Student service practitioners are increasingly called upon to create web pages, deliver services on-line, and participate in the creation of a virtual campus. In Looking Beyond the Horizon, Trends Shaping Student Affairs, Upcraft and Terenzini, (1999) recognize that information technologies are reshaping the world of student affairs. In addition they note, "much of this technology is being embraced uncritically, with little or no analysis of its potential consequences for good and for ill." Web-based technology has become one of the methods by which we do our work, but we are just beginning to incorporate its possibilities and consider its impact.
While on-line service delivery is congruent with the student affairs tradition of meeting students where they are - in residence halls, in the student union, in classrooms- it presents a clear change in the way we do our work. In the past, personal interaction has been the lifeblood of student affairs. The profession attracts those who thrive on these personal interactions, and though our students are quick to use the web, some of us have not been so quick to embrace technology.
Through promoting the application of traditional student affairs theories to technology, perhaps we cannot only open the doors of technology, but "roll out the red carpet" to our colleagues who may view technology as either threatening to or an anathema to the student affairs profession. To move the "tech averse" from fear and distrust of technology, toward savvy technology consumerism, there must be education and empowerment. Education can demystify technology. Empowerment can teach professionals to critique technology using the same theories that form the foundation of all student affairs work. For those already enamored of technology, the application of theory can guide and temper the enthusiastic adoption of new technology.
In introducing the summer edition this e-zine, Salter refers to leaving his porch to enter the electronic world, run a few web-errands, and return to his porch. He describes his movement in physical terms, though he never leaves the physical confines of the porch. Various descriptions of using the web and computers use similar metaphors -surfing the web, in a chat room, on-line, on the web, visit the web site --bringing to mind the process of entering a different physical space or environment.
Literature, written both before and after the proliferation of technology, supports the recognition of the web experience as a part of the college environment. In Coming of Age in New Jersey, Moffat (1989) found that "college from the students point of view was a combination of academic and outside-the classroom education." (p. 54).
Student Monitor statistics indicate that 90% of college students use the web, for an average of almost 6 hours per week, PRIMARILY for educational purposes. Thus, for today's students, the web is certainly part of the college experience. The web has changed the culture of communication through email and even impacted the social milieu of students sharing music through the introduction of Napster and MP3 files. Keeling (1999) uses an interesting choice of words to assert that "College has become the universe -the net- of experiences that happen in the lives of people who are enrolled in an institution of higher education". Strange (1996) specifically mentions virtual tours on the Internet as elements of a campus' physical environment.
Thus the application of principles of campus ecology theory to campus web sites seems a reasonable starting point as we begin the application of student affairs theory to web sites.
As a precursor to a critical analysis of websites using environmental theory, a brief review of theory is appropriate. Carney Strange's work in the 1996 Student Services: A Handbook for the Profession provides a useful framework. From this framework, we can identify four environmental elements "In Real Life" vs. those "On the Web".
Physical Features |
|
|
The physical features of a campus environment include both natural features such as geographic location, climate, terrain and manmade features such as buildings and open space. |
The web master chooses whether or not to include features of the campuses physical environment. If depicted on the site, the physical features of the environment can be carefully selected or edited. The climate and terrain can be "edited", for example showing only pictures taken in summer or fall. Pictures depicting the campus can focus on modern buildings or on more traditional architecture. Web-only features of the physical environment include the structure of the page, the images selected and the placement of and relationship of images to one another. The web page in effect replaces the physical environment. |
Human Aggregates |
|
|
Human aggregate as an environmental feature reflects the strength of environmental press, especially in a highly congruent environment. Human aggregate is best understand if we think in terms of campus "personality" or student culture. It is the human aggregate that largely determines a student's "fit" at a given institution. As an example, Astin identifies student types as follows: Scholars, Student Activists, Artists, Hedonists, Leaders, Status Strivers, Uncommitted. To the extent that one or more of these "types" predominates at the campus, the human aggregate element of the environment exerts a press to conform to the dominant type. |
The concept of human aggregates can best be understood using the assumption that dominant features of the environment are a reflection of the dominant characteristics of people within it. What will we infer about people based on the dominant images and text on the web site? |
Organizational Structures |
|
|
Organizational structure refers to the reporting and decision-making units of the institution. Dynamic systems are most often associated with successful educational experiences. Dynamic systems are characterized by high complexity (colleges, departments) and high value placed on quality (research, writing, prestige). Dynamic systems feature low centralization (independent colleges or departments) low formalization (collegial decision-making) , low stratification (few layers of authority), and efficiency (time lines for change in higher education). |
Campus organizational structures are apparent on the web, as each of the highly complex, decentralized units of the college presents a unique website. Though the web reflects the typical organizational structure of a college, this is often the least student-focused aspect of an institution of higher education. |
Constructed MeaningThe most difficult to define of the environmental components is constructed meaning. Essentially, the perception of environment is reality. The constructed meaning is the whole of all the parts, the impression that one constructs based on all individual components. Constructed meaning is one's impression of the culture, including, but not limited to assumptions about students, institutional values, and behavioral norms. |
|
|
Our constructed meaning comes from interactions with the environment. We form an impression based on physical artifacts, culture as conveyed through history and tradition, and behavior, such as celebrations and events. |
We create a constructed meaning from our website experience exclusively. The image conveyed through the web becomes the reality of the college for the web visitor. |
A simple approach to applying environmental theory to websites is to view the site and ask questions related to each element.
