28,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Bildung
- Serie: JB - Anker
- Sprache: Englisch
In Putting Students First, the authors argue that colleges can and should invest in holistic student development by recognizing and building on the students’ search for purpose in life, intellectually, spiritually, and morally. Based on a study conducted at ten religiously-affiliated schools, the book urges all colleges to rethink their approach to teaching and advising the increasingly diverse students of today; their critical mission should be to prepare students to become ethically responsible and active contributors to society, as well as critical thinkers and skilled professionals.
Putting Students First offers perspectives and recommendations in areas of holistic student development such as
- Understanding millennial college students
- The role of faculty in defining culture
- The design and implementation of curriculum
- The impact of cocurricular involvement
- Fostering relationships with on-campus and off-campus communities
By organizing the campus environment into “4Cs”—culture, curriculum, cocurriculum, and community—the authors create a conceptual framework for faculty, student affairs staff, and administrators to discuss, plan, and create college environments that effectively support the learning and development of students. Each chapter includes an introduction, evidence and analysis, a summary, and questions to help readers consider how to develop students holistically on their own campuses.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 353
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
FOREWORD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Organization of the Book
1 PUTTING STUDENTS FIRST
Introduction
Why Is It Important to Put Students and Their Development First?
Who Are Today’s College Students?
Who Develops These Students?
In What Context Is Holistic Development Occurring?
Why Study Church-Related Colleges and Universities?
Summary
2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND DESIGN OF THE PROJECT
Introduction
Theoretical Bases for Holistic Student Development
Faith, Spirituality, and Student Development
Student Development and the Church-Related Context
Conceptual Framework: Personal Investment Theory
Project Design
Summary
3 CULTURE
Introduction
Discerning and Acting on Institutional Mission
Building on a Legacy
Communicating Institutional Mission and Identity
Leadership
College Location
Campus Facilities
Expectations and Contributions of Faculty
Support and Challenge
Summary
4 CURRICULUM
Introduction
Philosophical Foundations of the Curriculum
Centrality of a Liberal Arts Education
Integrating Faith and Learning
Worldviews
Pedagogy
Developmentally Tailored Experiences for Students
Pedagogy of Engagement: Field-Based and Community-Based Learning
Summary
5 COCURRICULUM
Introduction
Mutual Reinforcement of Learning
Campus Rituals
Residence Life
Student Leadership
Relationships With Coaches, Professional Staff, and Campus Ministry
Faculty Interactions
Immersion Experiences
Summary
6 COMMUNITY
Introduction
Shared Governance
Defining Community
Maintaining Community Amidst Change
Diversity Within Community
Communities Beyond the Campus
Dealing With Difference and External Communities
Summary
7 CREATING COMMUNITIES THAT PUT STUDENTS FIRST
Introduction
Mission Is Reality, Not Rhetoric
Learning and Development Are Integrated
The Campus Community Fosters Support and Challenge
Summary
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND DESIGN OF THE PROJECT
Table 2.1
Colleges by Denomination Participating in the Survey
TABLE 2.2
Colleges of Intensive Campus Visits
List of Illustrations
2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND DESIGN OF THE PROJECT
FIGURE 2.1
Application of Personal Investment Theory to College Student Development
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
Cover
Contents
iii
iv
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
241
242
243
244
245
246
PUTTING STUDENTS FIRST
How Colleges Develop Students Purposefully
Larry A. Braskamp
Loyola University Chicago
Lois Calian Trautvetter
Northwestern University
Kelly Ward
Washington State University
Copyright © 2006 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by Jossey-Bass A Wiley Brand One Montgomery Street, Suite 1000, San Francisco, CA 94104-4594—www.josseybass.com
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400, fax 978-646-8600, or on the Web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, 201-748-6011, fax 201-748-6008, or online at www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Readers should be aware that Internet Web sites offered as citations and/or sources for further information may have changed or disappeared between the time this was written and when it is read.
