Weebly



MSHE Shanghai Cohort Co-Curricular Interventions: Using PTP ModelSara Coney, John Nguyen, Sandra Ponce, & Giovanni RodriguezCalifornia State University FullertonMSHE Shanghai Cohort Co-Curricular Interventions: Using PTP Model“Learning is a treasure that will follow its owner everywhere” (Chinese proverb, author unknown). ?Chinese international students are choosing to pursue higher education in the United States at an alarming rate, especially due to the prestigious reputation of universities in the United States of America (Lee, 2015; Lowinger, He, Lin, ?& Chang 2014).?The partnership between Shanghai Normal University (SNU) and California State University, Fullerton (CSUF) is an example of the increase of commitment to global learning (CSUF, 2015). The upcoming fall 2015 semester will enroll 18 international graduate students, collectively named the Shanghai cohort, in the Masters of Science in Higher Education (MSHE) program(Cloud, 2015). By using Knefelkamp’s Practice-to-Theory-to-Practice (PTP) model, as outline by Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, and Renn (2010), we will design co-curricular interventions to address the challenges associated with transition for the incoming Shanghai cohort. ?We begin by identifying some limitations and biases: most student engagement and student development theories were not created by empirical studies on Chinese international students or Chinese students, we do not have previous knowledge in working with Chinese international students, and our preliminary informal theory based interventions were made with limited experience.Our initial thoughts were that students would need support in academics and psychosocial development as they are studying abroad.The theory informed interventions will employ the theoretical frameworks described in Jarvis’ experiential learning model and Schlossberg’s transition theory and will draw additional support from Chickering’s identity development theory, Tinto’s integrative model, Rendon’s validation theory, and Kuh’s engagement theory, among others. ?While the interventions will benefit from being theory-informed, an area of concern lies in the fact that these theories were not conceived in relation to international students. ?To alleviate this, we will draw on empirical research to increase our understanding of international student characteristics and cultures. This paper will begin by describing the critical barriers typically experienced by international graduate students including: academic challenges, social engagement, and cultural connections. ?Through programmatic interventions, students are expected to establish competency in four learning domains as prescribed by theMSHE program and in alignment with the Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education (CAS): leadership, personal and professional development, education, and social justice and advocacy (California State University Fullerton, 2015). ?To facilitate learning in these domains, the co-curricular program will emphasize: peer mentorship, study halls, cross-cultural exchanges, and a professional development series. We expect students to gain deeper understanding of their own and host culture, identify diverse approaches to learning, and engage in meaningful social interactions by the end of their six-month stay in the United States. Literature ReviewCalifornia State University, Fullerton (CSUF) is among universities in the United States of America aspiring to be a model comprehensive university in the nation. ?CSUF is a public four-year university offering 109 degree programs, including 54 graduate degree programs (CSUF, 2015). ?CSUF serves a diverse population group and is recognized as a Hispanic Serving Institution.Its College of Education distinguished faculty are transformative scholar-practitioners devoted to advancing equity within education and preparing educational leaders who are interested in change and committed to diversity. ?According to International Programs at CSUF, of the 1,541 international students enrolled at the university at the end of spring 2014, 265 were from the Republic of China (California State University Fullerton, 2015).Lee (2015), in Quaye and Harper’s Student Engagement in Higher Education, suggested that the challenges that international students have are: acculturation, academics, and social integration. ?Positive perceptions of the host institution by international students occur when faculty, staff, support resources, and domestic students work together to create learning interactions through academic and social programming (Glass, 2012; Mamieishvli&Ketevan, 2012). ?International students reported being satisfied with their participation in programs, such as personal and professional programs, and described it as beneficial to their adjustment, including promoting academic success and reducing feelings of both social and cultural isolation (Menzie& Baron, 2013; Spivey-Mooring and Aprey, 2014).Goodman, Schlossberg, and Anderson (2006) introduced the 4 S Model to help identify interventions to assist an individual transition; the four “S” stands for: situation, self, support, and strategies. ?Studies were used to identify areas of support and strategies to guide the design of the interventions. ?Understanding that psychosocial development is recycled when students undergo new circumstance, Chickering and Reisser (1993), as cited in Evans et al. (2010), developed seven vectors that focus on psychosocial development; making meaning of one’s self and their relationships is critical for international students (Glass, 2012; Menzie& Baron, 2013).???AcculturationInternational students may experience acculturated stress to the host culture while studying abroad (Lowinger et al., 2014; Sullivan, &Kashubeck-West, 2015). ?In their transition, the discrepancy between their educational experiences from their home country and that of the host country can result in confusion and frustration (Sadykova, 2014). ?As described by Lowinger et al. (2014), Chinese international students do not commonly participate in class or socialize with their new host community due to feelings of insufficient English speaking skills, contributing to this acculturated stress. ?Brown & Jones (2013) also note that the attitude of the host community is key in the welcome of international students and their impression of the host country. ?According to Jarvis (2006), the learning process starts with the whole person and takes into account the social context along with the type of learning and the experience. ?To encourage a connection with the host culture it is important to establishing bonds with domestic peers (Sadykova, 2014).Academics???????Asian international students not only benefit from personal contact in gains of learning, but also benefit from having a higher level of English proficiency to reduce stress in the area of academics (Bista, 2015; Poyrazli&Kavanaugh, 