Transcript Virtual Case Study: Student Affairs Practice and The Use of Technology Colorado State University Team Leader: Dain Gotto Team: Landy Douglas Elliott, Tim Love, and Gretchen Streiff.

Virtual Case Study:
Student Affairs
Practice and The Use
of Technology
Colorado State University
Team Leader: Dain Gotto
Team: Landy Douglas Elliott,
Tim Love, and Gretchen Streiff
Student Affairs Practice and
The Use of Technology
The Issues:
1. Assessment
2. Campus Security Services
3. Distance Learning
4. Self Expression and Identity Development
5. Student Conduct and Judicial Affairs
Assessment and Technology
Student-centered research is nothing new, but the ways in which it is accomplished have dramatically
altered how we collect data and how it can quickly inform changes in student affairs practice. With
tools such as the Educational Benchmarking, Inc (EBI), Student Voice, and others that allow colleges
and universities to ask specialized questions about programs and services offered at their specific
institution.
Student affairs divisions have also felt the pressure from university presidents and perhaps more
powerfully, from federal mandates for accountability and transparency of programs and services that
universities are providing for students. To illustrate this increased emphasis on the use of assessment
in student affairs practice, let us further explore the issues of accountability and transparency, and
information for program improvement.
Transparency & Accountability
Issue: State and federal legislators are increasingly calling for transparency and
accountability in higher education. They would like a system in place to track
academic, enrollment, and financial aid records in order to compare institutions and
to be ensured universities are benefiting the public economically and socially
(Fischer, 2006).
Impact: Databases and records systems are becoming essential to universities in tracking
student progress while in college and after graduation. As of 2006, 39 states had at
least one student-unit record system in place. Margaret Spelling’s Commission on
the Future of Higher Education recently proposed establishing a nation-wide
student record system (Fischer, 2006).
Recommendations: University administrators need to be proactive in learning about
tracking and assessment systems such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System Survey (Ipeds) and the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE)
(Lederman, 2007). Doing so proves to legislators that higher education is concerned
with improving our services and allows universities to select assessment systems
which they feel are most effective (“How can”, 2004).
Information for Program Improvement
Issue:
Millenial students have come to expect a great deal from the educational systems that have
been taught them (DeBard, 2004). As a result administrators who work with these students have been
forced to pay attention to their needs and desires. Additionally, there are increasingly greater
demands from upper level administrators such as presidents and vice presidents, and governing
bodies that become responsible for improvements of the institution.
Impact: As administrators are asking directly for continuously improved programs and services,
students affairs professionals are being forced to look at the quantitative data about these programs
and services. At The Ohio State University (2007), their Student Affairs Assessment Office is directly
responsible for providing information that will enhance programs and services. As is the case at many
institutions, the connection between students being involved in learning outside the academic
classroom has been enhanced through student affairs programs and opportunities for student
involvement (Astin, 1984). At an administrative level, the importance of getting students involved has
translated to overall student learning, satisfaction, retention, and success (The Ohio State University,
2007). These institutional mandates for program improvement have largely been enhanced by the use
of assessment technologies.
Recommendations: Student affairs professionals should become familiar with the various assessment
tools such as the EBI and Student Voice. While individual student experiences are very important, it
is also important for student affairs to take notice of research that is being done on their campus and
at peer institutions to make programs and services more meaningful and have a greater impact on
overall student success. Additionally, in a time when funding for higher education is scarce, it is
critical that student affairs professionals are able to sell the benefits of their programs and services to
administrators and faculty, and to be able to show substantial evidence that what they are doing is
effecting student success.
What Impact Does Technological Innovation
Have on Campus Security Services?
In the context of campus safety and security, technological innovation is a “double-edged
sword;” advances in technology can simultaneous enhance and hinder the security of a
campus.
To illustrate this dynamic, let us explore three categories of technology that have had a
dramatic impact on campus security: personal communications, databasing, and security
enforcement tools.
Cell Phones
and Personal Communications Technology
Issue:
According to a recent web report by Campus Technology (2008), 97% of college
students polled reported owning a cell phone. While this figure probably comes as no surprise
to most student affairs administrators, what may be surprising is the impact that such
widespread use of cell phones has on campus security.
Impact: On the positive side, some campuses are capitalizing on this trend to gain the ability to
send emergency messages via text messaging. Companies such as clearTXT provide campuses
the means to immediately notify the entire student body of potential crises via the cell phones
that most students carry (clearTXT, 2008).
Aside from emergency text capabilities, the use of cell phones by students can improve
the safety of students by the mere ability to contact or be contacted from virtually anywhere.
Students can now call 9-1-1 for help without needing to locate a phone, for example.
One challenge to campus safety posed by the widespread use of cell phones is the use
of these devices to facilitate stalking or harassment. At Colorado State University, for example,
