SAGAS Saga 1

Running head: SAGAS: Assistantship Assessment

The SAGAS Saga:

An Assessment of Student Affairs Graduate Assistantships

Matthew J. Skoy & Zachary T. Ford

Iowa State University

 SAGAS Saga 2

The SAGAS Saga:

From Conceptualization to Implementation

On the Iowa State University campus, a variety of staff serve the student body as student

affairs professionals, working to create a nurturing environment for student development and

learning in and, more importantly, out of the classroom, where otherwise there would not be

support. These professionals work to frame the lives of undergraduate life during those students’

entire stay at the college. Assisting these professionals are a number of graduate assistants, most

of whom are working towards a graduate degree in Higher Education through the Department of

Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS). To be enrolled in the program, these students

are required to be employed in one of these assistantships. Often, these individuals have

opportunities beyond their job expectations to create and implement engaging programs and

services to support student life. Parallel to the field in which they are working, much of their

learning occurs outside the classroom as well.

The experience of these graduate assistants has never been formally evaluated. In 2007,

the ELPS department provided assistantship supervisors with learning outcomes and

expectations for their graduate assistants. These outcomes and expectations create a functional

framework in which to assess the graduate assistant experience. In addition to evaluating these

learning outcomes, we hope to capture a snapshot of the overall working experience of student

affairs graduate assistants, because such an evaluation has never been conducted. This

information will serve the ELPS department as well as the Division of Student Affairs and other

offices with working effectively with their graduate assistants.

Executive Summary

Purpose
 SAGAS Saga 3

This assessment collected information about the general experience of student affairs

graduate assistants at Iowa State University. The researchers hoped to capture a snapshot of the

quality of these assistants' work environments and whether their learning outcomes are being met

within their assistantships. This information will provide insight into the learning and

professional development experiences for graduate assistants.

Objectives

1. To understand the experience of current student affairs graduate assistants in their

work environments.

2. To reveal strengths and weaknesses within the current assistantship program in

terms of the expectations set forth in the Supervisor’s Manual.

3. To make recommendations to the Department of Educational Leadership and

Policy Studies of how to improve the assistantship experience in terms of its academic

oversight.

4. To make recommendations to the Division of Student Affairs regarding ways

supervisors of graduate assistants can improve the learning and professional experience of

graduate assistants with whom they work.

5. To make recommendations to campus professional staffs regarding how they can

improve work relations with graduate assistants.

Description

This assessment utilized mixed methods of information collection through a survey

conducted online using SurveyMonkey.com. The entire population of current graduate assistants

(including two doctoral students) was contacted so that the results could be as generalizable and

descriptive as possible. The survey participants responded to numerous quantitative items and
 SAGAS Saga 4

also had a qualitative portion where they could provide comments regarding specific experiences

related to the questions.

Results

Of the 60 graduate assistants who were sent the survey, 33 completed it, a response rate

of 55%. The results of the survey showed that overall; respondents are generally satisfied in their

assistantship. Of the 31 respondents who responded to questions about their overall experience,

28 (90%) agreed or strongly agreed that they have had positive experiences in their graduate

assistantships.

The assistants also indicated that they are afforded the kind of flexibilities they need to

balance their workloads academically and professionally. About 91% (n=29) of respondents

indicated that their workloads are flexible enough to accommodate their studies, and about 94%

(n=30) indicated that their hours were flexible enough to accommodate their other academic

responsibilities (which could include homework, class, and practicum opportunities). The

numbers declined when factoring in other life experiences: 81% (n=26) felt that they maintained

a balance between their assistantships and their other life activities. Still, despite what strain the

respondents might feel because of their assistantship, 84% of respondents (n=27) do feel that

their supervisors appreciate the time they dedicate to their assistantship work.

Though many respondents reported that they did understand the expectations set forth in

their job description (90%, n=29), about 41% of respondents (n=13) disagreed or strongly

disagreed that they received adequate orientation when they began their assistantships and 47%

(n=15) felt they were not prepared on the first day of work.

Overall, respondents reporting have positive relationships with their supervisors. One of

the most positive responses was to the item, “My supervisor respects me both as a person and as
 SAGAS Saga 5

a professional in training,” with almost 94% (n=29) agreeing or strongly agreeing. The following

item, “My supervisor respects me as both a student and as a colleague,” was also strong, with

about 87% (n=27) agreeing or strongly agreeing.

Of 24 respondents, 100% agreed to a number of items, including that they felt their time

was appreciated, they were respected as a person and a professional, they were encouraged to

express their opinions, they were supported in their job search (n=12), and that other staff in the

office created a comfortable working environment.