2006). ?Rientes, Beausaert, Grohnert, Niemantsverdriet, and Kommers (2012) recommended that higher education institutions provide international students more information about the specific academic and social culture of the host institution; the MSHE program understands that the Shanghai cohort will need additional support in American Psychological Association (APA) academic style writing and as Angelova&Riazantseva (1999) suggested, faculty and staff should explicitly address this academic need. ?Recognizing the cultural differences in academic and stress management, as stated byMisra, & Castillo (2004), we can better address the academic adaptation needs and design the appropriate strategies for adjustment (Zhou, Frey, & Bang, 2011).???????Although International students were not a focus for Validation theory, marginalized identities were, and Réndon (1994) stated the importance of being active agents of affirmation early on in their transition in a higher education institution operating on the dominant narrative through reassuring marginalized students’ abilities, this concept can serve crucial in the situation of being in a host country and having a different academic culture. ??????SocialAccording to Suspitsyna (2013), the challenge of understanding the social norms from the United States of America, specifically with social norms in college, can pose more difficulty for international students than academic courses. ?To address this issue, it is important for universities to educate international students on the dominant culture and social norms of the host country (Baba, &Hosoda, 2014). ?Research also suggests that international students who demonstrate a strong desire for personal growth tend to adjust better regardless of the various challenges associated to learning a new culture with different social norms; networking is a goal salient as a graduate student (Gardner, & Barnes, 2007;Yakunina, Weigold, Weigold, Hercegovac, &Elsayed, 2013). ?Providing co-curricular engagement opportunities enhances social interactions between domestic and international students (Arkoudis, Watty, Baik, Yu, Borland, Chang, Lang, Lang, & Pearce, 2013).Kuh (1995) can provide us with the context to understand how offeringmultiple opportunities for engagement is important for social development, these opportunities can increase a student’s perception of feeling connected to their environment and can promote interactions with other students and faculty (Farley, McKee, & Brooks, 2011). ?Theory to Practice???????International student engagement in academic and social co-curricular programs allows them to navigate the university effectively and report greater levels of learning and development (Glass, 2012). ?Transition theory, psychosocial theory, adult learning theory, and student engagement theories were used to design academic and social co-curricular interventions for the Shanghai cohort. ?Drawing upon Knefelkamp’s Practice-to-Theory-to-Practice model as outlined by Evans et al. (2010), we were able to identify: challenges and support, learning interventions, and educator responsibilities. Identifying Challenge and SupportThe 4 S Model, described by Goodman et al. (2006), can be used to perform initial intake of the MSHE Shanghai cohort to identify challenges and create co-curricular opportunities. ?The situation can identify this transition as being an anticipated transition in the context of choosing to participate in a hybrid MSHE program that contains six months of instruction abroad. ?Self can be used to identify that the Shanghai cohort are adult students coming from various academic disciplines that have taken the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL). ?Lee (2015) presented challenges in acculturation, academics, and social integration with international student populations, challenges specific to Chinese international students were caused due to differences in academic and social cultures (Bista, 2015; Lowinger et al., 2014; Zhou et al., 2011). ?The identified support can be building a partnership between faculty, staff, student service departments, and domestic students to build strong academic and social support systems (Baba &Hosoda, 2014). ?The strategy, based on findings,can be used to create the interventions of: peer mentorship, study halls, cross-cultural exchanges, and the professional development series.Application to Learning Interventions???????After the co-curricular interventions that addressed the challenges were identified, Kuh’s (1995) definition of engagement as the time and energy spent was used as a framework to measure how engaged a student was. ?Since the Shanghai cohort are adult students, it was fitting to draw upon an adult learning theory. ?Jarvis’ (2006) model of experiential learning, specifies three areas of learning: emotion, thought/reflection, and action, are used to define energy in Kuh’s (1995) definition of engagement. ?It is important to note that Ranjita et al. (2004) states that cultural differences exist in emotional, behavioral, and cognitive management of stress, and Lowinger et al. (2014) recommended that host universities help Chinese international students with psychosocial adjustment. ?Using Jarvis’ (2006) three learning areas as a framework for creating interventions, an integration of Chickering and Reisser’s (1993) seven vectors of psychosocial development would ensure that the content of the interventions will focus on holistic development of the Shanghai cohort while at CSUF.Educator Responsibilities???????It is important to understand that the Shanghai cohort have chosen to pursue graduate studies at CSUF and come with self-motivation, determination, and qualifications. ?The cultural strengths that the Shanghai students bring will be marginalized coming to an institution with different dominant cultural expectations. ?Drawing on Réndon (1994), faculty and staff can make the initial welcoming efforts by actively creating opportunities for strong engagement early on with support and understanding. ?Taking into consideration Sadykova (2014) regarding the need to create close bonds with the host institution among collectivist cultures, it is crucial that faculty and staff also engage in co-curricular programming to achieve student success (Mamieishvli&Ketevan, 2012; Réndon, 1994).Intervention DesignThe conceptual framework of our co-curricular program originates from four of the MSHE core learning domains: leadership, education, social justice and advocacy, and personal and professional development (CSUF, 2015). Each of these domains associates with components from Part 5: The Curriculum, of CAS’s Masters-Level Student Affairs Professional Preparation Programs and with various competencies for the profession outlined by the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators – Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA) (ACPA/NASPA, 2010). By aligning to the CAS guidelines, the learning domains meet professional standards