numerous incidents have been reported where students have been threatened or harassed via
text messaging. Although “text-harassment” provides another avenue for victims to feel
threatened, student affairs personnel should be aware that such messages have been
considered viable forms of evidence in many court cases (e.g. Dickens v. State, 2007), and
therefore can provide a useful tool in adjudicating cases involving such behavior.
Recommendations: Student affairs personnel should familiarize themselves with new
advancements in personal communication technology as they become mainstream. When new
technologies play a role in the investigation of student conduct violations, legal counsel should
be consulted to ensure compliance with emerging legal trends.
Databases, the Internet,
and Electronic Data Sourcing
Issue:
Although it has been used widely since the early 1990s, the internet has been one of the
most important catalysts in changing the way information is stored, accessed, and shared in
today’s society. With recent and ongoing developments in the creative use of the internet, such
as “Web 2.0” (O’Reilly, 2006) innovations like social networking sites and blogs, it is clear that
such growth will continue to affect campus security in various ways.
Impact: The most obvious impact on campus safety is seen in the way virtual information is
stored on the internet. By utilizing websites effectively, campus safety officers can make
policies, procedures, and guidelines publicly available to all interested students by posting
them online. For example, Loyola University Chicago made its emergency protocol for dealing
with a pandemic flu outbreak available on the web in 2006 (Kosiba, et. al, 2006).
Other universities have used the capabilities of the internet to allow students to share
information confidentially about criminal activity, such as hazing (George Washington
University, 2008). Through the internet, students can confidentially share information that
they may otherwise keep to themselves.
In terms of negative impact, databases of private information accessible through the
internet have become prime targets for all manners of criminal activity (Duke University, 2007;
Fox News, 2006). Universities must remain vigilant to protect sensitive information such as
social security numbers from hackers who would use such data for identity theft and other
criminal activities.
Other ways that the internet poses problems for campus security personnel include the
use of social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace by stalkers and the ease of illegal
activity such as downloading music from P2P (peer-to-peer) software such as Kazaa and
Limewire by students. These and other potential impacts must be closely monitored by
university personnel
Databases, the Internet,
and Electronic Data Sourcing (continued)
Recommendations: Due to the ever-changing technological capabilities that the internet
provides, student affairs personnel must diligently educate themselves and their students
about the real-life consequences of actions in the virtual world. Educational programs
informing students of the consequences of downloading music, for example, can protect
students from severe legal sanctions in the long run.
Additionally, student affairs offices around the country must invest significant
resources in their IT staff and personnel to ensure the safety of students’ information
stored on the internet. The implementation of new technology requires skilled
professionals to maintain and update software and applications, and universities should
hesitate to invest in the hottest new program unless they are willing also to invest in the
human elements needed to make such programs useful.
Law Enforcement and Safety Technologies
Issue:
Gone are the days when campus security officers had only a can of pepper spray, a
baton, and their wits to protect themselves in dangerous situations on campus. New
technologies such as tasers, Segways, and secluded cameras need to be considered
carefully for the benefits they provide and the challenges they pose.
Impact: The question of whether or not campus security officers should have access to
tasers, non-lethal devices that immobilize aggressive parties with electric current, has
become a hot topic since high-profile incidents such as the tasing of a University of
Florida student in September of last year (Wilmath, 2007). While such tools provide
needed support for security officers in dangerous situations, the impact on relations
between administrators and students on campus can be strained if dialogue between the
two is inadequate.
Since Worcester Polytechnic Institute became the first university to provide its
safety officers with Segway Personal Transporters (PTs) in 2002, many campuses have
followed this trend. Segway PTs, which resemble a strange-looking scooter, have been
effective as ice-breakers and points of conversation at WPI (Segway, 2002). Like the use of
cameras on campus, which have distinct benefits in assisting in the investigation of crime
but present a substantial financial burden, the necessity of Segways is called into
question by students who ultimately fund the purchase.
Recommendations: The savvy student affairs professional will involve students whenever
possible in decisions about whether and how to invest money in new security
technologies.
Distance Learning
Student affairs has been offering essential support services online
for several years now, however, it is time our profession overhauls
our online services to fully integrate into distance learning systems.
Doing so will allow us to develop the “whole student” in both
physical and virtual worlds and will improve retention for the 3.5
million students now taking college courses online (Clark, 2008).
Delivering services online will not take the place of the traditional
face-to-face support student affairs typically offers, but it can be
used to enhance services and reach new audiences.
When modernizing student affairs online services, professionals
should focus on the provision of services, creation of community,
oversight of campus-wide distance education, and preparation of
student affairs graduate students (Kretovics, 2003).
Provision of Services
Student affairs has incorporated technology into many of the services it provides, however, they have not
done so with distance education in mind (Kretovics, 2003).