Jossey-Bass books and products are available through most bookstores. To contact Jossey-Bass directly call our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at 800-956-7739, outside the U.S. at 317-572-3986, or fax 317-572-4002.
Wiley publishes in a variety of print and electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some material included with standard print versions of this book may not be included in e-books or in print-on-demand.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Braskamp, Larry A.
Putting students first : how colleges develop students purposefully/
Larry A. Braskamp, Lois Calian Trautvetter, Kelly Ward.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN-13: 978-1882982-94-3
ISBN-10: 1-882982-94-0
ISBN-13:978-1-119125-73-0 (p.b.)
1. Holistic education. 2. Education, Humanistic. 3. Educational, Higher—Aims and objectives. 1. Trautvetter, Lois Calian. II. Ward, Kelly (Kelly Anne) III. Title
LC990.B73 2006
378.1 ‘98—dc22
2005029637
FIRST EDITION
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Larry A. Braskamp received his B.A. from Central College and his M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Iowa. In 1967, he joined the University of Nebraska–Lincoln as a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology, where he received a Distinguished Teacher Award. After serving at Nebraska as assistant to the chancellor, he came to the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign in 1976. There he held a number of administrative positions, including associate vice chancellor for academic affairs, director of the Office of Instructional and Management Services, and acting dean of the College of Applied Life Studies. He was dean of the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) from 1989–1996. From 1996–1997, he was on leave from UIC to serve as the executive director of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. In 1997–1998, he was professor of policy studies in the College of Education and a faculty fellow in the International Center for Health Leadership Development at UIC. Currently he is professor emeritus of education at Loyola University Chicago, where he served as senior vice president for academic affairs, and senior fellow at the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
His research interests include the role of church colleges in American higher education and the role of faculty assessment in faculty development and organizational decision-making. He is the coauthor or coeditor of six books, including Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance (Jossey-Bass, 1994), Evaluation of Campus Services and Programs (Jossey-Bass, 1987), and The Motivation Factor: A Theory of Personal Investment (Lexington Books, 1986), and has published more than 100 research articles and papers.
Lois Calian Trautvetter is associate director for Northwestern University’s Higher Education Administration and Policy Program and lecturer in the School of Education and Social Policy. She received her Ph.D. in higher education administration from the University of Michigan, her M.S. in polymer chemistry from Carnegie Mellon University, and her B.A. in chemistry from The College of Wooster. She teaches college student development theory and research methodology courses. Her research interests include faculty and professional development issues such as productivity, enhancing research and teaching, motivation, and new and junior faculty. She is also interested in the role of church colleges in American higher education as well as professional development for K–12 teachers to improve math and science teaching, gender issues, and females in science. She participated as a researcher in the past two postsecondary national centers for education funded by the Department of Education (Office of Educational Research and Improvement) and has written book chapters and articles on faculty. She also has patents as a chemist in the coatings and resins industry.
Kelly Ward is associate professor of higher education at Washington State University. Her research interests are in the areas of faculty work, including balancing teaching, research, and service; faculty involvement in the community; and balancing work and family for those on the tenure track. She is also interested in campus and community engagement, service-learning, and policy issues related to equity and diversity. Dr. Ward has held faculty and administrative positions at Oklahoma State University and the University of Montana. She earned her Ph.D. in higher education from Penn State University.
FOREWORD
The term faith-based has acquired some heavy baggage in today’s politically polarized society. It’s become a code word for religious ideology, and, like many other people in the mostly secular world of higher education, I don’t much like ideology. I find it dangerous. I believe that the only role for ideology in the academy is as an object of skepticism, an opportunity to challenge accepted truth with cross examination and debate. For this reason I’ve had, I admit, a prejudice against faith-based institutions. I’ve regarded them as places where parents send their kids to protect them from a world full of heresy and temptation—places where “liberal education” is regarded with suspicion, bounded by religious orthodoxy, or, in extreme cases, is nowhere to be found.