and assure high quality to the implemented programs. As a result, the co-curricular programs encompass a wide range of student learning and development through the perspective of what establishes best practices (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2015).Peer MentorshipOur first learning intervention, the peer mentorship program, pairs current MSHE students with members of the Shanghai cohort (see Appendix A). Through intentional pairing, a mentor-mentee retreat, and structured meetings, students will be able to develop interpersonal relationships in line with Chickering’s theory of identity development. This intervention addresses all four learning domains and is framed using Schlossberg’s Transition Theory and the 4 S model. The mentor-mentee retreat seeks to identify situational aspects, characteristics of self, and psychological coping resources as students “move in” to the American institution. Moreover, as students “move through” the semester, peer mentors provide support and aid students in designing strategies to address academic, social, and cultural challenges. At the conclusion of the semester, students “move out” of their transition, assessing their individual growth in the learning areas identified by Jarvis’ experiential learning model.Study HallsThe second learning intervention offers open study halls that provide opportunities for peer learning assistance (see Appendix B). This structure allows the Shanghai cohort to participate in group-oriented learning that directly addresses academic challenges and benefits from social engagement framed in a collectivistic mindset. The intervention focuses on three learning domains: leadership, education, and social justice and advocacy. It is guided by Knefelkamp’s developmental instruction model, which aligns with Perry’s intellectual and ethical development theory. Proximal development is achieved when the developmental instruction strategies are used in a scaffolding manner. In this way, students exhibiting attributes associated with Perry’s dualism schema, for example, can benefit from diverse points of view, a technique associated with the adjacent schema of multiplicity. This intervention effectively involves students in their learning process.Cross-Cultural ExchangeThe third learning intervention, cross-cultural exchanges, provides the Shanghai cohort with multiple opportunities for exploration of self through multicultural learning (see Appendix C). Students attend monthly field trips in the local region focused on the diverse history and cultures of California. The intervention addresses the domains of education and social justice and advocacy through the introduction of Baxter Magolda’s epistemological reflection model and Phinney’s theory of ethnic identity development. Baxter Magolda’s model allows students to explore their identities through socially constructed patterns. Guided tours exemplify concrete ways of knowing, while the debrief activity challenges students to progress in the more advanced areas of reflection. In doing this, students are able to examine their ethnic identity within their new environment.Professional Development SeriesIn the final intervention, Shanghai students are given a series of professional development workshops similar to a case study.Student groups receive ongoing instruction and guidance to design interventions in light of their chosen student affairs role. The intervention encompasses all four learning domains and is framed in Kolb’s experiential learning model. Students first complete an inventory to examine their learning styles based on Kolb’s theory, keeping these in mind as they draft the various aspects of the case study project. Each component of the project focuses on the aspects of feeling, watching, thinking, or doing, which relate to the elements of concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation, respectively. Through this intervention, students engage in real-world application of course concepts.ConclusionThe proposed interventions will be implemented by: the Education Leadership Department, MSHE faculty, MSHE cohort 7 graduate students, and additional support as needed. The Shanghai cohort students will be strongly advised by the MSHE leadership to participate in all interventions. Students will experience multiple opportunities of co-curricular interventions that will address their social and academic needs. The co-curricular interventions, in addition to the assessment measures, occur throughout the six-month attendance of the Shanghai cohort at CSUF.Evaluation of the interventions can be made using the built in assessments and student learning outcomes outlined in the lesson plans (see Appendices A, B, C, & D). In addition, focus groups can be made to collect qualitative feedback and add assessment measures beyond the scope of the initial measurement focus. The combined feedback can then be used to make further adjustments for improvement to the co-curricular interventions for future Shanghai cohorts by the Educational Leadership Department and MSHE leadership. ReferencesACPA/NASPA. (2010). Professional competency areas for student affairs practitioners. Washington, DC: Author. , M. &Riazantseva, A. (1999). “If you don’t tell me, how can I know?” A case student of four international students learning to write the U.S. way.Written Communication, 16(4), 491-525.Arkoudis, S., Watty, K., Baik, C., Yu, X., Borland, H., Chang, S., & ... Pearce, A. (2013). Finding common ground: Enhancing interaction between domestic and international students in higher education. Teaching In Higher Education, 18(3), 222-235.Baba, Y., &Hosoda, M. (2014). Home away home: Better understanding of the role of social support in predicting cross-cultural adjustment among international students. College Student Journal, 48(1), 1-15.Bista, K. (2015). Asian international students' college experience: Relationship between quality of personal contact and gains in learning. Journal of International & Global Studies, 6(2), 38-54.Brown, L., & Jones, I. (2013). Encounters with racism and the international student experience.Studies in Higher Education, 38(7), 1004-1019.California State University Fullerton. (2015). Educational leadership: Core learning domains. California State University Fullerton.Retrieved July 2, 2015 from: State University Fullerton. (2015). International Student Demographics.California State University Fullerton.Retrieved July 3, 2015 from: . Cloud, T. (2015). CSUF will train 18 graduate students from Shanghai Normal University. College of Education, California State University Fullerton.Retrieved from: for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2012). The role of masters-level student affairs professional preparation programs.Washington, DC: Author. for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2015). Mission, vision, and purpose., K., McKee, M., & Brooks, M. (2011). The effects of student involvement on graduate student satisfaction: A pilot study. Alabama Counseling Association Journal, 37(1), 33-38.Evans N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., &Renn, K. A. (2010). Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Gardner, S. K. & Barnes, B. J. (2007). Graduate student involvement: Socialization for the professional role. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 369-387.Glass, C. (2012). Educational experiences associated with international students’ learning, development, and positive perceptions of campus climate. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(3), 288-251.Goodman, J. , Schlossberg, N. , & Anderson, M. (2006). Counseling Adults in Transition : Linking Practice with Theory. New York, NY: Springer Pub. Co.Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Human Learning.London ; New York, NY: Routledge.Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123-155.Lee, J. J. (2015). Engaging International Students. In S. J. Quaye& S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations(pp. 105-120). New York, NY: Routledge.Lowinger, R. J., He, Z., Lin, M., & Chang, M. (2014). The impact of academic self-efficacy, acculturation difficulties, and language abilities on procrastination behavior in Chinese international students.College Student Journal, 48(1), 141-152.Mamiseishvili, K. (2012). International student persistence in U.S. postsecondary institutions.Higher Education, 64, 1-17.Misra, R., & Castillo, L. G. (2004). Academic stress among college students; Comparison among American and international students. International Journal of Stress Management, 11(2), 132-148.Menzies, J. L. & Baron, R. (2013). International postgraduate student transition experiences: The importance of student societies and friends. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51(1), 84-94.Poyrazli, S. &Kavanaugh, P. R. (2006). Marital status, ethnicity, academic achievement, and adjustment strains: The case of graduate international students. College Student Journal, 40(4), 767-680.Rendon, L. I. (1994). Validating culturally diverse students: Toward a new model of learning student development. Innovative Higher Education, 19(1), 33-51.Rienties, B., Beausaert, S., Grohnert, T., Niemantsverdriet, S., &Kommers, P. (2012). Understanding academic performance of international students: The role of ethnicity, academic and social integration. Higher Education, 63(6), 685-700.Sadykova, G. (2014). Mediating knowledge through peer-to-peer interaction in a multicultural online learning environment: A case study of international students in the US. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(3), 24-49.Spivey-Mooring, T. &Apprey, C. B. (2014). University of Virginia graduate mentoring institute: A model program for graduate student success. Peabody Journal of Education, 89, 393-410.Sullivan, C. &Kashubeck-West, S. (2015). The interplay of international students’ acculturative stress, social support, and acculturation modes.Journal of International Students, 5(1), 1-11.Suspitsyna, T. (2013). Socialization as sensemaking: a semiotic analysis of international graduate students' narratives in the USA. Studies In Higher Education, 38(9), 1351-1364.Yakunina, E. S., Weigold, I. K., Weigold, A., Hercegovac, S., &Elsayed, N. (2013). International students' personal and multicultural strengths: Reducing acculturative stress and promoting adjustment. Journal Of Counseling & Development, 91(2), 216-223.Zhou, Y., Frey, C., & Bang, H. (2011). Understanding of international graduate students’ academic adaptation to a U.S. graduate school.International Education, 41(1), 76-94.Appendix ASHANGHAI COHORT CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM LESSON PLANPeer MentorshipStudent Learning OutcomesSWiBAT share (values) three aspects of their self-identities with their mentors.SWiBATcompare and contrast (analysis) at least two of the three areas of support with strategies (transition theory)as it pertains to their transition as a Shanghai MSHE student at CSUF. SWiBAT connect (contextualize) their experience as a mentee to their learning by sharing two concrete experiences. Primary Learning Domains AddressedLeadershipEducationSocial Justice &AdvocacyPersonal & Professional DevelopmentConnections to Theory and/or Student CharacteristicsTheoryThe first student learning outcome will assist Shanghai MSHE students in their development of identity. Utilizing Chickering and Reissner’s (1993) theory of identity development, they will focus on three vectors; establishing identity, developing mature interpersonal relationships and managing emotions.To second student learning outcome will support the transition of Shanghai MSHE students by providing activities that have been designed focusing on the self and support of the 4 S Model along with Schlossberg’s (1981) transition theory.The third student learning outcome will allow students to draw on Jarvis’ (2006) emotion and thought/reflection learning areas.Drawing on Kuh (1995), various amounts of activities will provide Shanghai MSHE students multiple engagement opportunities. Retreat activities will allow mentors will serve as active agents of affirmation for Shanghai MSHE students incorporating Rendon’s (1994) Validation Theory.To avoid feelings of isolation, the three student learning outcomes provide Shanghai MSHE students opportunity for social integration pulling on Vincent Tinto Theory of Student Departure (1993).Student CharacteristicsAcademic challengesSocial engagementCultural connectionsAssessment StrategyAdvancedCompetentBasicNeeds ImprovementSLO#1Students qualified three aspects of their self-identities by sharing them with their mentor and provided clear context.Students shared three aspects of their self-identities by sharing them with their mentor and provided context.Students disclosed (responded) three aspects of their self-identities by sharing them with their mentor and provide little to no context.Student chose three aspects of their self-identity by sharing them with their mentor and provided no context. SLO#2Students were able to synthesize all three areas of their support with strategies (transition theory) as it pertains to their transition as a Shanghai MSHE student at CSUF.Students were able to compare and contrast (analysis) at least two of the three areas of identified support with strategies (transition theory) as it pertains to their transition as a Shanghai MSHE student at CSUF. Students were able to apply at least two of the three areas of identified support with strategies (transition theory) as it pertains to their transition as a Shanghai MSHE student at CSUF.Students were able to identify at least one of the three areas of identified support with strategies (transition theory) as it pertains to their transition as a Shanghai MSHE student at CSUF.SLO#3Student integrated their experience as a mentee to their learning by sharing two concrete experiences that showed personal growth.Student connected (contextualize) their experience as a mentee to their learning by sharing two concrete experiences.Student recognized that their experience as a mentee to their learning by sharing two experiences.Students observed their experience as a mentee to their learning by sharing one experience.