11. CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES: Arranging for cultural ac-
tivities, sponsoring of clubs and organizations, advising
student publications, organizing vocational and other special
interest groups--all co-curricular activities which contri-
bute to educational growth and development.

12. STUDENT SELF-GOVERNMENT: Advising student government
organizations, providing training in formal and informal
group processes, conducting leadership training programs,
and supervising intercollegiate student government confer-
ences and all other significant aspects of citizenship
training.

13. STUDENT REGISTRATION: Designing registration forms
and data processing procedures, effecting class changes and
withdrawals, recording instructors' grades, providing tran-
scripts and, where possible, machine-scheduling the students
into classes.

14. ACADEMIC REGULATION: Enforcing probation policies,
evaluating graduation eligibility, handling cases of student










infraction of the college rules, interviewing terminated
students or probationers petitioning for readmission.

15. SOCIAL REGULATION: Social involvement, social ameni-
ties, social grace, moral and ethical conduct are all con-
cerns of student personnel workers, particularly to those
responsible for student activities and for the operation
of on-campus living facilities.

16. FINANCIAL AIDS: Loans, scholarships, part-time jobs,
budget management, solicitation of funds, securing of
government grants. All of these are necessary if the
economic equation is to be balanced so that no student is
denied college because of lack of money.

17. PLACEMENT: The placement officer within the student
personnel office has responsibility for locating appropriate
employment for qualified graduates and other students termi-
nating their college training, for providing prospective
employers with placement information, and for follow-up
studies designed to provide guides to curricular develop-
ment.

18. PROGRAM ARTICULATION: For smooth transition through-
out the two-year college period, there must be adequate
two-way flow with the faculties of the feeder high schools
and with the colleges of transfer, effective intrastaff rela-
tionships, and good lines of communication with industrial
and commercial enterprises and other cooperating agencies
within the community.

19. IN-SERVICE EDUCATION: Systematic opportunities for
professional discussion among student personnel staff mem-
bers, consultants for special areas of interest and need,
a flood of professional literature, interpretation of local
research data, provision for attendance at professional
conferences, systematic articulation with instructional
departments, and periodic summer workshops or other review
and updating seminars.

20. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Follow-up of dropouts, graduates
and transfers; student evaluation of counseling; student
affairs, etc.; development of local normative data and
other research on special topics of interest.

21. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION: To be effective, student
personnel programs must be adequately staffed, housed,
financed, evaluated, and effectively related to the total
mission of the college.










APPENDIX C


LIST OF FUNCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS FOR ROUNDS 2 AND 3



1. PRECOLLEGE INFORMATION: Dissemination of information
by brochures, counselor visitations, on-campus visits, etc.,
to encourage college attendance, to note special features
of the college, to further understanding of requirements
for admission and for special curriculums, to develop proper
attitudes, and to give all pertinent information contribut-
ing to student decision and planning.

2. STUDENT INDUCTION: Geographical, academic, social,
attitudinal, and other psychological orientation of the
student to college.

3. SERVICES TO SPECIAL POPULATION GROUPS: Providing special
counseling and advisement services to special groups of
students planning to attend or attending the college, such
as veterans, foreign students, minorities, the aged, the
handicapped, "low" ability students, etc.

4. GROUP ORIENTATION: All information-giving associated
with induction into college, attitude development, effec-
tive study skills, test interpretation, vocational decision,
educational planning, involvement in activities, rules and
regulations, etc., which lends itself to the group process
as well or better than through individual contact.

5. CAREER INFORMATION AND DECISION-MAKING: Provision of
occupational information toward narrowing of vocational
choice. Basic curriculum decisions and career planning is
contingent upon possession of maximum occupational informa-
tion made available through comprehensive libraries, bro-
chures, seminars, consultation services, faculty advisement,
and particularly through local or regional occupational
information centers.

6. PERSONNEL RECORDS: Maintenance of accurate, functional
records to be compiled into a cumulative file reflecting
educational, psychological, physical, and personal develop-
ment.

7. EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Measurement of aptitude, interests,
values, achievement, and personality factors of students as
well as assessment of the pervasive characteristics and tone
or climate of the institution.
7a. BASIC SKILL DIAGNOSIS: Evaluation of past record
and testing in the skills of reading, listening,










speaking, composition, and mathematics to assure proper
placement of students in courses in varying levels of
difficulty. Coordination with instruction in these
fields remains integral to this service.

8. APPLICANT APPRAISAL: Subsumes all devices such as tran-
script and test interpretation, individual case studies,
interviewing of students, conducting staff inquiries, etc.,
to obtain, organize and evaluate significant background
information to determine admission and curriculum eligibil-
ity, to effect proper placement and to assist students
toward the self-knowledge needed for decision-making and
planning.

9. HEALTH APPRAISAL AND SERVICES: Canvass of health and
physical condition, review of health records, health counsel-
ing, establishment of referral system, apprising parents, and
other such checks on the health and physical well-being of
students made possible by the employment of a public health
nurse. Providing current information on health-related
problems and information on health services available in
the community.

10. STUDENT COUNSELING: Professional service to students
in clarifying basic values, attitudes, interests and abili-
ties; all phases of decision-making; formulating vocational
education plans; and in providing appropriate resources for
more deep-seated personal problems.

11. STUDENT ADVISEMENT: Giving of information pertinent
to selection of courses, occupational prerequisites, trans-
fer requirements, effective study methods, academic progress,
availability of resource agencies, and other such areas of
concern to students.

12. TEACHING: Student personnel staff members teaching
credit and/or non-credit courses and seminars in their par-
ticular areas of expertise. Courses and seminars could focus
on personal growth and development of the student, career
exploration, orientation to college, individual discovery,
interpersonal relationships, etc.

13. STUDENT DEVELOPMENT: Providing activities and programs
for students in which the greatest development of potential
and fulfillment can occur. The student development function
would focus on the total development and personal growth of
the student, as opposed to focusing only on cognitive develop-
ment. Programs would encourage self-awareness and attempt to
meet individual needs of students.

14. APPLICANT CONSULTING: Giving of information pertinent
to interpretation of tests and other data, and proffering










educational and occupational service to applicants prior
to formal admission.

15. FACULTY CONSULTATION: Consulting with the faculty in
regard to student development, the affective domain, human
relations, learning theory, etc., and encouraging open lines
of communication between the academic faculty and student
personnel services staff.

16. CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITES: Arranging for cultural activi-
ties, sponsoring of clubs and organizations, advising student
publications, organizing vocational and other special inter-
est groups--all co-curricular activities which contribute to
educational growth and development.

17. ATHLETICS: Providing opportunities for students to
participate in intramural and/or intercollegiate athletics.

18. STUDENT SELF-GOVERNMENT: Advising student government
organizations, providing training in formal and informal
group processes, conducting leadership training programs,
and supervising intercollegiate student government confer-
ences and all other significant aspects of citizenship
training.

19. COMMUNITY SERVICES: Providing services and programs
to meet the needs of various individuals and groups in the
community; being responsive to community needs.

20. STUDENT REGISTRATION: Designing registration forms
and data processing procedures, effecting class changes and
withdrawals, recording instructors' grades, providing
transcripts and, where possible, machine-scheduling the
students into classes.

21. ACADEMIC REGULATION: Enforcing probation policies,
evaluating graduation eligibility, handling cases of stu-
dent infraction of the college rules, interviewing termi-
nated students or probationers petitioning for readmission.

22. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Involvement by student per-
sonnel services staff in the development and revision of
courses and programs offered by the college. Student per-
sonnel services staff would provide input and feedback to
the academic faculty in regard to curriculum development.

23. SOCIAL REGULATION: Social involvement, social ameni-
ties, social grace, moral and ethical conduct are all con-
cerns of student personnel workers, particularly to those
responsible for student activities.

24. FINANCIAL AIDS: Loans, scholarships, part-time jobs,
budget management, solicitation of funds, securing of










government grants. All of these are necessary if the eco-
nomic equation is to be balanced so that no student is
denied college because of lack of money.

25. CHILD CARE: Providing child care services for the
children of students.

26. PLACEMENT: The placement officer within the student
personnel office has responsibility for locating appropriate
employment for qualified graduates and other students termi-
nating their college training, for providing prospective
employers with placement information, and for follow-up
studies designed to provide guides to curricular development.

