administration components of university based acct challenge course programs l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Administration Components of University-Based ACCT Challenge Course Programs PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Administration Components of University-Based ACCT Challenge Course Programs

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 30

Administration Components of University-Based ACCT Challenge Course Programs - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 488 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Administration Components of University-Based ACCT Challenge Course Programs' - benjamin


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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
david j waters sheena cook ryan olson jeffrey p steffen

David J. Waters, Sheena Cook, Ryan Olson, & Jeffrey P. Steffen

University of Wisconsin-La Crosse

need for study
Need for Study
  • Growth
  • Diverse backgrounds
  • Continued growth and reorganization
review of literature
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”
review of literature5
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
review of literature6
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
review of literature7
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

review of literature8
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)
objectives
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

methods instrumentation
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)
program name
Program Name
  • “Rope and/or Challenge Course” 32%
  • “Outdoor” 17%
  • “Adventure” 13%
  • “Recreation” 8%
  • “Other” 30%
titles of respondents
Titles of Respondents
  • Director 40%
  • Coordinator 35%
  • Professor/Lecturer 11%
  • Manager 6%
  • Other 6%
program elements
Program Elements
  • Outdoor Low Elements 94%
  • Outdoor High Elements 85%
  • Climbing Wall 78%
  • Indoor Low Elements 31%
  • Indoor High Elements 13%
university division
University “Division”
  • Division I 54%
  • Division II 25%
  • Division III 14%
  • Other 6%
  • NAIA 2%
university population
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%
university funding
University Funding
  • Public 86%
  • Private 14%
program history
Program History

Years of Operation:

  • 0-5 20%
  • 5-10 35% .……………………………………….
  • 10-15 14%
  • 15 or Greater 31%
operating budget
Operating Budget
  • Fully Self-Sustained 30%
  • Partially Self-Sustained 56%
  • Financially Supported by University 12%
  • Other 2%
funding sources
Funding Sources
  • Student Services 63%
  • Academic Dept. 24%
  • Other 14%
percent funded by institution
Percent Funded by Institution
  • 0-25% 27%
  • 26-50% 23%
  • 51-75% 20%
  • 76-100% 30%
total staff size
Total Staff Size
  • 1-10 38%
  • 11-20 41%
  • 21-30 13%
  • 31 or More 8%
full time staff
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

university training protocol for staff
University Training Protocol for Staff
  • ACCT 89%
  • In-House 73%
  • PRCA 14%
  • Other 3%
primary population served
Primary Population Served

Student Groups On Campus 32%

Students in Academic Classes 25%

Public Special Interest Groups 16%

Students From Outside the University 13%

analyses
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
implications recommendations
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
implications recommendations28
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
contact info

Contact INFO

Steffen.jeff@uwlax.edu

Waters.davi@uwlax.edu

Olson.rya2@uwlax.edu

this presentation is posted at

This presentation is posted at:

www.uwlax.edu/steffensgreatest ppt. presentations.gov.com.edu