*Student Learning Outcomes are based from Hoffman (2015) Designing Theory-Informed RubricsComponent 1: Pairing Reveal and Peer Mentor RetreatSet-Up, Materials Needed, etc.Current MSHE students (cohort 7) willing to serve as mentorsQuestionnaire (for pairing)Each student receives an email with a link to the online questionnaire.Questionnaire gathers information about individuals’ characteristics and preferences and is used in a pairing system based on Chickering’s identity development theory.Questionnaires must be submitted within one week.HELO ice-breaker/activityHELO provides materials.Retreat handoutLists suggestions for conversation starters and nearby activities.Each pair receives one handout.Gifts (suggested)Gifts are up to the discretion of the mentor and should reflect their own culture, preferences, etc.Activity OutlineMembers of the Shanghai cohort and current cohorts (7 and 8) receive an email with the link to a Google form questionnaire, along with a brief description of the peer mentorship program, the roles of mentor/mentee, and how the pairing system is set up. ?Printed copies of the questionnaire are made available upon request. ?The Google form questionnaire serves to gather information about individuals’ characteristics and preferences. The last question on the form (not pictured) asks Shanghai students to draft a letter to their future selves. This letter is meant to be reflective in nature and draws on Jarvis’ experiential learning model as students write about their holistic selves in their “life world.” As students express characteristics of their self in light of their situation, they are also incorporating the 4 S model.Example questions for Google form questionnaire:Google form questionnaires must be submitted within one week.HELO Professional Development Coordinators pair a Shanghai student with a member of cohort 7. ?In a similar instance, a second pairing occurs between a member of cohort 8 and a member of cohort 7. ?This presents the possibility for an interdependent relationship wherein mentoring may additionally occur between the member of cohort 8 and the Shanghai student, as shown below. ? C7C8Shanghaia.In line with Chickering’s identity development theory, pairings consider both commonalities and differences between individuals’ cultural and personal experiences in an effort to create healthy relationships among peers.No more than 2 weeks later, a pairing reveal and peer mentor retreat takes place.Participants meet on campus in a designated location. Mentors are encouraged beforehand to bring a small gift for their mentee(s) that reflects their own culture, preferences, etc.HELO Professional Development Coordinators execute an ice-breaker/activity to reveal the pairings (10 minutes).Facilitators provide suggestions for conversation starters and nearby activities in a handout (5 mintues). Some conversation starters are reflective of Schlossberg’s transition theory and the 4 S model. For example, learning an individual’s basic information may encompass characteristics of situation, self, and support if individuals disclose their concurrent stressors, personal and demographic characteristics, or existing support systems. Conversations will likely incorporate Rendon’s validation theory as mentors take on a confirming and supportive role.Conversation Starters:Basic information: name, age, identities, upbringing, etc.Student Affairs: functional areas of interest, MSHE expectations, etc.Role Expectations: for mentor and menteePersonal: hobbies, interests, favorites, current feelings, etc.Nearby Activities:Parks and recreationDiningMallOn-campus locationsInstruct mentors to choose an activity to participate in with their mentee(s). Activities may be from list or can be decided among pairs. Encourage pairs to discover and value the commonalities and differences between them in order to build mature interpersonal relationships, keeping in mind Chickering’s vectors.All pairs must arrive back on campus after 2 hours.When all pairs return, a group discussion takes place. Encourage participants to share one thing they learned about their mentor/mentee (30 minutes).Component 2: Structured MeetingsSet-Up, Materials Needed, etc.HandoutEach student receives one handout.One handout from each pair is collected when all 6 meetings are completed.Handout provides information pertaining to critical barriers of international graduate students and Schlossberg’s transition model along with a structured meeting chart.Activity OutlineEach mentor receives a handout outlining critical barriers typically experienced by international graduate students including: academic challenges, social engagement, and cultural connections. Along with this, Schlossberg’s transition model is provided to help examine the mentee’s current state of self and situation and serves as a guideline for identifying support and strategies. A chart, similar to the one below, follows the brief descriptions to provide structure for the peer mentor meetings.a.Meeting date, time, and location are up to the pairing’s discretionSupportStrategiesAcademicDate:Time:Notes:Initials: ______ & ______ Mentor MenteeDate:Time:Notes:Initials: ______ & ______ Mentor MenteeSocialDate:Time:Notes:Initials: ______ & ______ Mentor MenteeDate:Time:Notes:Initials: ______ & ______ Mentor MenteeCulturalDate:Time:Notes:Initials: ______ & ______ Mentor MenteeDate:Time:Notes:Initials: ______ & ______ Mentor MenteeInstruct mentors to assist in identifying support and strategies during their meetings. Meetings should be at least 1 hour and all 6 meetings should be completed within the first 2 months of receiving their mentee(s). a.Due to the nature of the meeting topics and mentors’ existing knowledge of student development theory, we encourage mentors to use other student development theories to support their assertions. For example, mentors may use Knefelkamp’s +1 staging to aid students in moving from diffusion to moratorium in Phinney’s model of ethnic identity development during one of their “cultural” ponent 3: BanquetSet-Up, Materials Needed, etc.Room ReservationEvent takes place in the TSU. Reservation is made as soon as possible.University Conference Center takes care of set-up, breakdown, and equipment use.DecorationsHELO provides decorations for venue and sets up at least 1 hour in advance.Programs printed by Digital Print Services at least 2 days in advance.Slideshow PresentationRequest pictures 3 weeks in advance.Equipment for slideshow presentation is provided by University Conference Center.CateringGastronome caters dinner for all attendees. Gastronome sets up serving area and cleans after event.LettersBring letters