27. COOPERATIVE EDUCATION: Providing students with work
experience and "on the job" training through cooperative
education programs.

28. PROGRAM ARTICULATION: For smooth transition through-
out the two-year college period, there must be adequate
two-way flow with the faculties of the feeder high schools
and with the colleges of transfer, effective intrastaff
relationships, and good lines of communication with indus-
trial and commercial enterprises and other cooperating
agencies within the community.

29. INFORMATION CENTER: Developing an information center
to provide much of the routine information needed by stu-
dents, such as what services are available at the junior
college, where these services are, and other routine, but
pertinent information needed by the student.

30. IN-SERVICE EDUCATION AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT: Systematic
opportunities for professional discussion among student per-
sonnel staff members, consultants for special areas of inter-
est and need, a flood of professional literature, interpre-
tation of local research data, provision for attendance at
professional conferences, systematic articulation with in-
structional departments,and periodic summer workshops or
other review and updating seminars. Also, serving as a
resource person and consultant for faculty and staff develop-
ment programs.

31. CHANGE AGENTS: Student personnel staff functioning as
change agents within the institution to provide input and
leadership in regard to institutional goals, developing a
better learning environment, and working with students,
faculty, and administration in regard to college governance,
decisions, plans, and policies affecting the institution as
a whole. Also functioning as change agents to influence
decisions made by individuals outside of the institution,
which will affect the institution (legislation, state poli-
cies, etc.).






76



32. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Follow-up of dropouts, graduates
and transfers; student evaluation of counseling; student
affairs, etc.; development of local normative data and
other research on special topics of interest.

33. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION: To be effective, student
personnel programs must be adequately staffed, housed,
financed, evaluated, and effectively related to the total
mission of the college.

34. PARA-PROFESSIONALS AND PEER-GROUP COUNSELING: Training
para-professionals for "helping" fields in order to perform
some functions within the college, such as information
giving and other tasks appropriate to their training and
background. Implementing peer-group counseling by training
and coordinating student groups to assist other students
with difficulties and provide information, and other serv-
ices appropriate to their training.










APPENDIX D


FIRST ROUND LETTER AND CHECKLIST



March 19, 1975



Dear

With the current fiscal crisis and its effects on
student affairs operations, it is important that we examine
our future roles and functions so that student personnel
work will continue to be a viable force in Florida's com-
munity and junior colleges. Because of your involvement
in areas of student personnel work at your college, you
can provide valuable feedback regarding future directions
and functions for student personnel work in the community
and junior colleges during the next decade.

The data from this study will be provided to the Long
Range Study Committee of the Florida State Council of Stu-
dent Affairs. Dr. George Young, Chairman of the Committee,
feels that the study will provide valuable information to
the work of his committee. My own interest in this area
stems from my background in counseling and my work as an
Educational Planning Analyst in the Office of Educational
Planning and Research at St. Petersburg Junior College.

I would greatly appreciate your participation in this
study, and your help is absolutely essential to its success.
The purpose of this study is to ask your opinion, as a
student personnel practitioner, of what you believe should
be the functions of student personnel work in Florida's
junior and community colleges in the next ten years.

Your participation involves responding to the attached
checklist and to two more in the next few weeks. Each
checklist has been specially constructed to involve a mini-
mal amount of your time in relation to the information you
will contribute to the study. Each checklist will take
ten to fifteen minutes to complete.

The enclosed attachment is a list of 21 functions.
This list was developed for the Project for Appraisal and
Development of Junior College Student Personnel Programs
in 1965. It is provided as a framework from which to
development a list of what you believe should be the func-
tions of student personnel services in the future in










Florida's junior and community colleges.

The purpose of this first checklist is to develop a
"master" list of functions. At a later date, for the second
and third checklists, you will be asked to rate the func-
tions according to importance.

All information will be handled confidentially and
data will be reported as a group response only. However,
the checklists are keyed so that I will know who has par-
ticipated in order to send you the second and third ones.

Your support and help by answering and returning the
checklist and your additions (Attachment 1) will be great-
ly appreciated. Please complete and mail Attachment 1 by
March 31. A return addressed envelope is enclosed for your
convenience. The final results of the study will be made
available to you at the completion of the study.