Though the results were generally positive, there were exceptions. For example, 13% of

respondents (n=4) did not agree that their supervisors accept them “as both a student and a

colleague,” that their supervisors “maintain informal, friendly relations” with them, or that their

supervisors encourage them to express their opinions. In addition, 16% of respondents (n=5)

indicated that their supervisors have not created opportunities for them to engage in staff culture.

Generally, respondents had positive experiences with the other staff in the offices in

which they work. Nearly 94% of respondents (n=29) felt that other staff members respected them

as professionals and 97% of respondents (n=30) reported that other staff members in the office

are friendly with them. However, when asked if other staff have taken the time to get to know

them better, only about 81% (n=25) agreed or strongly agreed.

Responses regarding supervisors’ feedback were not as positive as for other categories.

When asked about the feedback, 56% (n=18) of respondents said they did not regularly receive

critical feedback from their supervisors. Of those 18 respondents, 78% reported that they did not

have regular one-on-one meetings with their supervisors to discuss job performance. Most (83%)

did not have learning contracts. But, two out of three respondents who said they do not receive

regular critical feedback do report receiving written evaluations. Fifty-three percent (n=17) of all
 SAGAS Saga 6

respondents reported having regular one-on-one meetings with their supervisors to discuss their

job performance.

Seven respondents (22%) reported that their supervisors had discussed developmental

theory in relation to the expectations of their assistantships’ job descriptions.

In discussing their contact with students, 29% of respondents (n=9) felt they were not

prepared to assist students who were dealing with crisis situations.

Recommendations

1. Investigate efficient and consistent methods for the ELPS Department to communicate

with assistantship supervisors.

2. Consider what expectations the ELPS Department has of assistantship supervisors and

how the supervisors are prepared to meet them.

3. Establish a consistent process for regularly collecting supervisor’s written evaluations of

their assistants.

4. Create module for graduate assistants to regularly assess their experiences in their

assistantships.

5. Consider how the ELPS Department can organize consistent professional development

workshops for all student affairs graduate assistants.

6. Establish consistent policy for sick leave, vacation time, and comp time.

Purpose of the Evaluation

This survey collected information about the general experience of student affairs graduate

assistants at Iowa State University. The researchers hoped to capture a snapshot of the quality of

these assistants' work environments and whether their learning outcomes are being met within

their assistantships.
 SAGAS Saga 7

This information will be used by both the Department of Educational Leadership and

Policy Studies (which oversees the assistantship process) and the Division of Student Affairs

(which oversees the departments in which the graduate assistants work) to provide insight into

the learning and professional development experiences for graduate assistants.

The Client

We, the investigators, are the primary clients of this assessment. We are Matt Skoy and

Zack Ford, and we both are currently master’s students in the Higher Education program with

graduate assistantships. In conversations with our peers and colleagues and observations from

our own assistantships, we found that there are a variety of positive and negative experiences

taking place that do not currently have an outlet for being identified. Because the student affairs

graduate assistantship is required for degree completion, it is important to make sure that the

learning outcomes are being met and that graduate assistants are having experiences that will

prepare them professionally for a career in student affairs. This is also important not only for

retention, but for recruitment of future students. We have the support of both the ELPS

department and the Division of Student Affairs to conduct this assessment, though the idea was

our own.

Key Stakeholders

There are various stakeholders interested in our results. For example, the Department of

Educational Leadership and Policy Studies will be able to use the results to determine graduate

students’ needs and how well the assistantship program is serving their learning. The Vice

President of Student Affairs is also interested in how he can work with the various assistantship

supervisors who report to him to create a more educational and productive work experience for

graduate assistants. The supervisors themselves may also be interested in exploring how they can
 SAGAS Saga 8

improve the experiences of their assistants. As graduate assistants ourselves, we are hoping to

reveal some of the challenges that members of our program are experiencing in their

assistantships. Justifying and improving the assistantship program are important utilities for

recruitment in the ELPS department, particularly because graduate assistantships are a required

part of degree programs. By demonstrating a consistent commitment to improving the

assistantship program, the ELPS department can build upon its reputation and recruit from a

more competitive pool of applicants.

Limitations and Disclaimers

The first obvious limitation is that we, as the researchers, are also members of the

participant group. We acknowledge that we are key stakeholders in this assessment as well,

which may offer bias to the work we are doing as well as how we present the results. Still, we

believe this is an important assessment to be done, and we only began work on this study once

we were assured the support of Nancy Evans, Coordinator of the Student Affairs Masters

program. We have done our best to objectively assess the graduate assistantship experience as

well as portray the results without bias, showing both the positive and critical feedback we

received.