from Component 1.Pass out paper and writing utensils for revised letter activity.Activity OutlineAt the end of the semester (approximately 4 months later), pairs participate in an informal banquet. Faculty and administration may also attend.We provide opening remarks about the mentorship program and present highlights via a presentation of pictures (10 minutes).Participants receive dinner. During dinner, participants are able to mingle with MSHE students, faculty, and administration (30 minutes).Shanghai students receive their letters from Component 1 (5 minutes).Instruct Shanghai students to read their letters to their mentor. Together, the pairs draft a revised letter addressing their learning in three areas described by Jarvis’ experiential learning model: emotion, thought/reflection, and action (30 minutes).Students may choose to work individually on their revised letters if they are uncomfortable sharing it with their mentor.Collect revised letters to assess student learning.Instruct pairs to reflect on their experiences with one another, including final thoughts and expressions of gratitude (10 minutes).Take group photo (1 minute).Anticipated BudgetComponent 1: $0Component 2: $0Component 3: $600+taxCatering: 50 people (anticipated) x $12 (per person) = $600+taxAssessment ResultsTBDAppendix BSHANGHAI COHORT CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM LESSON PLANStudy HallStudent Learning OutcomesSWiBAT connect (contextualize) their academic needs with the study hall by identifying two “muddiest points” at sign-in. SWiBATdistinguish (analyze) what methods of interventions were most helpful clarifying their “muddiest points” by indicating one from each of the four sections of Knefelkamp’s Developmental Instruction Model.Primary Learning Domains AddressedLeadershipEducationSocial Justice & AdvocacyPersonal & Professional DevelopmentConnections to Theory and/or Student CharacteristicsTheoryThe first student learning outcome will support the academic growth of Shanghai MSHE students by providing an opportunity for academic integration pulling on Vincent Tinto Theory of Student Departure (1993).The second student learning outcome uses Knefelkamp’s Developmental Instruction Model to assist Shanghai MSHE students in analyzing the muddiest points during study hall activity.The student learning outcomes will assist Shanghai MSHE students in their development of identity. Utilizing Chickering and Reissner’s (1993) theory of identity development, they will focus on two vectors; developing competence, developing mature interpersonal relationships.The student learning outcomes will integrate two clusters of student development theory – the intended shifts in learning to include emotion, thought/reflection, and action are consistent with Jarvis’(2006) experiential learning theory; students will additionally draw upon specific aspects of Schlossberg’s(1981) transition theory and the 4 S Model.Drawing on Kuh (1995), study halls will provide Shanghai MSHE students multiple engagement opportunities. Study halls will allow facilitators to serve as active agents of affirmation for Shanghai MSHE students incorporating Rendon’s (1994) Validation Theory.Student CharacteristicsAcademic challengesSocial engagement: peer learningCultural connections: group oriented (collectivistic)Assessment StrategyAdvancedCompetentBasicNeeds ImprovementSLO#1Students transcended (contextualize) their academic needs with the study hall by identifying two “muddiest points” at sign-in and provide context and analysis.Students connected (contextualize) their academic needs with the study hall by identifying two “muddiest points” at sign-in.Students recognized (aspect identification)their academic needs with the study hall by identifying one “muddiest point” at sign-in.Student was not able to recognize a “muddiest point” when signing-in to study hall. SLO#2Students evaluated what methods of interventions were most helpful clarifying their “muddiest points” by indicating at least one from each of the four sections of Knefelkamp’s Developmental Instruction Model, and provided qualitative feedback.Students distinguished (analyze) what methods of interventions were most helpful clarifying their “muddiest points” by indicating one from each of the four sections of Knefelkamp’s Developmental Instruction Model.Students completed (applying/doing) what methods of interventions were most helpful clarifying their “muddiest points” by indicating one from at least three of the four sections of Knefelkamp’s Developmental Instruction Model.Students reported (understanding) what methods of interventions were most helpful clarifying their “muddiest points” by indicating one from at least tone of the four sections of Knefelkamp’s Developmental Instruction Model.*Student Learning Outcomes are based from Hoffman (2015) Designing Theory-Informed RubricsSet-Up, Materials Needed, etc.Room reservationReservation made through University Conference CenterRoom is available on a weekly basis for one hourRequest projector, white board, and dry erase markersProjector will continuously display Knefelkamp’s Developmental Instruction ModelWhite board and dry erase markers can be used for visual study purposesPeopleStudy hall is open to Shanghai cohort, Cohort 7, and Cohort 8 studentsStudents may come and go as they pleaseFaculty member(s) may be present, if availableSchedule of present faculty is sent via email prior to study hallFlip chart (large Post-its) and markersCan be used for visual study purposesActivity OutlineStudents enter room at various times. As they enter, they write name on sign in sheet and disclose their “muddiest points” (areas in which they will need help with clarity). As students enter, facilitator (faculty, if present) reminds students to utilize Knefelkamp’s developmental instruction model (displayed on projector screen).Knefelkamp’s Developmental Instruction Model*StructureRehearse evaluation tasksGive detailed explanations of assignmentsUse specific examples that reflect students’ experiencesDiversityIntroduce variety in:readings,assignments,points of view, andinstructional methods.Experiential LearningInclude case studiesConduct role playsIntroduce exercises that facilitate a reflection on and application of the materialPersonalismHave enthusiasm for the materialBe availableProvide comprehensive feedback*Information is directly cited from Evans et al., 2010.Facilitator continuously walks around room, encouraging students to approach peers if clarification of course content or further understanding of material is needed.Facilitator applies Knefelkamp’s plus-one staging by pairing individuals who exemplify adjacent schemas in Perry’s intellectual and ethical developmental model.As students exit, facilitator gives them an assessment survey (see below).Student completes assessment survey and returns it to facilitator.Sample Study Hall Assessment*At any point during the study hall, did you need clarification of course