Yours truly,



Ellen O. Jonassen
Educational Planning Analyst
St. Petersburg Junior College


Note: I obtained your name from the Directory of Community
College Student Personnel Practitioners. According to the
Directory, you have assigned responsibilities in an areas)
of student affairs. If there has been a mistake, I would
appreciate your letting me know by returning this letter
and checklist. This will insure that I will not contact
you further in regard to this study.










Please return to:
Ellen O. Jonassen
Educational Planning Analyst
St. Petersburg Junior College
P. O. Box 13489
St. Petersburg, Florida
33733 March 19, 1975


ATTACHMENT 1


Directions for Completing the Checklist

In this study, a student personnel function is defined
as "a cluster of related activities of the college pro-
vided to respond to student needs, to support and complement
instruction, and to promote institutional welfare."

First, please complete the following personal data.
This information will be used to get a description of the
group participating in the study. No data on individuals
will be cited or released. Please check the following:

Age Sex: M F (circle)

22-30 Present Occupational Position or Title
31-40
41-50
51-65 Number of Years of Experience in the
Field of Student Personnel Services


Below is the list of 21 functions which was developed
for the Project for Appraisal and Development of Junior
College Student Personnel Programs in 1965. In the space
to the left of each function please place a plus (+) by
those which you feel should presently (1975) be functions
of student personnel services in Florida's community and
junior colleges, and also place a zero (0) by those which
you feel should still be functions in ten years (1985).

In addition, please add to this list additional func-
tions which you feel also should be included as student
personnel functions at the community and junior colleges
in the next ten years. Please be sure to add any functions)
which you feel should be included. These should be written
on the back of the last page.










FUNCTIONS


1. PRECOLLEGE INFORMATION: Dissemination of informa-
tion by brochures, counselor visitations, on-campus visits,
etc., to encourage college attendance, to note special fea-
tures of the college, to further understanding of require-
ments for admission and for special curriculums, to develop
proper attitudes, and to give all pertinent information con-
tributing to student decision and planning.

2. STUDENT INDUCTION: Geographical, academic, social,
attitudinal, and other psychological orientation of the
student to the college.

3. CAREER INFORMATION: Provision of occupational in-
formation toward narrowing of vocational choice. Basic cur-
riculum decisions and planning is contingent upon possession
of maximum occupational information made available through
comprehensive libraries, brochures, seminars, consultation
services, faculty advisement, and particularly through local
or regional occupational information centers.

5. PERSONNEL RECORDS: Maintenance of accurate, func-
tional records to be compiled into a cumulative file reflect-
ing educational, psychological, physical, and personal devel-
opment.

6. EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Measurement of aptitude, in-
terests, values, achievement, and personality factors of
students as well as assessment of the pervasive character-
istics and tone or climate of the institution.
6a. BASIC SKILL DIAGNOSIS: Evaluation of past record
and testing in the skills of reading, listening, speak-
ing, composition, and mathematics to assure proper place-
ment of students in courses of varying levels of diffi-
culty. Coordination with instruction in these fields
remains integral to this service.

7. APPLICANT APPRAISAL: Subsumes all devices, such
as transcript and test interpretation, individual case stud-
ies, interviewing of students, conducting staff inquiries,
etc., to obtain, organize and evaluate significant back-
ground information to determine admission and curriculum
eligibility, to effect proper placement and to assist stu-
dents toward the self-knowledge needed for decision-making
and planning.
7a. HEALTH APPRAISAL: Canvass of health and physical
condition, review of health records, health counseling,
establishment of referral system, apprising parents, and
other such checks on the health and physical well-being
of students made possible by the employment of a public










health nurse.

8. STUDENT COUNSELING: Professional service to stu-
dents in clarifying basic values, attitudes, interests and
abilities; all phases of decision making; formulating voca-
tional educational plans; in identifying and resolving
problems interfering with plans and progress; and in pro-
viding appropriate resources for more deep-seated personal
problems.

9. STUDENT ADVISEMENT: Giving of information perti-
nent to selection of courses, occupational prerequisites,
transfer requirements, effective study methods, academic
progress, availability of resource agencies, and other
such areas of concern to students.