With this book Larry Braskamp and his colleagues Lois Trautvetter and Kelly Ward have demonstrated just how wrongheaded I’ve been. This book, and the study upon which it is based, is a valuable service to the academy, giving us a rich and evocative portrait of how 10 faith-based colleges, and by extension scores of others like them, are in fact promoting the kind of liberal learning that more secular institutions can only wish for. These institutions are not just fostering “engagement” (as if simply being engaged in something, anything, were enough), they are helping students define their vocation, their calling, something to be engaged about. The more evangelical of these colleges hope their students will deepen their faith, to be sure; but they eschew indoctrination. For them, having students engage in self-examination and critical self-reflection is what is most important. They care about the process. (The reader will not, in fact, find the term student learning outcomes anywhere in this book, thank goodness.) For these colleges holistic student development is not just a matter of helping students learn a set of marketable skills, it is a matter of helping them learn how to live.
How refreshing this is! Some years ago I had an informal conversation with several members of the English faculty of a public comprehensive university. The topic turned to the challenges of teaching freshmen students. I was ready for the usual litany of complaints about how students today can’t think and can’t write and don’t care. To my surprise these faculty were concerned about something else entirely. One, speaking for the others, said, “The problem isn’t that we need to force students out of their conventional ways of thinking. They’ve grown up in a postmodern world. They come to college not really knowing what matters, and they hunger for an anchor, something that will give their lives meaning.” And then she said this (a literal quote): “What they need is a course called Values 101.” The wistfulness of their conversation told me that this group didn’t expect to see Values 101 on their campus anytime soon.
What these faculty were wishing for was not that their institution should decide what values to impart and then teach those values. What they wanted was what Braskamp and his colleagues found on the campuses they visited: “a rigorous, intellectual challenge in which the head and the heart are integrated in the search for truth, meaning, and fulfillment.” The authors of Putting Students First have captured the essence of these colleges in a manner that is accessible and inviting to the secular world. One can read this book from the perspective of a public research or comprehensive university or community college and come away with ideas for creating environments that honor both skepticism and meaning-making, exploration and wholeness.
And isn’t that, in the end, what college should be for?
Jon F. WerginProfessor, Ph.D. Program in Leadership and ChangeAntioch University
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This book is a collaborative effort, to be sure. Without the assistance, encouragement, and insights—the investment—of literally hundreds of students, faculty, academic leaders, and professional staff in student affairs and ministry at scores of church-related colleges and universities, this book would not exist.
As the authors, we are primarily serving as transcribers and interpreters of what we think are the key characteristics of a segment of American higher education—church-related colleges. These institutions have often been overlooked in conversations about the diversity and quality of American higher education. We have learned that these are unique places, and the hospitality of these colleges is just one example of their special character and identity. Furthermore, those laboring at these institutions were more than willing to talk with us about their work and their lives so that we could tell the larger communities of their investment in students.
This book is based on a research project that extended over a three-year period. The project initially received support from chief executive officers of eight church college associations: Bob Agee, Charles Currie SJ, Monika Hellwig, Steve Johnson, Gary Luhr, James Noseworthy, Arne Selbyg, and Donald Thompson. With their help, we were able to receive completed surveys on faculty expectations, assessment, and development from more than half of the nearly 500 chief academic officers of these colleges. More than 30 chief academic officers took the time to be interviewed by phone or invited us to their campuses to tell their stories of faculty involvement in student development. These academic leaders provided us with considerable insights about the life of faculty from their perspectives. We were also fortunate to have the counsel of several chief academic officers who spent two days in Chicago to react to these findings and to help us better communicate the results and plan for the next phase of the project. They are: David Gillespie, Anne Lippert, James Pence, Fred Pestello, Carla Sanderson, John Smarrelli, and Richard Stroede.