Our intention was to hold focus groups to give participants the opportunity to follow up

on the results of the survey and share more stories from their own experiences. When we put out

the call for focus group participants, we received only four volunteers, barely enough for one

focus group, let alone two. These participants were also not available at the same times, so we

could not hold even one focus group. Many of our peers stated that they would like the

opportunity to talk candidly about their assistantship experiences, but did not feel comfortable in

a focus group setting because of who might hear what they are sharing. While we could assure
 SAGAS Saga 9

them our confidentiality as the researchers, they could not be assured that their fellow focus

group participants would respect the same confidentiality. This suggests concerns regarding

trust that could be explored further through individual interviews.

Object of the Evaluation

This assessment was designed to evaluate the experience of student affairs graduate

assistants at Iowa State University. The targeted students are all enrolled in degree programs in

Higher Education through the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and are

required to hold such assistantships for fulfillment of those degrees. The ELPS department has

never collected information about the experience of these graduate assistants.

In 2007, the ELPS department did implement a supervisor’s manual for the first time.

The manual outlines the expectations for graduate assistantship supervisors and discusses

relationship, reflection, learning outcomes, and how the assistantship intersects with the

curriculum. The development of this manual provided an excellent opportunity to conduct an

assessment because it provided a clear set of expectations for the assistantship experience.

Another component of the supervisor’s manual was the expectation that supervisors provide a

written evaluation of their graduate assistants at the end of each semester. Still, there was no

process by which the assistants themselves could offer feedback about their experiences. This

assessment is designed to capture an overview of what graduate assistants are experiencing and

hopefully provide insights as to how such feedback could be collected in the future.

Assessment Goals

The goals of this assessment are as follows:

1. To understand the experience of current student affairs graduate assistants in their work

environments.
 SAGAS Saga 10

2. To reveal strengths and weaknesses within the current assistantship program in terms of

the expectations set forth in the Supervisor’s Manual.

3. To make recommendations to the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy

Studies of how to improve the experience of the assistantship experience in terms of their

academic oversight.

4. To make recommendations to the Division of Student Affairs regarding ways supervisors

of graduate assistants can improve the learning and professional experience of graduate

assistants with whom they work.

5. To make recommendations to campus professional staffs regarding how they can

improve work relations with graduate assistants.

Assessment Design

This assessment utilizes mixed methods of information collection. Our instrument was a

survey constructed online using SurveyMonkey.com that combined quantitative and qualitative

questions. After responding to a number of quantitative items related to a specific aspect of their

assistantship experience, they had the opportunity to share comments related to that aspect. The

entire population of current graduate assistants was contacted so that the results can be as

generalizable and descriptive as possible.

Population and Sample

The population consisted of all students currently employed in a student affairs graduate

assistantship through the department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, including

both Master’s and Doctoral students. This list was publicly available from the ELPS department.

Because this group was relatively small, the entire population was invited to participate in the

study.
 SAGAS Saga 11

Contacting Individuals

Prospective participants were contacted by an email which contained the link to the

survey. This email can be found in Appendix A. A similar reminder email was sent a few days

before the survey was closed.

Methods

A list of the survey questions can be found in Appendix B.

The survey was conducted in late March/early April. (A specific timeline can be found

below.) By this time of year, all participants had been in their assistantship for at least seven

months, ensuring they had enough experience to answer the survey questions accurately. The

survey had numerous items, but most of the responses were on a Likert-scale, so participants

would not feel overwhelmed by its breadth. In fact, the researchers expected most participants

would be eager to participate because they had not previously had an opportunity to share their

feedback and reflect on their assistantship experiences. We estimated participants would require

anywhere from 10 to 30 minutes to complete the survey, depending on how much depth

participants chose to provide in the comments sections.

Analysis

The survey was analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, etc.).

Responses of “Not Applicable” were not considered in these tabulations. Written responses have

been coded to look for themes. In particular, these responses have been connected to the results

of the quantitative items from the survey when applicable.

Timeline

February 7 Present list of goals, objectives, questions, and learning outcomes.

February 14 Present outline of research methodology

 SAGAS Saga 12

February 21 Present summary of the evaluation approach

March 13 Survey will be distributed and open for participants to respond

March 13 Present Evaluation

March 27 Present Status Report

March 31 Last day participants will have to respond to survey

April 16 First Focus Group (proposed)

April 19 Second Focus Group (proposed)

April 10 Present Status Report

May 5 Present Final Results

Reporting Plan

Once results were collected, a report was developed with three audiences in mind: a)

HgEd 597 Program Evaluation and Assessment, b) Vice President Tom Hill and the Division of

Student Affairs, and c) Dr. Nancy Evans and the Department of Educational Leadership and

Policy Studies. In addition, we will offer to share our report with all participants originally

contacted. The report will include our findings as well as recommondations for consideration and

action based on the results.