10. APPLICANT CONSULTING: Giving of information perti-
nent to interpretation of tests and other data, and prof-
fering educational and occupational service to applicants
prior to formal admission.

11. CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES: Arranging for cultural
activities, sponsoring of clubs and organizations, advising
student publications, organizing vocational and other spe-
cial interest groups--all co-curricular activities which
contribute to educational growth and development.

12. STUDENT SELF-GOVERNMENT: Advising student govern-
ment organizations, providing training in formal and in-
formal group processes, conducting leadership training pro-
grams, and supervising intercollegiate student government
conferences and all other significant aspects of citizen-
ship training.

13. STUDENT REGISTRATION: Designing registration forms
and data processing procedures, effecting class changes and
withdrawals, recording instructors' grades, providing tran-
scripts and, where possible, machine-scheduling the students
into classes.

14. ACADEMIC REGULATION: Enforcing probation policies,
evaluating graduation eligibility, handling cases of stu-
dent infraction of the college rules, interviewing termi-
nated students or probationers petitioning for readmission.

15. SOCIAL REGULATION: Social involvement, social
amenities, social grace, moral and ethical conduct are all
concerns of student personnel workers, particularly to those
responsible for student activities and for the operation of
on-campus living facilities.

16. FINANCIAL AIDS: Loan, scholarships, part-time jobs,









budget management, solicitation of funds, securing of govern-
ment grants. All of these are necessary if the economic
equation is to be balanced so that no student is denied
college because of lack of money.

17. PLACEMENT: The placement officer within the stu-
dent personnel office has responsibility for locating ap-
propriate employment for qualified graduates and other stu-
dents terminating their college training, for providing
prospective employers with placement information, and for
follow-up studies designed to provide guides to curricular
development.

18. PROGRAM ARTICULATION: For smooth transition through-
out the two-year college period, there must be adequate two-
way flow with the faculties of the feeder high schools and
with the colleges of transfer, effective intrastaff rela-
tionships, and good lines of communication with industrial
and commercial enterprises and other cooperating agencies
within the community.

19. IN-SERVICE EDUCATION: Systematic opportunities for
professional discussion among student personnel staff mem-
bers, consultants for special areas of interest and need, a
flood of professional literature, interpretation of local
research data, provision for attendance at professional con-
ferences, systematic articulation with instructional depart-
ments, and periodic summer workshops or other review and
updating seminars.

20. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Follow-up of dropouts, gradu-
ates, and transfers; student evaluation of counseling; stu-
dent affairs, etc.; development of local normative data
and other research on special topics of interest.

21. ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION: To be effective, stu-
dent personnel programs must be adequate staffed, housed,
financed, evaluated, and effectively related to the total
mission of the college.


NOTE: The 21 functions listed above were developed in the
early sixties, before the influence of student unrest and
the open-admissions policy in the community and junior col-
leges, as well as before the present financial crisis, so
therefore it is quite possible that you may feel that this
list needs to be updated or added to. What are your assump-
tions about the future (the next 10 years) and how do you
feel that these assumptions will affect the functions of
student affairs? Please be sure to add any additional func-
tions which you believe should be included as functions of
student personnel services in the next decade. When you have






83



completed the list and made your additions, please return
the entire attachment.


PLEASE WRITE BELOW ANY ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS WHICH YOU BE-
LIEVE SHOULD BE ADDED IN THE NEXT DECADE.










APPENDIX E


FIRST ROUND REMINDER LETTER



April 1, 1975



Dear

Several weeks ago you received a letter asking you to
participate in a study to determine the functions of stu-
dent personnel work in Florida's junior and community col-
leges in the future. However, I have not yet heard from
you. Although participation is voluntary, your feedback
on the checklist can provide valuable information for this
study. Also, as stated previously, data from this study
will be provided to the Long Range Study Committee of the
Florida State Council of Student Affairs.

I would greatly appreciate your taking a few minutes
to complete and return the checklist to me. In case you
have misplaced the first one, another checklist and return
envelope are enclosed. Please complete and mail the check-
list by April 10.

The final results of the study will be made available
to you through your college. Thank you very mcuh for your
support and cooperation.