concepts? Y/NAt any point during the study hall, did you require deeper understanding of material? Y/NDid you engage in peer learning to support your learning? Y/NIf you answered Yes to Question #3, check the strategies employed by the peer(s) that helped you:StructureRehearsed evaluation tasksGave detailed explanations of assignmentsUsed specific examples that reflect students’ experiencesDiversityIntroduced variety in readingsIntroduced variety in assignmentsIntroduced variety in points of viewsIntroduced variety in instructional methodsExperiential LearningIncluded case studiesConducted role playsIntroduced exercises that facilitated a reflection on the materialIntroduced exercises that facilitated an application of the materialPersonalismHad enthusiasm for the materialWas availableProvided comprehensive feedback*Information is directly cited from Evans et al., 2010.Anticipated Budget$0Assessment ResultsTBDAppendix CSHANGHAI COHORT CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM LESSON PLANCross-Cultural ExchangesStudent Learning OutcomesSWiBAT initiate (values) conversation about own thoughts/feelings regarding the material observed during the trip by providing input in discussion. SWiBAT connect (contextualize) their self-culture with a different culture by providing two similarities. SWiBATdistinguish (analyze) difference in past knowledge about cultures by providing two key findings that differed from initial perception. Primary Learning Domains AddressedLeadershipEducationSocial Justice &AdvocacyPersonal & Professional DevelopmentConnections to Theory and/or Student CharacteristicsTheoryThe first student learning outcome will allow Shanghai MHSE students to draw on Jarvis’ (2006) emotion and thought/reflection learning areas integrating self of the 4 S Model of Schlossberg’s (1981) transition theory.The second student learning outcome provides Shanghai MHSE students the opportunity to reflect on their ethnic identity through discussions and activity handouts using Phinney’s Model of Ethnic Identity Development as a guide.The third learning outcome will support the academic growth asShanghi MSHE students as they analyze their experiences pulling on the academic integration of Vincent Tinto Theory of Student Departure (1993) and Baxter Magolda’s Model of Epistemological Reflection.Drawing on Kuh (1995), cross-cultural exchanges will provide Shanghai MSHE students multiple engagement opportunities. Student CharacteristicsAcademic challengesSocial engagementCultural connectionsAssessment StrategyAdvancedCompetentBasicNeeds ImprovementSLO#1Students Studentsdefended,(Organizes Values) through conversation, own thoughts/feelings regarding the material observed during the trip by providing substantial input in discussion.Studentsinitiated (values) conversation about own thoughts/feelings regarding the material observed during the trip by providing input in discussion.Students shared (respond to phenomena) own thoughts/feelings regarding the material observed during the trip by naming their emotional state and providing little to no input in discussion. Students did not share (receive phenomena) thoughts/feelings regarding the material observed during the trip by not providing input in discussion.SLO#2Students integrate (synthesize) their self-culture with a different culture by providing three well-conceptualized similarities. Students connect (contextualize) their self-culture with a different culture by providing two similarities. Students applied their self-culture with a different culture by providing one similarity. Students could not provide one similarity with their self-culture with a different culture.SLO#3Student integrated (transcendence) past knowledge about cultures, by providing two findings that differed from initial perception, with adjusted perceptions. Student distinguished (analyze) differences in past knowledge about cultures by providing two key findings that differed from initial perception, and describe why.Student recognized (Aspect Identification) differences in past knowledge about cultures by providing one key findings that differed from initial perception.Students could not observe differences form past knowledge of cultures and new findings.*Student Learning Outcomes are based from Hoffman (2015) Designing Theory-Informed RubricsSet-Up, Materials Needed, etc.TransportationBuses transport students and instructors to and from select destination.CateringCatering provided by Subway. Lunch boxes are picked up prior to lunchtime.AdmissionCoordinators purchase tickets prior to activity.Coordinators arrange tours prior to activity.Notepads and writing utensilsStudents bring note-taking items.Activity Outline*Absolute LearningPrior to activity, instructors pass out handout (1 minute).Students travel on buses or on own to select destinations as a whole group (time varies).Autry National Center, Los Angeles, CA(September)Various ethnic communities, Los Angeles, CA (October)Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA), Los Angeles, CA (November)Disney California Adventure - California Story Tour, Anaheim, CA (December)Instructors and/or tour guides present facts and history relative to location (time varies).Students have break for lunch (30 minutes).Students engage in self-guided tour, exploring areas of interest (time varies).Transitional LearningFollowing tour, instructors and students meet at designated group location (e.g., picnic tables, conference room, etc. as available).Instructors ask students to reflect on content learned from the tour by completing first question on the handout (see below, 5 minutes). Tell students to keep paper until end of day.Guiding question: What do you know about _____?Independent KnowingIn large group, instructors ask students to share their views and opinions regarding the subject matter (15 minutes).Guiding question: What do you think about _____?Contextual KnowingDivide students into groups of 3 (1 minute).Instructors ask students to make connections between their social life and the subject matter presented (15 minutes).Instructors encourage students to critique peers’ viewpoints and apply course content to the subject matter.AssessmentInstructors ask students to reflect on their ethnic identity by completing second question on the handout (see below, 10 minutes).Instructors collect papers to assess in light of the rubric.Sample HandoutWhat did you learn about ___________ from the tour?How did the information provided on the tour affect your understanding of your ethnic identity? Consider your thoughts about ethnic identity prior to the tour and after the debrief.