It can be helpful to create an analysis matrix to compare the goals of the site with each of the sites environmental elements. For each cell within the matrix, determine whether the environmental feature furthers the goals or mission of the site.
|
||
|
Environmental Elements |
|
|
|
Physical |
|
|
|
Human Aggregate |
|
|
|
Organizational |
|
|
|
Constructed Meaning |
|
|
For purposes of practicing our analytical skills, viewing campus homepages is particularly useful for two reasons.
The sites below were chosen as good examples from institutions with clear and unique missions and cultures. Or, in the case of Yale, as an example of overcoming a university organizational structure with user-friendly interface.
The Xavier University homepage offers an excellent example of a website's congruence with institutional mission and values.Mission Statement: Xavier University of Louisiana is Catholic and historically Black. The ultimate purpose of the University is the promotion of a more just and humane society. To this end, Xavier prepares its students to assume roles of leadership and service in society. This preparation takes place in a pluralistic teaching and learning environment that incorporates all relevant educational means, including research and community service.The Evergreen University site makes a clear statement about the human aggregate at the institution.
At Yale University, the unique navigation system makes the organizational structure more human scale and user friendly.
Looking Toward the Future
One of the most exciting things about technology and environmental theory is the new and growing reality of using technology to improve the educational environment. Again, from Strange's (1996) chapter in Student Services, effective educational environments have physical features that are enabling, human aggregate conditions that are reinforcing, and organizational structures that are dynamic. Technology is already improving each of those factors.
Through user-specific interfaces offered at University of Minnesota, UCLA (My UCLA), and from portal services like Mascot and CampusPipeline, students can control their own web-environment. Students are empowered to control this aspect of their college experiences and surround themselves with their own supportive human aggregate. It is the technological equivalent of painting your own residence hall room. A great way to enable and empower students.
The services above, or a simple redesign of existing sites, can also help students maneuver the "dynamic" yet unwieldy world of a comprehensive university. Rather than simply replicate the potentially confusing organizational structure of an institution, the website can offer user-specific services from menus written in language which reflects the needs of the user.
The looming question is how these technological advances will impact the outcome of student experience. Currently, we can simply apply our existing theories to technology and assume some similarity of experience. It will require both time and research to confirm which current theories translate and to define new theories specific to technological delivery of student services.
Boyer, E. (1987).
College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York:
Harper & Row,
Publishers.
Keeling, R.P.
(1999) The Merger of Life and Learning in the New Academy. Net
Results. (On-line) Available: http://www.net-results.org/members/archive/keeling.cfm
Moffatt, M. (1988).
Coming of age in New Jersey: College and American culture. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Strange, C.C.
(1996). Dynamics of campus environments. In S.R. Komives &
D.B.,Woodard, Jr. (Eds.). Student services: A handbook for the
profession (pp. 244-269). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M. L.,
& Terenzini, P. T. (1998). Looking beyond the horizon: Trends
shaping student affairs: Technology. ACPA Senior Scholars
Conference Presentation. Available online at: http://www.acpa.nche.edu/seniorscholars/trends/trends5.htm