We need to think about all of an institution’s online services offered as a whole instead of looking
at services offered as separate units. This will help administrators assess and improve the overall
experience distance learning students are receiving (Dadabhoy, 2001).

Developing a single point of entry for students to access all the campus resources they need can
help develop a virtual community (Kretovics, 2003).

Just as ecology physical campus should regularly be evaluated, professionals should evaluate the
ecology of a virtual campus to determine how it will affect student learning and behavior
(Kretovics, 2003).

Having a thorough understanding of the distance learning platform can help administrators
better understand how to navigate the system and communicate with students in the most
effective ways possible (Kretovics, 2003).

Assessment is essential to determine whether distance learning programs are achieving the
desired outcomes and to ensure the missions of the institution and division are being met
(Kretovics, 2003).
Creation of Community
Web design professionals, technology professionals, and faculty may not have
community-building skills; therefore, little has been done to foster relationship
building and to create out-of-class experiences online.
 Student affairs professionals can utilize their expertise to transfer communitybuilding to the virtual world.
 Developing community and fostering social integration is an effective way of
increasing retention.
 Successful virtual communities (Wachter et al., 2000):
 help students determine what resources serve their needs and how to
access those resources.
 integrate content with capability for members to discuss content and
exchange ideas.
 encourages member-generated content.
 increases quality of information, products, or services offered to students.
Oversight of Campus-Wide
Distance Education
Distance learning programs are often created without student affairs in
mind. Having a student affairs professional on an oversight committee
for distance education would bring the perspective of developing the
“whole student” (Kretovics, 2003).
 Student affairs professionals have a responsibility to “contribut[e] to
the comprehensive education of students,…advanc[e] knowledge of
student growth and development, and promot[e] the effectiveness of
institutional programs, services, and organizational units” (ACPA,
2006, ¶ 1).
 Coordinating student affairs’ online efforts with those of the entire
campus will serve students in a more effective manner and maximize
the potential for reaching students for all departments involved.
Preparation of Graduate Students
Student affairs graduate programs must adequately
prepare future professionals to serve students in distance
education (Kretovics, 2003).
 Graduate programs should develop competencies
based on distance learning.
 Offering one or more courses online could help new
professionals experience some of the benefits and
challenges of distance education (Kretovics, 2003).
Self-Expression and Technology
In the context of understanding student development , advances in technology can simultaneous
enhance and hinder the experiences that students are having on campuses, and how students are
presenting themselves to others.
To illustrate this dynamic, let us explore three categories of student use of technology that have had a
dramatic impact on student affairs practice: moral development and social networking communities,
building community, and student use of “sexy” technology.
Self-Expression and Moral Development
Issue:
What messages are students sending about themselves? Students use of social networking
communities such as Facebook , Myspace, and YouTube have dramatically changed the ways in which
students represent their lives to each other.
Impact: Chickering and Reisser (1993) discuss moral congruence as the process in which personal
values are consistent with socially responsible behaviors. Wilson (2007) describes the ways in which
students are facing incongruence in their use of various forms of technology. Specific to social
networking sites, students are posting messages that may be contrary to their personal values, as well
as posting pictures of themselves doing things that go against socially responsible behaviors such as
underage drinking, illegal drug use, or different forms of harassment. Students recognize that their
actions are incongruent, but do not seem to be concerned with this mismatch of value and action
(Wilson, 2007).
Recommendations: Student affairs personnel should be aware of how students are presenting
themselves to others through online social networking sites and seek out opportunities to challenge
students to think about how their personal values are matching or missing the mark with how they
are behaving. It is also important that student affairs personnel help students understand what
messages they are sending to parents, family members, friends, or potential future employers. Is who
they are online, representative of who they say they are in real life?