Evaluation Results

Overall satisfaction
 SAGAS Saga 13

Overall, respondents are satisfied in their assistantship. Of the 31 assistants who

responded to questions about their overall experience, 28 (90%) agreed or strongly agreed that

they have had positive experiences in their graduate assistantship. See Figure 1 for a breakdown

of these responses.

Figure 1.

Many of the final comments shared are positive and enthusiastic. For example: one female

assistant in her first year wrote:

I love my assistantship, I can't say anything bad about it. It rocks my socks off and even

though i [sic] was intimidated by it at first it has been one of the most influential

experiences of my life.

Another first-year female master’s student pointed out that she has had positive experiences in

her assistantship but that it might not be for everybody:

The final question, "would I recommend this assistantship experience to others", I feel

would vary depending on the person who I would recommend it to. If they are searching

for an environment to get a better social life, then sure my office would be great for that.
 SAGAS Saga 14

However, if they are looking for a solid educational experience in learning how to work

and assist with college students while having great supervision, I would say this is

definitely not the place.

This response clearly demonstrates that not all assistants are having the same experience or

learning the same skills

Flexibility

The assistants indicated that they are afforded the kind of flexibility they need to balance

their workloads academically and professionally. About 91% (n=29) of respondents indicated

that their workloads are flexible enough to accommodate their studies, and about 94% (n=30)

indicated that their hours were flexible enough to accommodate their other academic

responsibilities (which could include homework, class, and practicum opportunities). About 81%

(n=26) feel that they can maintain a balance between their assistantships and their other life

activities. Eighty-four percent of respondents (n=27) do feel that their supervisors appreciate the

time they dedicate to their assistantship work.

Some respondents described the way they discuss their assistantship’s flexibility with

their supervisors. Many of their comments expressed praise and gratitude for the flexibility they

had. For example, a female in her first year of her assistantship said:

My assistantship provider is extremely flexible with my personal and professional

schedules and accommodates my requests for time off whenever possible.

Another male first-year assistant described just how he and his boss set up his work schedule:

My supervisor stated at the beginning of my assistantship that she expects me to make

sure that if I give any extra time, I take it back for myself. This sort of fluid honor system

has been particularly helpful since I do not get any sick or vacation time.
 SAGAS Saga 15

While some respondents expressed concern about a lack of consistency among policies for

graduate assistants’ sick and vacation time, this assessment did not ask questions specific to that

issue.

Other students expressed some concern about how flexible their assistantships actually

were. Another female in her first year shared:

This semester I have rarely worked my 20 hours a week, I have been working more like

30-35, but this is alright with me because I am gaining valuable experience and I enjoy

my job (most of the time)!

This respondent clearly appreciates her experience, but is still working beyond the expectations

set forth in her job description. A female in her second year described just how that can play out:

My assistantship demanded more than 20 hours a week and sometimes this was noticed

and appreciated by my supervisor and other times I was informed that this was how the

"real world” would be so I should get used to it. Overall, I was allowed to flex out time

for extra work hours but this only happened when I pointed out my excess hours to my

supervisor and we had a discussion about how I did indeed deserve the time off.

It is unclear whether the student was aware of these expectations before accepting the

assistantship. While respondents do feel their assistantships are flexible, there seem to be some

inconsistencies in how this flexibility is afforded by different supervisors in different offices.

Student Interaction

Respondents seemed very pleased with the amount of interaction they have with

undergraduate students. Of the 31 respondents to items related to student interaction, 84% (n=26)

reported that the amount of student interaction they have meets the expectations they had when

entering the assistantship. Even though some respondents felt they were not interacting with
 SAGAS Saga 16

students as often as they would like, 100% of respondents agreed (n=15) or strongly agreed

(n=16) that they are able to provide the “resources and support” that their students are seeking.

As a second-year female student shared:

My experience with the students is one of the main reasons I have stayed with this

assistantship.

Preparation

Though many respondents reported that they did understand the expectations set forth in

their job description (90%, n=29), about 41% of respondents (n=13) disagreed or strongly

disagreed that they received adequate orientation when they began their assistantships. In

addition, 47% (n=15) felt they were not prepared on the first day of work. Some respondents did

not mind this, as one first-year female shared:

The orientation was helpful, but some things you just need to learn through firsthand

experience. This was certainly true for me.