The second major phase of this project included in-depth site visits to 10 colleges: Bethune-Cookman College, Creighton University, Hamline University, Hope College, Pacific Lutheran University, The College of Wooster, Union University, the University of Dayton, Villanova University, and Whitworth College. The willingness and support of the chief academic officers and their staffs in making the visits efficient and productive cannot be overstated. James Boelkens, Ian Crawford, John Johannes, James Pence, Fred Pestello, Tami Reid, Carla Sanderson, Alan Silva, Ann Taylor-Green, and Christine Wiseman—we acknowledge and respect their professionalism. They allowed us to retain our own conclusions and interpretations, even when they differed and had good reason to do so.
Throughout the three years, we received considerable encouragement, challenges, and support from a number of people—colleagues at work, reviewers of sections of the book, excellent conversationalists about the topic, and supporters of the project, especially in its early stages. The following individuals contributed in many ways: Timothy Austin, Robert Benne, Charlotte Briggs, Robert Brown, Arthur Chickering, Jon Dalton, Sister Ann Ida Gannon, Charles Glassick, John Haughey SJ, Jennifer Haworth, George Kuh, Ralph Lundgren, David Myers, KerryAnn O’Meara, Linda Salchenberger, Donald Schmeltekopf, James Wellman, Jon Wergin, Terry Williams, and Randall Zachman. Again, we were fortunate to have a dedicated group of scholars come to Chicago for two days this summer to provide a critique of the draft. Charles Blaich, David Guthrie, R. Eugene Rice, Clara Sanderson, Steven Schomberg, Elizabeth Tisdell, and William Weston quickly formed a “community of challenge and support” and provided us with feedback from which to revise the manuscript—at times dramatically. It is a better book because of their input.
This project was funded by the Lilly Endowment, Inc. and the John Templeton Foundation. Their financial support and interest in advancing a national dialogue about the contributions of faculty in fostering student development is greatly appreciated. We also wish to acknowledge the wise counsel of Chris Coble and Arthur Schwartz, whose personal involvement in this project made it more focused and useful.
We end on a more personal note.
For Lois, this was a chance to observe college communities investing in students, mirroring some of my college student experiences. This project has allowed me to reflect on the many faculty members and administrators who were putting students first, especially my chemistry professor and advisor, Theodore Williams, who helped to guide me in my “big and worthy questions” and analyze the water content and elemental analysis of cataractous eye lenses. In addition to the many mentors and colleagues that continue to invest in my learning, I also had the encouragement and role models of my parents, Sam and Doris Calian, who both have personally invested their time, talent, and energies in guiding many students in theological education for more than 40 years. I am also extremely grateful to my supportive husband Dennis and my three wonderful but energetic children—Rachel, Paula, and Caleb—who encouraged me, even though it was a sacrifice at times. In the future, I hope that each of my children will experience a college that is committed to developing students purposefully.
For Kelly, this project brought to light the unique place that church-related colleges occupy in the higher education landscape. I appreciate the opportunity to “hang around” and take in all the great conversations and interactions happening on the campuses in the study. I’m grateful to all the students, staff, and faculty that invited me to be part of the conversation so I could better understand what it means to put students first. I’m also grateful to countless colleagues who have engaged in conversation with me throughout the past year as I teased out what it meant to work and study at a church-related college. I thank Susan Gardner for all her support in helping me organize the details of the project. As always, I must acknowledge my family for just being there.
For Larry, I was challenged and supported in this project in numerous ways. I was continuously reminded of the wisdom of Reverend John Boyle, who strongly advocated that “we are expected to judge, but to not be judgmental.” Throughout this project, I had the good fortune of being able to play tennis in the early morning hours with Paul Gignilliat, who helped me keep a perspective on the project and appreciate the power of routine, discipline, and friendship deepened by competing. My two sons, David and Steven, were their usual supportive selves. Moreover, David provided me with good company during the summers, assisting in the analyses and being a helpful critic. I end by acknowledging the patience and support of my wife Judi, who allowed me to break a promise that I would not write another book, because she knew it would only again lead to self-absorption. Since it did turn out to be the most difficult and intellectually challenging piece of scholarship of my career, she had to be and was even more supportive. She deeply understood that this book is for me more than an achievement or product. It is a reflection of my life, my vocation.
