1 / 30

Administration Components of University-Based ACCT Challenge Course Programs

Administration Components of University-Based ACCT Challenge Course Programs David J. Waters, Sheena Cook, Ryan Olson, & Jeffrey P. Steffen University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Need for Study Growth Diverse backgrounds Continued growth and reorganization Review of Literature

benjamin
Download Presentation

Administration Components of University-Based ACCT Challenge Course Programs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Administration Components of University-Based ACCT Challenge Course Programs

  2. David J. Waters, Sheena Cook, Ryan Olson, & Jeffrey P. Steffen University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

  3. Need for Study • Growth • Diverse backgrounds • Continued growth and reorganization

  4. Review of Literature • Steffen (1998) called for challenge courses to be housed according to their mission • Sugerman (1999): “no clear consensus on outdoor leadership training in the college/university academic setting”

  5. Review of Literature • Raiola & Sugerman (1999) (in J.C. Miles & S. Priest, Adventure programming): suggested in-depth look at higher education curriculum would be important step in defining what constitutes excellence • Medina (2002) reported on position types, job responsibilities, training backgrounds

  6. Review of Literature • Plaut (2002): college/academic settings allowed (a) grounding in theory; (b) stimulating a sense of the possible; (c) keeping field current in changing world; (d) training masterful educators

  7. Review of Literature • Attarian (2002): college program growth in adventure and challenge courses. Therefore, accountability and examination of: (a) recruiting, selecting, and training staff; (b) how programs are operated; (c) achievement of program outcomes

  8. Review of Literature • Hirsch (2007) called leadership crucial in “pushing the flywheel” and getting good organizations to higher levels of greatness (in closing address of Association for Experiential Education)

  9. Objectives 1. To gain a better understanding of human resources for ACCT affiliated university challenge courses 2. To gain a better understanding of financial resources for ACCT affiliated university challenge courses 3. To gain a better understanding of current trends and data about administration of university challenge courses

  10. Methods & Instrumentation • Sample: n = 104 ACCT university affiliated members • Survey piloted with 10 ACCT university affiliated challenge course programs to increase validity and reliability • Administration of 19 item survey via SelectSurvey.net • Return rate of 60.5% (63/104)

  11. Results

  12. Program Name • “Rope and/or Challenge Course” 32% • “Outdoor” 17% • “Adventure” 13% • “Recreation” 8% • “Other” 30%

  13. Titles of Respondents • Director 40% • Coordinator 35% • Professor/Lecturer 11% • Manager 6% • Other 6%

  14. Program Elements • Outdoor Low Elements 94% • Outdoor High Elements 85% • Climbing Wall 78% • Indoor Low Elements 31% • Indoor High Elements 13%

  15. University “Division” • Division I 54% • Division II 25% • Division III 14% • Other 6% • NAIA 2%

  16. University Population • Less Than 3,500 6% • 3,501-7,000 14% …………………………………………………….…. • 7,001-10,500 17% • 10,501-13,500 11% • 13,501-17,000 17% • 17,001-20,500 5% • 20,501-24,000 8% • 24,001-or Greater 23%

  17. University Funding • Public 86% • Private 14%

  18. Program History Years of Operation: • 0-5 20% • 5-10 35% .………………………………………. • 10-15 14% • 15 or Greater 31%

  19. Operating Budget • Fully Self-Sustained 30% • Partially Self-Sustained 56% • Financially Supported by University 12% • Other 2%

  20. Funding Sources • Student Services 63% • Academic Dept. 24% • Other 14%

  21. Percent Funded by Institution • 0-25% 27% • 26-50% 23% • 51-75% 20% • 76-100% 30%

  22. Total Staff Size • 1-10 38% • 11-20 41% • 21-30 13% • 31 or More 8%

  23. Full-Time Staff 0 Full-Time Staff 28% 1 Full-Time Staff 54% 2 Full-Time Staff 13% 3 or More Full-Time Staff 5% Average FTE = 1.09

  24. University Training Protocol for Staff • ACCT 89% • In-House 73% • PRCA 14% • Other 3%

  25. Primary Population Served Student Groups On Campus 32% Students in Academic Classes 25% Public Special Interest Groups 16% Students From Outside the University 13%

  26. Analyses • Majority of programs are Division I schools with over 7,000 students • 50% of programs are under 10 years old • Approximately 86% are fully or partially self-sustaining • Most get funding from student services • Approximately 80% of programs have 0-1 full time staff • Most programs base their training in ACCT standards • Majority of program focus on serving campus students

  27. Implications/Recommendations • Qualitative studies of challenge course orientation within university departments • Qualitative studies of challenge course orientation according to funding resources • Examination of self-sustained budgets • Challenge course promotion on campuses

  28. Implications/Recommendations • Examination of university strategic planning and challenge courses as part (or not) of this planning • Challenge courses and their orientation via placement (prominence) on college campuses

  29. Contact INFO Steffen.jeff@uwlax.edu Waters.davi@uwlax.edu Olson.rya2@uwlax.edu

  30. This presentation is posted at: www.uwlax.edu/steffensgreatest ppt. presentations.gov.com.edu

More Related