Building Community
Issue:
Student populations have changed dramatically in the last few decades , particularly the ways
that students expect to work together in groups both academically and in extra-curricular activities.
Impact: The Millennial generation as described by Coomes and DeBard (2004) have been socialized
to constantly be in groups. Millenials are what Prensky (2001) likes to call “digital natives” as their
world has always existed with technology being a major force on their lives. With the heavy usage of
technology such as cell phones, online gaming, and social networking, students are in almost
constant communication with one another. Technology enables them to develop strong relationships
and communities with peers which is thought to be healthy for individual student development
(Wilson, 2007).
Recommendations: Student affairs personnel should be utilizing different forms of technology to
communicate and connect with students at our colleges and universities. In an era in which students
have quickly shifted from electronic mail to social networking, message boards and blogs, and from
phone calls to text messaging, it is important for practitioners to try to help students build
community through technologies that they are already utilizing. Student affairs personnel can
implement programming via virtual worlds in which students can interact online in real time.
“Sexy” Technology
Issue:
Appealing to students is a growing challenge as popular culture continues to supply new fads
and media coverage about the latest and best models of technology . Media tells students what
products are most popular and what could be construed as “virtual sex appeal.”
Impact: Popular culture has taken over how students interact in the world, and what they spend their
time and money on. Evolving technology has also become an important part of this pop culture
expression. David Brooks of the New York Times (2008) describes a cultural shift within consumer
sectors in which there are “commodity providers” and then there are “experience providers.” These
concepts certainly help to explain the student focus on the most up-to-date technology. It is not good
enough for cell phones, iPods, and laptop computers to be functional, rather they must have visual
appeal with all the newest bells and whistles. Students expect that the devices that they have will be
small and sheik that provide fast connection to internet information and endless amounts of media
and entertainment.
Recommendations: Universities are faced with attempting to keep up with these trends through
connecting with students via podcasts and reaching out through YouTube videos that help to explain
the services available to students. Student affairs professionals should stay up on current and future
technology trends to stay connected with evolving student interests.
Student Conduct and Judicial
Affairs
Within Student Conduct and Judicial Affairs, two significant
areas of technological impact exist:
1. Student Behaviors
-Academic Dishonesty
-Harassment
-Sexual Assault
2. Professional Practice
-Policing Methods
- Legal Duty
-Policy/Conduct Code Changes
-Time-Saving Devices
-Databases for Information Storage/Sharing
Student Behavior

Technological innovations have added new dimensions to old problems:
1. Academic Dishonesty
Then: stealing tests, copying from peers, and term paper mills
Now: Programmable calculators like the TI-92 that hold test answers (Lathrop & Foss, 2000);
Texting answers through cell phones (Lathrop & Foss);
Underground, undetectable websites that allow students to share assignments (Lathrop & Foss);
Palm Pilot PDAs that can store entire chapters of books and use infrared transmitters to send questions and
answers across the classroom or into the hall (Lathrop & Foss);
Endless plagiarism opportunities on the internet (McMurtry, 2001; Heberling, 2002).
2. Harassment
Then: verbal, written, and physical harassment over the telephone, through the mail, and in person
Now: Cyberstalking -the use of the Internet, e-mail, or other electronic communications devices to repeatedly harass or
threaten individuals (http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstalking.htm)
Harassing emails and instant messaging through fake screenames
Harassing posts on Facebook, MySpace, and other social networking sites on individual profiles or in “groups”
(Lake & Dickerson, 2007)
Hacking into personal computers and corrupting files (Mackenzie & Goldman, 2000)
3. Sexual Assault
Then: violent and date rape by a physical and present perpetrator
Now: Sexual assault at a distance
Posting suggestive/explicit digital photos without permission on Facebook or similar internet sites (Lake & Dickerson,
2007)
Unwanted and explicit AIM advances
4. Vigilante Justice
Then: Physically or verbally harming or threatening peers who have assaulted others
Now: Creating Facebook groups to expose alleged behavior and have perpetrator “caught” or ostracized (Martin, 2008)
Student Behavior
and Professional Response