*The initial four steps of the lesson plan roughly follow Baxter Magolda’s Epistemological Reflection Model of cognitive learning.Anticipated BudgetSeptember (Autry National Center): $803+taxTransportation: $400 entire day (estimated)Admission: $12 per person x 23 people (anticipated) = $288+taxFood (Subway): $5 per lunch box x 23 people (anticipated) = $115+taxOctober (Various ethnic communities): $400Transportation: $400 entire day (estimated)Admission: $0Food: not providedNovember (LACMA): $803+taxTransportation: $400 entire day (estimated)Admission: $12 per person x 23 people (anticipated) = $288+taxFood (Subway): $5 per lunch box x 23 people (anticipated) = $115+taxDecember: $2507+taxTransportation: not providedAdmission: $109 per person x 23 people (anticipated) = $2507+taxFood: not providedEstimated Total: $4513+taxAssessment ResultsTBDAppendix DSHANGHAI COHORT CO-CURRICULAR PROGRAM LESSON PLANProfessional Development SeriesStudent Learning OutcomesSWiBAT share how their learning style (according to Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory) by providing three examples. SWiBAT analyzed the case study to student services by providing a thorough presentation (12 minutes). SWiBATconnect (contextualization) the needs of the students in the case study with at least two student services and two theoretical frameworks. Primary Learning Domains AddressedLeadershipEducationSocial Justice & AdvocacyPersonal & Professional DevelopmentConnections to Theory and/or Student CharacteristicsTheoryThe first student learning outcome will provide Shanghai MSHE students an opportunity to explore their learning styles from their results of Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory.The second and third student learning outcomes will assist Shanghai MSHE students in their development of competence and mature interpersonal relationships utilizing Chickering and Reissner’s (1993) theory of identity development.The thirdstudent learning outcome integrates two clusters of student development theory – the intended shifts in learning to include emotion, thought/reflection, and action are consistent with Jarvis’(2006) experiential learning theory; students will additionally draw upon specific aspects of Schlossberg’s(1981) transition theory and the 4 S Model.Drawing on Kuh (1995), the student learning outcomes will provide Shanghai MSHE students multiple engagement opportunities.To support their academic growth, the three student learning outcomes provide Shanghai MSHE students opportunity for academic integration pulling on Vincent Tinto Theory of Student Departure (1993).Student CharacteristicsAcademic challengesSocial engagement: peer learningCultural connections: group oriented (collectivistic)Assessment StrategyAdvancedCompetentBasicNeeds ImprovementSLO#1Students qualify how their learning style (according to Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory) by providing three examples.Students shared how their learning style (according to Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory) by providing two examples.Students answered (respond to phenomena) how their learning style (according to Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory) by providing one examples.Student could not identify how their learning style (according to Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory) applied to their learning style. SLO#2Students integrate (synthesize) the case study to student services by providing a thorough presentation (15 minutes). Students analyzed the case study to student services by providing a well- constructed presentation (12 minutes). Students applied the case study to student services by providing a good presentation (9 minutes). Students were not able to case study to student services by providing a good presentation (9 minutes).SLO#3Student integrated (transcendence) the needs of the students in the case study with at least three student services and two theoretical frameworks from different clusters.Student connected (contextualization) the needs of the students in the case study with at least two student services and two theoretical frameworks.Student recognized (Aspect Identification) the needs of the students in the case study with at least two student services and two theoretical frameworks.Students observed their experience as a mentee to their learning by sharing one experience.*Student Learning Outcomes are based from Hoffman (2015) Designing Theory-Informed RubricsSet-Up, Materials Needed, etc.Room reservationsUniversity Conference Center reserves meeting room in TSU each month.White board, markers, tablesFinal month requires two rooms: (1) presentation room and (2) lunch roomPresentation room: projector, screenLunch room: catering from GastronomePrinted copy of case study and judging criteriaOne handout per studentCase study is retrieved from past NASPA Annual Case Study Competition.Activity Outline*Concrete Experience (Month 1)Explain the purpose of the case study. Allow time and space for questions (5 minutes). Divide students into groups of 3 and assign a cohort 7 facilitator (1 minute).Give students printed copies of case study and judging criteria (1 minute).Instruct students to thoroughly read case study and identify key aspects of the case study including the problems/issues (3 minutes).Allot time for students to read and analyze case study with a cohort 7 facilitator. Program coordinator is present to clarify concepts or instructions if needed (time varies).Reflective Observation (Month 2)Instruct students to sit with their case study groups. Summarize the details of case study on whiteboard (10 minutes).Instruct students to choose the role of a student affairs professional presented in the case study (2 minutes). Instruct students to consider background information and context from perspective of the chosen role. Program coordinator is present to clarify concepts or instructions if needed (time varies). Abstract Conceptualization (Month 3) Instruct students to sit with their case study groups.Have each group share what role they selected (3 minutes).Pass out list of suggested theories for use in case study (1 minute).Instruct students to use theories, literature, and/or best practices to design interventions in light of chosen role. Program coordinator is present to clarify concepts or instructions if needed (time varies).Instruct students to prepare a visual presentation of their case study incorporating all aspects previously devised.Active Experimentation (Month 4)Case study groups are assigned a presentation time. Each group presents their case study in front a faculty judging panel (15 minutes maximum per group)Judges can ask questions regarding case study presentation (5 minutes).Students receive lunch after their presentation concludes.Within one week, all presentations are made available on Google Drive for students to access.AssessmentDuring lunch, students work in their case study groups to complete the assessment form. *As demonstrated in Hoffman’s (2015) case study example, the initial four steps of the lesson plan roughly follow Kolb’s (1984) cycle of experiential learning.Anticipated BudgetLunch: 30 people (anticipated) x $8 per person = $240 Assessment ResultsTBD ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download