We end with a collective note and perspective. We all found this project to be a very enlightening, challenging, and rewarding experience. Each of us has grown immensely in writing this book, partly because the task of understanding how colleges help students in their sense-making is not easy. However, we witnessed firsthand many faculty and staff investing themselves in others—and it was rewarding to observe. We now welcome you and your colleagues to also purposefully invest in students.
INTRODUCTION
We wrote this book with a perspective in mind. We argue that an effective and ideal undergraduate college education is one that centers on holistic student development, including the search for meaning and purpose in life. Who a student is and becomes during college, as well as what a student does during college, is important to us. The title of this book, Putting Students First, is meant to stress three overarching themes. First is the intentionality of colleges as they guide students to become what the college thinks and believes is a desired end for students. Colleges and universities are mission oriented and act intentionally; that is, they educate and work with students on purpose, not accidentally. They intentionally invest in students.
Second, colleges develop students in ways that recognize and build on the student’s purpose in life, intellectually and morally. Intentional colleges create environments that center on purpose, helping students reflect on such questions as—Who am I? What are my goals in life? How do I want to make a difference with my life? Addressing questions about the “good life,” as we discuss it in this book, is a part of student development. Thus life is not only about financial achievement and professional success, but living a life that is fulfilling and meaningful. The real joy in life often comes from addressing challenges that fulfill one’s purpose in life. Aristotle refers to a distinction between making a living and living a life—endeavoring to develop our full and highest potential as human beings. One can live a good life by being good and excellent at what one is called to be as a person. Worldly success as some like to measure it—materialism, money, power—may not always be the final criteria to judge the quality of one’s life (Gomes, 2002; O’Toole, 2005). It may require one to experience hardships, disappointment, challenges beyond what one wishes for, and to carry the burdens of others. For some, it requires a commitment that is intimately linked to their religious faith or a higher rule or principle. Putting students first thus also calls for a holistic view of student development that encompasses cognitive, psychological, moral, ethical, and faith development.
This leads to the third theme of the book: Faculty play an integral role in fostering student development. When we say “putting students first,” we are not advocating a student-centered environment that meets all of its students’ demands. Rather, we emphasize that faculty and other influential adults in the lives of students (e.g., professionals in student affairs and ministry, coaches) need to be involved to foster student development, holistically.
We present the findings, conclusions, and interpretations based on our study of 10 church-related colleges: Bethune-Cookman College, Creighton University, Hamline University, Hope College, Pacific Lutheran University, The College of Wooster, Union University, University of Dayton, Villanova University, and Whitworth College. These colleges not only desire to help students be successful—a goal of most educators today and of importance and value to be sure, but they were selected since we wanted to learn how colleges think, plan, and behave in preparing students to live their lives as well as making a living. While the selected colleges are very supportive of preparing students to be vocationally competitive locally, nationally, and internationally, they argue for an education to be more. We selected colleges that intentionally assist students to ask and “struggle” with the fundamental questions in life while they are in college.
We selected colleges to represent a range of church and religious histories and current commitment to a particular religious or faith perspective. Some deliberately advance a certain faith or church denominational perspective and others can be classified as being quite secular in their perspective. We did not select a homogeneous group of colleges according to a set of criteria, but rather chose colleges to represent the diverse group of the 500 colleges that were founded by one of ten church denominations (Braskamp, 2003). These colleges were selected because they have been successful in preparing students to enter into graduate and professional schools, for their recognition of being closely affiliated with their church or legacy, and/or for being a good place to work. We did not select a set of institutions to represent an “ideal college” or to establish a standard of excellence.