Yours truly,



Ellen O. Jonassen
Educational Planning Analyst
St. Petersburg Junior College










APPENDIX F


SECOND ROUND LETTERS AND CHECKLIST



April 16, 1975


Dear

Your participation in the first part of this study is
greatly appreciated. The response was excellent and many
individuals provided helpful and creative comments in re-
gard to future directions and functions for student per-
sonnel services. The inputs derived from this study are
not only of an immediate importance, but, moreover, the
data obtained will be provided to the Long Range Study Com-
mittee of the Florida State Council of Student Affairs. As
stated in the first letter, with the current fiscal crisis
and its effects on student affairs operations, it is impera-
tive that we examine our future roles and functions in order
that student personnel work will continue to be a viable
force in Florida's community and junior colleges.

Your continued participation, by responding to the
second part of this study, is as important as your respond-
ing to the first part. The enclosed attachment (Attachment
1) is a list of 34 functions which was refined and developed
as a result of your suggestions and feedback in the first
part of the study. The purpose of the second part of this
study is to solicit your priority rating of each function
of student personnel services to ascertain whether its im-
portance would justify its inclusion in an overall student
personnel services program 10 years from now (1985).

The second part of this study should take 10 to 15
minutes to complete. All information will be handled con-
fidentially, and the data will be reported as a group
response only. However, the enclosed attachment is keyed
in order to know who has participated so the third part of
this study may be sent to you.

Your support and help in answering and returning the
enclosed attachment will be greatly appreciated. Because
of your involvement in areas of student personnel work at
your college, you can provide valuable information to this
study. Please complete and mail Attachment 1 by April 28.
A return addressed envelope is enclosed for your conven-
ience. The final results of the study will be made avail-
able to you at the completion of the study.










Yours truly,



Ellen O. Jonassen
Educational Planning Analyst
St. Petersburg Junior College







April 16, 1975


Dear

Although I am sorry that you were unable to partici-
pate in the first part of the study, your participation in
the second part can still provide valuable input and will
be greatly appreciated. The inputs derived from this study
are not only of immediate importance, but, moreover, the
data obtained will be provided to the Long Range Study
Committee of the Florida State Council of Student Affairs.
As stated in the first letter, with the current fiscal
crisis and its effects on student affairs operations, it
is imperative that we examine our future roles and func-
tions in order that student personnel work will continue
to be a viable force in Florida's community and junior
colleges.

Because of your involvement in areas of student per-
sonnel work at your college, you can provide valuable in-
formation to this study. The enclosed attachment (Attach-
ment 1) is a list of 34 functions which was refined and
developed as a result of suggestions and feedback in the
first part of the study. The purpose of the second part
of this study is to solicit your priority rating of each
function of student personnel services to ascertain whether
its importance would justify its inclusion in an overall
student personnel services program 10 years from now (1985).

This second part of this study should take 10 to 15
minutes to complete. All information will be handled con-
fidentially, and the data will be reported as a group re-
sponse only. However, the enclosed attachment is keyed
in order to know who has participated so the third part of
this study may be sent to you.

Your support and help in answering and returning the










enclosed attachment will be greatly appreciated. Please
complete and mail Attachment 1 by April 28. A return
addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience. The
final results of the study will be made available to you
at the completion of the study.

Yours truly,



Ellen O. Jonassen
Educational Planning Analyst
St. Petersburg Junior College



Note: I obtained your name from the Directory of Community
College Student Personnel Practitioners. According to the
Directory, you have assigned responsibilities in an areas)
of student affairs. If there has been a mistake, I would
appreciate your letting me know by returning this letter.
This will insure that I will not contact you further in
regard to this study.