•
How does technology facilitate this behavior?
 Anonymity:
▪ Technology like the internet allows users to misrepresent and change aspects of themselves, while withholding the
visual or contextual clues that can show you who is bad news (Dalaimo, 1997).
▪ Victim’s inability to visually assess the perpetrator can increase feelings of vulnerability and therefore fear (Rogerson,
2000).
▪ Tech-savvy Millennials know methods to remain anonymous and escape detection
More than a Virtual Existence:
"Facebook is completely safe from authority, and it's completely real within your network of friends. It's ... as real as if they'd
said it in the cafeteria. It's more real, actually, since it's text. It's written in stone” (Martin, 2008)
How has the Administrator Adapted?
 Legal Duty
Then: forseeable harm was limited to physical dangers on campus
Now: Furek v. University of Delaware. Duty can now be established by what can be reasonably foreseeable in light of past
incidents. Duty is no
longer defined geographically. (NASPA presentation, citation at home)
 Investigation Methods

Campus police and judicial officers now use Facebook and other sites to patrol for offenses but should save this for
egregious offenses
 Policy/Conduct Code Changes

Conduct Codes now include responsible computing policies that provide definitions of computer violations and formal
procedures for addressing them (Mackenzie & Goldman, 2000).

Administrators must think outside the box when writing policies to include new advances in technology and possible
behaviors, whether dealing with academic dishonesty or assault (Lake)

Policies should be regularly monitored with an eye towards updating them to accommodate new technology.
Professional Practice