All of these colleges have three characteristics in common. First, they put students first in their mission, even though all pursue other goals such as research and service to the community. Second, they all share a commitment to educate students holistically. All share a desire to assist students in their faith development, as we define it in this book. Thus they differ from many excellent colleges who put students first, including many of the public, community, and regional colleges and for-profit institutions and research universities, but primarily for professional preparation. Third, these colleges, shaped by their history of being founded by a church denomination, still deal with educating students that include a religious and faith dimension in educating their students. At some of the colleges, it is a daily challenge and for others it arises occasionally, brought about by special events or an external circumstance.
Organization of the Book
In Chapter 1, we set the context for putting college students first and highlight four major tensions and challenges that leaders and faculty need to address as they create campus environments that foster holistic student development. Chapter 2 describes the methodology, design, and framework for our work.
In Chapters 3 through 6, we present data-based summaries of the different dimensions of the campus environment in which leaders can invest to effectively foster student development. We organize the campus environment using what we call the 4C framework: culture, curriculum, cocurriculum, and communities in and beyond campus. These 4Cs encompass and represent different aspects of a college campus that enable faculty and others to become involved in student development. The 4Cs are a schema to help faculty and campus leaders organize and rethink strategies to foster holistic student development. The 4C framework is a heuristic device to help campus leaders think practically about investing in students. Each of these chapters concludes with questions intended to create campus conversations around the issue of holistic student development.
Chapter 7 presents an overview of the findings, employing three major characteristics to describe a student-invested college community, and calls for consideration and action for campus communities in an effort to put students first. We also include a set of questions for each characteristic that we hope will be a starting point for campus conversations at many colleges and universities.
Given the emerging student body and the changing role of faculty, this book is timely for higher education. It will be of interest to campuses and their constituents that strive to put students first and to support faculty and other staff in this endeavor. Although we chose to study church colleges, our analyses, recommendations, and insights gleaned from the study can be useful to campus leaders from all types of colleges and universities—large and small, secular and religious—that put students first. We hope leaders of any college interested in student development will find similar results and perspectives on their campuses and will join us in a dialogue on how to most effectively put students first.
1PUTTING STUDENTS FIRST
“I came here to invest in my students.”
—Faculty member, Whitworth College
“If there is one sentence everyone around here can quote it is ‘Creighton University exists for students’.”
—Dean, Creighton University
Introduction
These remarks and many more like them directed us to title this book Putting Students First. Faculty and administrators at the colleges we studied made their perspectives on student development known by the way they talk of investing in students. Generally they use language that reflects a view of student development that is holistic and encompasses the intellectual, moral, psychological, and faith development of students. They press students to acquire knowledge and to develop a life of purpose; they challenge students to obtain and improve competencies and to “know themselves”; and they encourage students to engage the world and to probe the relevance and power of religious commitments and perspectives and their shortcomings. In all the colleges in the study, educational leaders were most interested in investing in students such that they might live holistically.
This book is based on our desire to learn more about why and how colleges foster students’ holistic development. In doing so, we addressed questions such as—What do colleges desire students to become? What skills and patterns of behavior do students need to learn and develop? What are the learning and developmental goals of a college education? How do colleges create and sustain a campus environment that fosters holistic student development? How do members of the campus community—faculty, staff, and administrators—contribute to the development of students by who they are as well as what they do? When we posed such questions, we heard repeatedly about the concept of putting students first. In a nutshell, faculty involvement in students’ holistic development is about investment—faculty dedicating themselves more fully to the totality of student life, colleges making an investment (literally and figuratively) in students as whole beings, and students themselves becoming personally invested in their collegiate experience. This book is about how faculty and their colleagues in student affairs, administration, and ministry put students first.
The purpose of this chapter is to set the stage for the book by addressing the following questions: Why is it important to put students and their development first? Who are today’s students? Who is developing these students? In what context is holistic development occurring? Why study church-related colleges and universities?
Why Is It Important to Put Students and Their Development First?