Others expressed more concern at their lack of preparation. A second-year female said:

I did not know what was to be expected of me and my supervisor went on vacation the

day after I arrived. I do not believe I fully understood my assistantship responsibilities

until the first semester of school ended.

A first-year female respondent was even more candid in her concern:

It was difficult because shortly after I went over my job responsibilities with my

supervisor, they left the office, and after that those responsibilities were basically out the

window, and I never really had a meeting to outline new ones. I was shuffled to where

there was need and where there was an adequate supervisor. I had no training or

preparation what-so-ever except a tour of the office.

 SAGAS Saga 17

Another male respondent expressed his frustration about the lack of support he received:

In my opinion, assistantships are not supervised closely enough by the ELPS department

resulting in vastly different experiences depending on the office the GA has their

assistantship through. I was not even aware that we were supposed to have learning

contracts.

Learning contracts are an expectation set forth in the new supervisor’s manual that the

ELPS department distributed this past year, though it unclear if supervisors were given proper

notice or explanation for this expectation. Because the survey was constructed using the manual

as a guide, several questions on the survey reflected this expectation. These items led our

respondents to ask their own questions, as one second-year female respondent simply asked:

We have a learning contract?

Only 25% of respondents (n=8) indicated that their supervisors had worked with them to develop

a learning contract. Of those respondents, only half (n=4) reported that their supervisor regularly

referred to the learning contract or that their learning contract helped guide their work in their

assistantship. These results might yet be misleading, since one of those four respondents shared:

What do you mean learning contract. We have a plan that us in the office are getting done

and I know where I fit on the plan and that is altra [sic] helpful.

Despite the low numbers for learning contract use, some respondents seemed optimistic about

their experiences, as one first-year female shared:

I don't know if we have anyting [sic] in writing about what I am supposed to learn but my

boss is continuely [sic] asking me if there is anything she can do to help me learn more of

what I want to learn.

A second-year female shared simply:

 SAGAS Saga 18

I have never heard of a learning contract before either in my assistantship office or from

any of the other grads in ELPS.

If ELPS expects learning contracts to be a part of every student’s assistantship experience, this

goal is currently not being met. While many students do feel they understand their job

responsibilities, there seems to be a need to better address issues of preparation and job

expectations early in the assistantship process.

Supervisor Relations and Staff Culture

Overall, respondents reporting have positive relationships with their supervisors. One of

the most positive responses was to the item, “My supervisor respects me both as a person and as

a professional in training,” with almost 94% (n=29) agreeing or strongly agreeing. The following

item, “My supervisor respects me as both a student and as a colleague,” was also strong, with

about 87% (n=27) agreeing or strongly agreeing. A 23-year-old first-year female student shared:

My supervisor has been very supportive of both my personal and professional life. I

know that whichever path I decide to take in future years, I can rely on this individual as

an excellent resource and reference.

One of the items that received the most critical response in evaluating supervisor-

assistant relationships was “I feel comfortable talking to my supervisor about concerns I have

regarding the workplace environment, or other professional concerns,” with 75% (n=24) of

respondents agreeing (n=13) or strongly agreeing (n=11), lower than for any other similar

question. Thus, this item proved an interesting measure for what factors contribute to a positive

relationship between supervisors and their graduate assistants. Of those 24 respondents, 100%

agreed to a number of other items, including that they felt their time was appreciated, they were

respected as a person and a professional, they were encouraged to express their opinions, they
 SAGAS Saga 19

n=2 I feel comfortable talking to my supervisor about concerns I have regarding

4 the workplace environment, or other professional concerns.

100
My supervisor appreciates the time I dedicate to my assistantship.
%
My supervisor respects me both as a person and as a professional in

training.
My supervisor encourages me to express my opinions.
The other professional staff members create a working environment in

which I can comfortably and productively work (n=23).

My supervisor has supported my job search efforts (n=11).

were supported in their job search (n=11), and that other staff in the office created a comfortable

working environment (n=23). (Some respondents selected “Not Applicable” for the last two

items.)

While most of the responses were positive in regards to relations with supervisors, it

should be noted that there were some who were negative. Though they may be the exception and

not the rule, these responses could represent concerns that need to be addressed. For example,

13% of respondents (n=4) did not agree that their supervisors accepts them “as both a student

and a colleague,” that their supervisors “maintain informal, friendly relations” with them, or that

their supervisors encourage them to express their opinions. In addition, 16% of respondents

(n=5) indicated that their supervisors have not created opportunities for them to engage in staff

culture. While these concerns are minimal, they are still present and worth considering.