In addition to new “headaches,” technology has created time-saving innovations that help the
judicial affairs officer!
 Databases and Software
Then: paper filing systems, clunky binders, insecure files
Now: Software like the Judicial Offense Tracker save time and printing costs and allow for ease in
organization. Much better than paper files!
• Network/Internet/PDA (N.I.P.) Systems
Then: on call staff had to lug huge binders full of banned-student lists, written protocols, and contact
information to an emergency site in the middle of the night
Student conduct codes had to be reprinted and redistributed across campus (Chang, 2002)
Now: Staff pull out their PDAs and access emergency information almost instantly
Conduct codes are published on websites, making it easily accessible for students and parents
(Chang)
 Caution
 Emphasize constant training and retraining. At times it seems to be frustrating, but a sad fact is that
once you master a software application, it is usually time to relearn everything as a new version
conveniently wheels itself out.
 What is considered to be state-of-the-art a year ago will probably be "old school" by the end of the
fiscal year. As a result, keep it affordable.
References
ACPA (2006). Statement of ethical principles and standards. American College Personnel Association
Website. Accessed on February 16, 2008 from http://www.myacpa.org/ethics/statement.cfm
Astin, A.W. (1984). Student Involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student Personnel, 25, 297-308.
Brooks, D. (2008, February 8). Questions for Dr. Retail. New York Times.
Campus Technolrogy. (2008, January 8). Snapshot: Personal electronic devices owned by students.
Retrieved February 12, 2008, from http://www.campustechnology.com/article.aspx?aid=57155
Chang, P. (2002, July 31). N.I.P. (Network/Internet/PDA) those Student Affairs Problems in the Bud.
Student Affairs On-line, 3 (Summer). Retrieved February 13, 2008, from
http://www.studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Summer_2002/NIP.html
Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity (2nd ed.). San Franciso: Jossey-Bass.
Clark, K. (2008, January 21). New Answers for E-Learning. U.S. News & World Report, 144(2), 46-49.
Retrieved February 17, 2008, from Business Source Premier database.
clearTXT, Inc. (2007). Company website. Retrieved February 11, 2008, from http://www.cleartxt.com/i/
Coomes, M. D. (2004). Understanding the history and cultural influences that shape generations. In M.
D. Coomes & R. Debard (Eds.), Serving the millennial generation. New Directions for Student Services.
No. 106 (pp. 17-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
References
Dadabhoy, A. (2001). Distance learning and a well rounded education: A dichotomy? Student Affairs Online, 2(Spring).
Accessed on February 10, 2008 from http://www.studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Spring_2001/policy.htm
Dalaimo, D. M. (1997). Electronic sexual harassment. In B. R. Sandler & R. J. Shoop (Eds.), Sexual Harassment on campus:
A guide for administrators, faculty, and students (pp. 85-103). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
DeBard, R. (2004). Millenials coming to college. In M. D. Coomes & R. Debard (Eds.), Serving the millennial generation.
New Directions for Student Services. No. 106 (pp. 17-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Dickens v. State, CSA No. 1739, Sept. Term 2005. Reported. Opinion by Salmon, J. Filed July 2, 2007.
Duke University. (2007, December 4). Duke Law School website illegally accessed. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from
http://news.duke.edu/2007/12/law_website.html
Fox News. (2006, April 24). University of Texas personnel database hacked. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192903,00.html
George Washington University. (2008). Confidential hazing report. Retrieved February 12, 2008, from
http://gwired.gwu.edu/sac/greek/hazingform/
Heberling, M. (2002). Maintaining academic integrity in on-line education. Online Journal of Distance Learning
Administration, 5(2). Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/heberling51.html
Kosiba, P., et. al. (2007). Avian influenza pandemic business continuity planning guide. Retrieved February 10, 2008, from
http://www.luc.edu/learningtech/pdfs/BCDR_Planning_Guide_for_Release_to_Cabinet_092906.pdf
Kretovics, M. (2003). The role of student affairs in distance education: Cyber-services or virtual communities. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration VI(III). Accessed on February 10, 2008 at
http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall63/kretovics63.html
Lake, P., & Dickerson, D. (2007, December). NASPA and Stetson Law and Policy Conference. Las Vegas, NV.
Lathrop, A. & Foss, K. (2000). Student Cheating and Plagiarism in the Internet Era: A Wake Up Call. Englewood, CO:
Libraries Unlimited.
References
Mackenzie, E. & Goldman, K. (2000). Computer Abuse, Information Technologies and Judicial Affairs. Special Interest
Group on University and College Computing Servvices, 170-176. Retrieved February 15, 2008, from
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/360000/354947/p170mackenzie.pdf?key1=354947&key2=6941313021&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=55199353&CFTOKEN=57430338
Martin, R. (2008, February 5). Facebook site prompts sexual assault charges at a college. Information Week. Retrieved
February 14, 2008, from
http://www.informationweek.com/security/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=IFLEWE14J3SGUQSNDLQCKH0CJUNN2J
McMurtry, K. (2001, November). E-Cheating: combating a 21st century challenge. T.H.E. Journal, 29(4), 36-41.
Rogerson, S.E. (2000). Computer-based harassment on college campuses. Student Affairs On-line, 1(Spring). Retrieved
February 14, 2008, from http://www.studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Spring_2000/article5.html
O’Reilly, Tim. (2006, December 10). Web 2.0 compact definition: Trying again. Retrieved February 13, 2008, from
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/web_20_compact.html
Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. NCB University Press.
Segway, Inc. (2002). Universities and campus security (Corporate website). Retrieved February 14, 2008, from
http://www.campustechnology.com/articles/58274/
The Ohio State University. (2007, December 14). Assessment office. Retrieved February 13, 2008 from
http://studentaffairs.osu.edu/sa_assessment.asp
Wachter, R. M., Gupta, J. N., & Quaddus, M. A. (2000). IT takes a village: Virtual communities in support of education.
International Journal of Information Management, 20, pp. 473-489.
Wilmath, K. (2007, September 18). UF student tasered at Kerry forum, The Independent Alligator. Retrieved February 14,
2008, from http://www.segway.com/police-government/case-study-pr_121602.php
Wilson, S. (2007, Fall). The influence of technology on college student values. Student Affairs Online, 8(3). Retrieved
February 14, 2008 from
http://www.studentaffairs.com/ejournal/Fall_2007/InfluenceofTechnologyonCollegeStudentValues.html
Woodward, D. B., Love, P., & Komives, S. R. (2000). Reframing our thinking, reshaping our practice. In D. B. Woodward, P.
Love, & S. R. Komives (Eds.), New Directions for Student Services, 92.