Please return to:
Ellen O. Jonassen
Educational Planning Analyst
St. Petersburg Junior College
P. O. Box 13489
St. Petersburg, Florida
33733 April 16, 1975


ATTACHMENT 1


Directions for Rating Functions

First,(even though you already may have completed this
information for the first part of the study) please complete
the following personal data. This information will be used
to get a description of the group participating in this
second part of the study. No data on individuals will be
cited or released. Please check the following:

Age Sex: M F (circle)
22-30
-- 1-40 Present Occupational Position or Title
31-40
41-50
51-65
1-65 Number of Years of Experience in the
Field of Student Personnel Services


Below is a list of 34 functions which was refined and
developed as a result of the suggestions and feedback ob-
tained in the first part of the study. In the space to the
left of each function, please rate the function according
to the priority rating scale given below. The purpose of
the second part of this study is to solicit your priority
rating of each function of student personnel services to
ascertain whether its importance would justify its inclusion
in an overall student personnel services program 10 years
from now (1985). How important do you personally believe
each of these functions will be as a student personnel func-
tion in 10 years? For example, if you believe PRECOLLEGE
INFORMATION is "of extremely high importance," you would
rate it a (5); or "of medium importance," you would rate it
a (3). Please mark only one of the five priority ratings
for each of the 34 functions.

Priority Rating Scale
(5) of extremely high importance
(4) of high importance
(3) of medium importance










(2) of low importance
(1) should not be a function of student per-
sonnel services programs in 1985


FUNCTIONS


1. PRECOLLEGE INFORMATION: Dissemination of informa-
tion by brochures, counselor visitations, on-campus visits,
etc., to encourage college attendance, to note special fea-
tures of the college, to further understanding of require-
ments for admission and for special curriculums, to develop
proper attitudes, and to give all pertinent information con-
tributing to student decision and planning.

2. STUDENT INDUCTION: Geographical, academic, social,
attitudinal, and other psychological orientation of the stu-
dent to college.

3. SERVICES TO SPECIAL POPULATION GROUPS: Providing
special counseling and advisement services to special groups
of students planning to attend or attending the college,
such as veterans, foreign students, minorities, the aged,
the handicapped, "low" ability students, etc.

4. GROUP ORIENTATION: All information-giving associ-
ated with induction into college, attitude development, ef-
fective study skills, test interpretation, vocational deci-
sion, educational planning, involvement in activities, rules
and regulations, etc., which lends itself to the group proc-
ess as well or better than through individual contact.

5. CAREER INFORMATION AND DECISION-MAKING: Provision
of occupational information toward narrowing of vocational
choice. Basic curriculum decisions and career planning is
contingent upon possession of maximum occupational informa-
tion made available through comprehensive libraries, bro-
chures, seminars, consultation services, faculty advisement,
and particularly through local or regional occupational in-
formation centers.

6. PERSONNEL RECORDS: Maintenance of accurate, func-
tional records to be compiled into a cumulative file reflect-
ing educational, psychological, physical, and personal de-
velopment.

7. EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Measurement of aptitude, in-
terests, values, achievement, and personality factors of
students as well as assessment of the pervasive character-
istics and tone or climate of the institution.
7a. BASIC SKILL DIAGNOSIS: Evaluation of past record










and testing in the skills of reading, listening, speak-
ing, composition, and mathematics to assure proper place-
ment of students in courses in varying levels of diffi-
culty. Coordination with instruction in these fields
remains integral to this service.

8. APPLICANT APPRAISAL: Subsumes all devices, such as
transcript and test interpretation, individual case studies,
interviewing of students, conducting staff inquiries, etc.,
to obtain, organize and evaluate significant background in-
formation to determine admission and curriculum eligibility,
to effect proper placement and to assist students toward
the self-knowledge needed for decision-making and planning.

9. HEALTH APPRAISAL AND SERVICES: Canvass of health
and physical condition, review of health records, health
counseling, establishment of referral system, apprising
parents, and other such checks on the health and physical
well-being of students made possible by the employment of
a public health nurse. Providing current information on
health-related problems and information on health services
available in the community.

10. STUDENT COUNSELING: Professional service to stu-
dentsin clarifying basic values, attitudes, interests and
abilities; all phases of decision making; formulating voca-
tional education plans; in identifying and resolving prob-
lems interfering with plans and progress; and in providing
appropriate resources for more deep-seated personal problems.

11. STUDENT ADVISEMENT: Giving of information perti-
nent to selection of courses, occupational prerequisites,
transfer requirements, effective study methods, academic
progress, availability of resource agencies, and other such
areas of concern to students.