Generally, respondents had positive experiences with the other staff in the offices in

which they work. Nearly 94% of respondents (n=29) felt that other staff members respected them

as professionals and 97% of respondents (n=30) reported that other staff members in the office

are friendly with them. However, when asked if other staff have taken the time to get to know
 SAGAS Saga 20

them better, only about 81% (n=25) agreed or strongly agreed. See the chart below for responses

about staff culture.

In describing his interactions with other staff members, a first-year graduate assistant

shared the following:

I think I surprise the other staff members sometimes with my ideas, but they are always

eager to hear them. My office is slightly removed from the rest of the staff, so my

interaction with them can be limited, but they always make sure to include me in social

activities and are quite friendly.

Feedback

Responses regarding feedback were not as positive as for other categories. When asked

about the feedback, 56% (n=18) of respondents said they did not regularly receive critical

feedback from their supervisors. Of those 18 respondents, 78% reported that they did not have

regular one-on-one meetings with their supervisors to discuss job performance. Most (83%) did

not have learning contracts. But, two out of three respondents who say they do not receive

regular critical feedback do report receiving written evaluations.

 SAGAS Saga 21

Only 53% (n=17) of all respondents reported having regular one-on-one meetings with

their supervisors to discuss their job performance. Half of respondents indicated that their

supervisors do not encourage them to reflect on their experiences.

A second-year, female respondent shared:

My supervisor is new to the office and Student Affairs, so we do not have weekly

meetings. I work primarily on my own, but do feel comfortable going to her when I do

have questions/concerns.

Others were not as confident about their relationship with their supervisor. Another in her first

year reported:

I do not have regular one-on-one meetings with my assistantship provider. As such, I do

not receive regular feedback on my job performance, nor am I given the opportunity to

reflect on what I am doing and how I might be able to improve in the future.

A second-year male student had similar concerns:

 SAGAS Saga 22

I wish my supervisor would offer more criticism. I know that there are things I don't do

as well as I could, and I would appreciate honest suggestions for improving.

If graduate assistantships are intended to be learning experiences, such experiences seem to be

lacking consistency.

Other Observations

Participants were asked questions regarding developmental theory and crisis

management. Only a quarter of respondents reported that their supervisors encourage them to

apply developmental theory in the work the work they do for their assistantship. In fact, only

seven respondents (22%) reported that their supervisors had discussed developmental theory in

relation to the expectations of their assistantships’ job descriptions.

In discussing their contact with students, 29% of respondents (n=9) felt they were not

prepared to assist students who were dealing with crisis situations. While some assistantships

may be more student-focused than others, we felt all student affairs professionals should be

prepared for this circumstance. A female in her first year suggested:

I think that more training on dealing with crisis situations and diversity training would be

beneficial for everyone.

Recommendations

Without a doubt, the graduate assistantship program is having some very positive impacts

on students. The data represents that they are learning and growing in ways that reflect the

expectations of the program. Still, improvements could be made, as outlined below.

One concern we have is an apparent disconnect between expectations set by the ELPS

department and what actually takes place in the graduate assistantships. We recognize this may

be challenging to address as it requires balancing a healthy relationship with the assistantship

 SAGAS Saga 23

supervisors while ensuring a valuable learning experience for the graduate assistants.

Considering it was the first year the supervisors’ manual was introduced, it would be important

to collect feedback from the supervisors.

Our first recommendation for addressing this disconnect is to investigate how efficiently

and consistently the ELPS Department communicats with supervisors. How regularly should the

department check in with the supervisors? What is the best method for establishing regular

communication? In addition, the ELPS Department should consider what expectations they have

of supervisors and how to prepare them to meet them. This should include investigating the

effectiveness of the supervisor’s manual and how the manual is presented to supervisors. This

would provide an opportunity for the ELPS department to adress what learning experiences they

expect for their graduate students in their assistantships. Topics such as learning contracts and

feedback could be discussed so that supervisors have a better understanding of how the ELPS

department is asking them to support the learning of their graduate assistants.

We also recommend that written evaluations should be collected on a more regular basis.

The written evaluation process could be abridged so that it is less taxing for the supervisor to

complete. However, asking for more regular written feedback creates more opportunities for

students to learn about their progress. It will also ensure more opportunities for graduate

assistants to meet one-on-one with their supervisors.

If nothing else could be learned from this survey, it is the fact that graduate assistants

have a lot to say about their experiences. Because an assistantship is required for completion of a

the Student Affairs Master’s Degree program in ELPS, students should have the opportunity to

evaluate their assistantship experience as they would any course. We therefore recommend that

the ELPS department design a model for assistantship evaluation. Such an evaluation could be a
 SAGAS Saga 24

survey similar to those used in course evaluations or could consist of individual interviews with

the assistants. This will help make sure that the department’s learning outcomes are actually

being met.

Another concern from the data is the inconsistency among assistantship experiences—in

particular, variation in professional development and reflection. We recommend that the ELPS

department consider instituting a required seminar for first-year students that would include

several workshops and trainings. These sessions could relate to responding to crisis situations,

learning how to have conversations with supervisors, time management, and reflecting on

professional experiences. These seminars would create venues for the students to have

constructive conversations about their assistantship experiences while establishing some

consistent professional development.

A final recommendation we have is addressing the inconsistencies regarding sick leave,

vacation time, and comp time. Though we did not specifically investigate this issue, many of our

respondents shared that it was a concernt that affected their ability to balance their profession,

academic, and private lives. Some graduate assistants do not have any opportunities to take time

off work while others do. It seems almost unprofessional that such inconsistencies persist. All

graduate assistants deserve to have a consistent expectation for the benefits they receive. Not

having a consistent policy could negatively affect both recruitment of new students to the

program and assistantship retention.

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank those who supported us as we completed this assessment. Because we

are currently graduate assistants, we are very thankful that our supervisors were supportive as we

conducted this assessment. They understand the value associated with the potential results and
 SAGAS Saga 25

approve the use of work time for developing and carrying out this study. In addition, Zack’s

assistantship has a paid subscription to the SurveyMonkey service which he may use, so we had

no costs associated with this service.

We would also like to thank Anne Gansemer-Topf for her continued patience and support

on this project. As our Program Evaluation and Assessment professor, she spent many hours

working with us to help ensure our successful completion of the assessment.

Concluding Thoughts

This survey represents an introduction to a future of more detailed and extensive

evaluation. Graduate assistantships are important learning experiences and should be held

accountable through the use of assessment. Such evaluation would model the professional

expectations set forth in courses such as HG ED 597, Program Evaluation and Assessment, for

which this report was generated. In addition, the Department of Educational Leadership and

Policy Studies could improve the experience of its students as well as the reputation of its

program. This is the true value of assessment.

 SAGAS Saga 26

Reference

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B.R. (2004). Program evaluation: Alternative

approaches and practical guidelines (3rd ed). New York: Longman.

 SAGAS Saga 27

Appendix A

Greetings!

You are receiving this email because you are currently enrolled in a program through Iowa State

University’s department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and are employed in a

student affairs graduate assistantship.

We are two students who are looking to collect information about your experience in these

assistantships. An assessment has never been done about such experiences, and we are looking

forward to capturing this snapshot. Though we are completing this assessment as a requirement

for our class, Program Evaluation and Assessment (Res Ev 597), we also plan to share the results

with the ELPS department and the Division of Student Affairs.

We are hoping that you would be willing to participate in our study, the Student Affairs Graduate

Assistant Survey (SAGAS). Our first priority is your privacy, so please understand that no

personal identifiers will be collected during this process. Our informed consent documents

contain more details about how we will be gathering information.

If you would be interested in participating, we hope you will complete our survey. The link can

be found below. Please make sure you read the informed consent document before proceeding to

the survey. The survey will only be open through March 31, so please try to complete it before

then.
 SAGAS Saga 28

In addition to the survey, we are going to hold two focus groups so that we can collect more of

your stories and personal experiences to support the survey results. The focus groups will be held

on Wednesday, April 16 at 7:00 PM and Saturday, April 19 at 10:00 AM. Please email us back at

zford@iastate.edu to let us know if you would be interested in participating and which day

would work best. If you would be available for either date, please let us know that as well. We

look forward to hearing your stories!

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at zford@iastate.edu and

mskoy@iastate.edu.

The link to the survey is:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=G_2f0cH6XKqE45MgxlyNNftg_3d_3d

Thank you for your time!

Matt Skoy and Zack Ford

SAGAS Co-Chairs
 SAGAS Saga 29

Appendix B

Please respond to the following items with Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree, or Strongly

Agree. You may also select N/A if the item does not at apply to your assistantship experience

(for example, an assistantship that does not have “on call” duties). After each set of items, please

feel free to use the comment space to share any additional thoughts you have related to those

items.

Preparation, Expectations

1. I was provided adequate orientation when I began my assistantship.

2. I understand how to carry out the expectations set forth in my assistantship’s job

description.

3. My supervisor worked with me to develop a learning contract that accurately outlines the

goals of my assistantship.