Increasingly, educators refer to the importance of all dimensions of student development, not just formal learning. After all, Aristotle argued that minds must be developed in relation to the use of reason and character must be developed in relation to passions and feelings. Leaders of colleges and universities organize their campus activities—curriculum, cocurricular events and programs, culture, and collaborations with organizations external to the campus—in ways that they consider develop students most effectively. Moreover, they organize educational endeavors by first considering desired ends: “What do we wish students to be and to become,” often framed in terms of student learning and developmental goals. For some, the desired end of an education is mastery of skills needed for a specific career; for others, moral and civic responsibility is emphasized; for still others, character development and religious formation are primary. In varying degrees of intentionality, colleges pay attention to the interior lives of students—values, spirituality, identity, purpose, and meaning—and the exterior lives of students—observable patterns of behavior.
In this book, we use the term student development to include our spectrum of holistic student learning and developmental goals. Defined in these terms, this spectrum includes the following dimensions:
Vocational knowledge and skills
Professional practices and skills
Intellectual, critical thinking, and reasoning
Academic, disciplinary, and interdisciplinary knowledge
Physical well-being
Social responsibility
Civic and political responsibility
Moral and ethical responsibility
Personal values and character
Self-awareness, self-authorship, and identity
Spirituality
Faith and the practice of faith
Religious commitment, conviction, and worldviews
Student development defined to include a wide array of learning and developmental goals is not a new way of viewing the college experience. Holistic student development was the core of the mission of the first colleges and universities in America; they were founded to assist young men and women to be persons of character and integrity. “The early American college did not doubt its responsibility to educate the whole person—body, mind, and spirit; head, heart, and hands” (Boyer, 1987, p. 177). Almost a century ago, professionals in student affairs viewed college life in terms of an inclusive student-centered perspective. The American Council on Education (1937/1994) referenced that the student personnel point of view “emphasized the importance of education for the whole student” (p. 76). Recently, attempts to develop the “whole student” have been advocated in terms of fostering civic and moral engagement of college students. For example, the Kellogg Commission (1997) states, “The biggest educational challenge we face revolves around developing character, conscience, citizenship, tolerance, civility, and individual and social responsibility in our students” (p. 26-27).
In terms of combining intellectual and character development, Boyer (1987) argued,
We need educated men and women who not only pursue their own personal interests but are also prepared to fulfill their social and civic obligations. And, it is during the undergraduate experience, perhaps more than at any other time, that these essential qualities of mind and character are refined. (p. 7)
Dalton, Russell, and Kline (2004) state, “American higher education has always been deeply invested in the development of character as an outcome of the college experience. The notion of character is imbedded in the most basic concepts of liberal education, public service, and student development” (p. 4). Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, and Stephens (2003) argue that “moral and civic learning should be a central goal for both liberal and professional education” (p. xi). The Association of American Colleges and Universities (2002) proposes five learning goals that colleges need to fulfill if they are to educate American students. The goals are analytical and communication skills; understanding and experiences in the disciplines; intercultural knowledge and collaborative problem-solving skills; civic, social, and personal responsibility; and integrative thinking and problem solving. In short, they advocate a practical liberal arts education, an education in which students begin to apply their knowledge and understanding to be good workers and citizens.
Most recently, Nathan Hatch (2005), former provost at Notre Dame University and new president of Wake Forest University, called for an education of college students that links intellectual and moral development. In his review of Catholic higher education in recent decades, he concludes, “What is evident is a commitment to the holistic nurturing of students—body, mind, and spirit” (Hatch, 2005, p. B16). In summary, the academy as a whole has always advanced the dual goals of forming and informing students while in college.
Who Are Today’s College Students?
Holistic student development calls for us to understand the students we are developing. The college student today cannot be described easily and simply. No single generalization does justice to the complex and conflicting portrayal. They are increasingly commuterbased, older, and diverse in gender, race, and ethnicity; for example, more than 40% of students are 25 years or older. Since most research in higher education is focused on traditional-age undergraduate college students, including our own, the findings that we offer may be inadequate if applied to the total college population today.