12. TEACHING: Student personnel staff members teach-
ing credit and/or non-credit courses and seminars in their
particular areas of expertise. Courses and seminars could
focus on personal growth and development of the student,
career exploration, orientation to college, individual dis-
covery, interpersonal relationships, etc.

13. STUDENT DEVELOPMENT: Providing activities and pro-
grams for students in which the greatest development of
potential and fulfillment can occur. The student develop-
ment function would focus on the total development and
personal growth of the student, as opposed to focusing only
on cognitive development. Programs would encourage self-
awareness and attempt to meet individual needs of students.

14. APPLICANT CONSULTING: Giving of information










pertinent to interpretation of tests and other data, and
proffering educational and occupational service to appli-
cants prior to formal admission.

15. FACULTY CONSULTATION: Consulting with faculty in
regard to student development, the affective domain, human
relations, learning theory, etc., and encouraging open lines
of communication between the academic faculty and student
personnel services staff.

16. CO-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES: Arranging for cultural
activities, sponsoring of clubs and organizations, advising
student publications, organizing vocational and other spe-
cial interest groups--all co-curricular activities which
contribute to educational growth and development.

17. ATHLETICS: Providing opportunities for students
to participate in intramural and/or intercollegiate athletics

18. STUDENT SELF-GOVERNMENT: Advising student govern-
ment organizations, providing training in formal and in-
formal group processes, conducting leadership training pro-
grams, and supervising intercollegiate student government
conferences and all other significant aspects of citizen-
ship training.

19. COMMUNITY SERVICES: Providing services and programs
to meet the needs of various individuals and groups in the
community; being responsive to community needs.

20. STUDENT REGISTRATION: Designing registration forms
and data processing procedures, effecting class changes and
withdrawals, recording instructors' grades, providing tran-
scripts and, where possible, machine-scheduling the students
into classes.

21. ACADEMIC REGULATION: Enforcing probation policies,
evaluating graduation eligibility, handling cases of student
infraction of the college rules, interviewing terminated
students or probationers petitioning for readmission.

22. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT: Involvement by student
personnel services staff in the development and revision of
courses and programs offered by the college. Student per-
sonnel services staff would provide input and feedback to
the academic faculty in regard to curriculum development.

23. SOCIAL REGULATION: Social involvement, social
amenities, social grace, moral and ethical conduct are all
concerns of student personnel workers, particularly to those
responsible for student activities.










24. FINANCIAL AIDS: Loans, scholarships, part-time
jobs, budget management, solicitation of funds, securing
of government grants. All of these are necessary if the
economic equation is to be balanced so that no student is
denied college because of lack of money.

25. CHILD CARE: Providing child care services for the
children of students.

26. PLACEMENT: The placement officer within the stu-
dent personnel office has responsibility for locating
appropriate employment for qualified graduates and other
students terminating their college training, for providing
prospective employers with placement information, and for
follow-up studies designed to provide guides to curricular
development.

27. COOPERATIVE EDUCATION: Providing students with
work experience and "on the job" training through coopera-
tive education programs.

28. PROGRAM ARTICULATION: For smooth transition through-
out the two-year college period, there must be adequate two-
way flow with the faculties of the feeder high schools and
with the colleges of transfer, effective intrastaff relation-
ships, and good lines of communication with industrial and
commercial enterprises and other cooperating agencies within
the community.

29. INFORMATION CENTER: Developing an information
center to provide much of the routine information needed
by students, such as what services are available at the
junior college, where these services are, and other routine,
but pertinent information needed by the student.

30. IN-SERVICE EDUCATION AND STAFF DEVELOPMENT: Sys-
tematic opportunities for professional discussion among stu-
dent personnel staff members, consultants for special areas
of interest and need, a flood of professional literature,
interpretation of local research data, provision for attend-
ance at professional conferences, systematic articulation
with instructional departments, and periodic summer work-
shops or other review and updating seminars. Also, serving
as a resource person and consultant for faculty and staff
development programs.

31. CHANGE AGENTS: Student personnel staff functioning
as change agents within the institution to provide input and
leadership in regard to institutional goals, developing a
better learning environment, and working with students,
faculty and administration in regard to college governance,
decisions, plans, and policies affecting the institution as




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs