A Case Analysis of Graduate Programs' Usage of ACPA/NASPA Competencies

Abstract

A Case Analysis of Graduate Programs' Usage of ACPA/NASPA Competencies Amy E. French (bio) and Dena R. Kniess (bio) The ACPA/NASPA (2015) Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Educators (PCASAE) were intended to educate students and professionals as whole individuals while providing guidelines for specific knowledge areas and expected skill sets. They can be used for self-assessment, professional development, and staff training. Student affairs graduate preparation programs (GPPs) are part of the formal socialization process for master's students as they develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for professional practice (Weidman et al., 2001). GPPs seek to provide the next generation of college educators with the knowledge, competencies, and dispositions necessary to promote students' holistic development and learning (Carducci & Jaramillo, 2014). More specifically, such programs are designed to guide students from foundational skills to heightened proficiencies. As such, integrating theory into practice (praxis) is a key focus of competency development. The PCASAE affirmed, "Graduate preparation programs … should utilize the competencies as a means of reviewing program- and course-level learning outcomes as well as setting expectations for cocurricular learning experiences" (p. 10). Moreover, the PCASAE encouraged GPPs to adapt competencies to their respective campus contexts. This study sought to answer the question: How are the PCASAE (ACPA & NASPA, 2015) implemented in student affairs GPPs? CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The conceptual model of professional socialization into student affairs within GPPs (Perez, 2016) provided our study's framework. Perez's model recognized "multiple intersecting cultural contexts" (p. 43) and incorporated research from student affairs, the helping professions, and doctoral student socialization. A variety of functional areas (e.g., campus activities, advising, housing) influence student affairs culture and socialization within national, professional, and institutional contexts. The individual level (e.g., social identities, family, socioeconomic status) impacts student affairs culture and socialization experiences. GPP coursework and field experiences are found at the intersection of the two-dimensional model described above. Within this model, classwork and field experiences reinforce one another as new professionals learn the "nature of 'good practice' in student affairs" (p. 44). For this study, our goal was to understand how the PCASAE were used in the classroom and field experiences. Since ACPA and NASPA jointly crafted and endorsed the 10 [End Page 498] professional competency areas, we recognized a need to understand how these competencies are applied in these sites. METHODOLOGY Using a case study approach, two GPPs in student affairs at public institutions served as bounded cases. The cases were bounded because each site used the PCASAE within the GPP during the 2020–2021 academic year. By situating each GPP as a case, the contexts and environments influencing the implementation of the PCASAE were identified. The ability for particular, descriptive, and contextually rich data to be identified using a case study method proved useful in addressing practical problems and connecting to disciplinary knowledge (Stake, 2006). Both programs were purposefully sampled (Patton, 2015) as they used the PCASAE and prioritized praxis through experiential learning opportunities (ELOs). For this study, ELOs include practica or internships required as part of coursework and graduate assistantships. Most students are enrolled full time in both programs. The programs differed in course delivery method (online and face-to-face). ELOs for both programs occurred in person. There were 36 participants across both sites. North University (NU) had one program coordinator (PC), 12 graduate assistantship supervisors (GAS), and five students. The PC's scholarly agenda focused on higher education policy and student persistence. Previously, the PC served as an upper-level student affairs administrator. Central University (CU) had two faculty co-PCs and 16 students. One PC researched diversity in higher education, and the other focused on religion and spirituality and critical race theory. Courses were taught primarily by full-time faculty at CU, while NU relied on adjuncts. All PCs were tenure-track or clinical faculty. Students and GAS participated in separate focus groups that explored skill development through coursework and ELO participation and the use of the PCASAE as a guiding framework (ACPA/NASPA, 2015). Students responded to questions such as "What skills have you developed as a result of this program?" For GAS, questions included "Are you aware of the ACPA/NASPA competencies...