The most common image of traditional-age college students today is the one known as the millennials, referring to students born after 1982. They are described as
smart, ambitious, incredibly busy, very ethnically diverse and dominated by girls [sic]. . . . They make decisions jointly with parents (“co-purchasing” a college) and believe in big brands (with “reputation” counting for a lot). And they are numerous, very intent on going to college, and have very demanding parents. (Howe & Strauss, 2003, p. 4)
Their “helicopter” parents are always hovering over campus ready and willing on a moment’s notice to become involved in the affairs of their son or daughter. With the help of technology like cell phones and email communication, they are never far away. Parents have also become more vocal in their expectations to college leaders and faculty.
In addition, these students are highly involved in extracurricular activities, very focused on getting high grades, facile in using technology in their studies and work, somewhat conventional by their desire to have boundaries and order in their environment, and very accepting and tolerant of racial and other forms of diversity (Howe & Strauss, 2003). Millennial students are also portrayed as compassionate and caring individuals, often immersed in service and community activities. They reflect in part the larger current societal context.
In recent years, secular and church-related institutions have noticed that students have become increasingly interested in religion and spirituality. Students are looking to religion, sometimes broadly defined, for meaning, comfort, and certitude—a place to stand and rest (Fish, 2005). An ethnographic study of campus religious life concludes that “It is possible that young people in American culture have never been more enthusiastically engaged in religious practices or with religious ideas” (Cherry, DeBerg, & Porterfield, 2001, pp. 294-295). This revival of religion and spirituality represents the most vibrant aspect of pluralism today on campus (Nash, 2001). Students want to associate with faculty who are willing to assist them in their search for a life of meaning (Chickering, 2003). Further, students have returned to tradition and ritual as suggested by Howe and Strauss (2003), and thus come to college with certain predispositions such as favoring the “teaching of values, including honesty, caring, moral courage, patriotism, democracy, and the Golden rule” (p. 5).
Recent research on more than 100,000 first-year students at 236 colleges and universities supports the notion that today’s college students are showing a high interest in spirituality (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 2005). According to this survey, entering college students are interested in spirituality (80%), searching for meaning in life (76%), using their beliefs for guidance (69%), discussing life philosophies with friends (74%), attending religious services (81%), believing in God (79%), and praying (69%). Overwhelmingly, these students, who are not always sure what they believe, are very interested in grappling with big questions like the meaning of life and looking for ways to incorporate these spiritual and religious questions into their college experience. Two in three want their institutions to play a role in their spiritual and emotional development. One-half of the students say it is essential or very important that colleges encourage their personal expression of spirituality. Students also desire exploration of meaning in life and values more often in the classroom. Only about half of the juniors said they were satisfied with how their college experience provided “opportunities for religious or spiritual development,” and more than six in ten students stated “their professors never encourage discussions of spiritual issues” (HERI, 2003). Similar findings about student interest in spirituality were found in the National Survey of Student Engagement (2004).
A number of students have recently been described as missionary students who have a cause—they are on a mission to make America a different and better place to live (Riley, 2005). Deeply influenced by their backgrounds in a faith, often described as evangelical in nature, tone, and purpose, these students are not timid about what they want to accomplish in life and even how they should carry out their calling to serve others in response to their commitment to their God. Religion, faith, and spirituality are a part of their lives. Moreover, they are active as members of a community, such as a church or social organization with a faith dimension, and comfortable sharing their personal lives with others. Missionary students are clear about their role and purpose in society. They subscribe to Aristotle’s argument that in order to be truly fulfilled in life they must apply the fruits of their personal development to meeting some of the needs of others.
Regardless of the image that guides how we think about today’s college students, all students are asking fundamental life questions (Denton-Borhaug, 2004): Who am I? How can I use my talents to make a contribution? What is the purpose of a college education? Students are expressing interest in finding meaning in their lives and dealing with questions of values and faith as part of a college education. They seek purpose as part of their college experience and look for ways to reconcile career goals, personal passions, and intellectual pursuits. In short, they are interested in obtaining a holistic education.