4. My supervisor refers to my learning contract on a regular basis.

5. I feel like my learning contract has helped guide my work in my assistantship.

6. I felt like I was overall prepared on my first day at work.

Comments:

Workload and Flexibility

7. I have been afforded flexibility in my workload to accommodate my studies.

8. My supervisor checks in with me about my academic progress.

 SAGAS Saga 30

9. My hours are allowed to be flexible to accommodate my academic responsibilities.

10. My hours are allowed to be flexible to accommodate my practicum experience(s).

11. My supervisor understands that my assistantship hours can be measured in different ways

(such as time spent in the office, student contact outside of the office, preparation and

implementation time for special assignments, etc.).

12. My “on call” duties do not exceed the equivalent of two weekends per month.

13. I receive ample notice when I will need to dedicate more than my weekly number of

hours for specific assistantship-related circumstances.

14. My supervisor appreciates the time I dedicate to my assistantship.

15. I feel like I am able to maintain a balance between my assistantship and other life

activities.

Comments:

Feedback and Learning

16. My supervisor regularly sets aside time to meet one-on-one with me to discuss my

performance in my assistantship.

17. I meet with my supervisor every week for at least 30 minutes.

18. My supervisor regularly offers me critical feedback regarding my job performance.

19. I feel like my supervisor offers me the support I need to learn and grow in my

assistantship.

20. My supervisor has encouraged me to reflect on my assistantship experiences.

 SAGAS Saga 31

21. I feel comfortable talking to my supervisor about questions I have about the work that I

am doing.

22. I feel comfortable talking to my supervisor about concerns I have regarding the

workplace environment, or other professional concerns.

23. I feel I am able to explore different opportunities to further my knowledge within in my

assistantship area.

24. My supervisor provides me with a written evaluation at the end of every semester.

25. My supervisor’s evaluations provide critical feedback that assists me in my professional

growth and development.

Comments:

Learning Outcomes

26. My supervisor discusses developmental theory in relation to the expectations of my

assistantship’s job description.

27. My supervisor encourages me to apply developmental theory in the work that I do for my

assistantship.

28. My supervisor encourages me to demonstrate effective oral communication skills.

29. My supervisor encourages me to demonstrate effective written communication skills.

30. My supervisor encourages me to create, design, and implement programs and

interventions.

Comments:
 SAGAS Saga 32

Workspace and Resources

31. My assistantship includes a physical space that is conducive to productive work.

32. My workspace includes a desk with enough room to work efficiently.

33. My workspace includes access to a telephone.

34. My workspace includes access to a computer with internet access.

35. I can depend on my technological resources being available for my usage at all times.

36. The provided technology is conducive for allowing me to complete my job

responsibilities efficiently and effectively.

37. I have ready access to a space that permits me to meet privately with staff or students.

38. There is adequate clerical support to carry out the duties of my assistantship.

39. I have access to various office supplies I need to carry out the duties of my assistantship.

Comments:

Supervisor Relations

40. My supervisor respected that I explored different assistantship opportunities for my

second year.

41. My supervisor respects me both as a person and as a professional in training.

42. My supervisor accepts me as both a student and as a colleague.

43. My supervisor maintains informal, friendly working relations with me.

44. My supervisor encourages me to express my opinions.

 SAGAS Saga 33

45. My supervisor encourages me to make independent decisions, based on defensible

standards.

46. My supervisor offers positive feedback and encouragement.

47. My supervisor has created opportunities for me to engage in the staff culture.

48. My supervisor has supported my job search efforts.

Comments:

Work Environment

49. The other professional staff members in the office respect me as a professional.

50. The other professional staff members in the office are friendly with me.

51. The other professional staff members invite me to participate in staff social activities.

52. The other professional staff members have taken the time to get to know me better.

53. The other professional staff members create a working environment in which I can

comfortably and productively work.

54. The staff members in my office are encouraged to express new ideas, questions, and

concerns.

Comments:

Student Contact

55. The amount of interaction I have with students meets the expectations I had entering this

assistantship.
 SAGAS Saga 34

56. My office is easily found when students are looking to meet with me.

57. I am able to provide the support and resources my students are seeking.

58. I am prepared to assist students who are dealing with crisis situations.

Comments:

59. I am overall satisfied with my graduate assistantship experience.

60. I felt like my assistantship was a positive learning experience.

61. I would recommend this assistantship experience to others.

62. What was the most significant learning experience you had during your assistantship?

Gender:

Age:

Ethnicity:

Degree Program: (Master’s/Doctoral)

How many years have you been in your program?

How many years have you been in your assistantship?