In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

• A Case Analysis of Graduate Programs' Usage of ACPA/NASPA Competencies
• Amy E. French (bio) and Dena R. Kniess (bio)

The ACPA/NASPA (2015) Professional Competency Areas for Student Affairs Educators (PCASAE) were intended to educate students and professionals as whole individuals while providing guidelines for specific knowledge areas and expected skill sets. They can be used for self-assessment, professional development, and staff training. Student affairs graduate preparation programs (GPPs) are part of the formal socialization process for master's students as they develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed for professional practice (Weidman et al., 2001). GPPs seek to provide the next generation of college educators with the knowledge, competencies, and dispositions necessary to promote students' holistic development and learning (Carducci & Jaramillo, 2014). More specifically, such programs are designed to guide students from foundational skills to heightened proficiencies. As such, integrating theory into practice (praxis) is a key focus of competency development. The PCASAE affirmed, "Graduate preparation programs … should utilize the competencies as a means of reviewing program- and course-level learning outcomes as well as setting expectations for cocurricular learning experiences" (p. 10). Moreover, the PCASAE encouraged GPPs to adapt competencies to their respective campus contexts. This study sought to answer the question: How are the PCASAE (ACPA & NASPA, 2015) implemented in student affairs GPPs?

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual model of professional socialization into student affairs within GPPs (Perez, 2016) provided our study's framework. Perez's model recognized "multiple intersecting cultural contexts" (p. 43) and incorporated research from student affairs, the helping professions, and doctoral student socialization. A variety of functional areas (e.g., campus activities, advising, housing) influence student affairs culture and socialization within national, professional, and institutional contexts. The individual level (e.g., social identities, family, socioeconomic status) impacts student affairs culture and socialization experiences. GPP coursework and field experiences are found at the intersection of the two-dimensional model described above. Within this model, classwork and field experiences reinforce one another as new professionals learn the "nature of 'good practice' in student affairs" (p. 44). For this study, our goal was to understand how the PCASAE were used in the classroom and field experiences. Since ACPA and NASPA jointly crafted and endorsed the 10 [End Page 498] professional competency areas, we recognized a need to understand how these competencies are applied in these sites.

METHODOLOGY

Using a case study approach, two GPPs in student affairs at public institutions served as bounded cases. The cases were bounded because each site used the PCASAE within the GPP during the 2020–2021 academic year. By situating each GPP as a case, the contexts and environments influencing the implementation of the PCASAE were identified. The ability for particular, descriptive, and contextually rich data to be identified using a case study method proved useful in addressing practical problems and connecting to disciplinary knowledge (Stake, 2006).

Both programs were purposefully sampled (Patton, 2015) as they used the PCASAE and prioritized praxis through experiential learning opportunities (ELOs). For this study, ELOs include practica or internships required as part of coursework and graduate assistantships. Most students are enrolled full time in both programs. The programs differed in course delivery method (online and face-to-face). ELOs for both programs occurred in person. There were 36 participants across both sites. North University (NU) had one program coordinator (PC), 12 graduate assistantship supervisors (GAS), and five students. The PC's scholarly agenda focused on higher education policy and student persistence. Previously, the PC served as an upper-level student affairs administrator. Central University (CU) had two faculty co-PCs and 16 students. One PC researched diversity in higher education, and the other focused on religion and spirituality and critical race theory. Courses were taught primarily by full-time faculty at CU, while NU relied on adjuncts. All PCs were tenure-track or clinical faculty.

Students and GAS participated in separate focus groups that explored skill development through coursework and ELO participation and the use of the PCASAE as a guiding framework (ACPA/NASPA, 2015). Students responded to questions such as "What skills have you developed as a result of this program?" For GAS, questions included "Are you aware of the ACPA/NASPA competencies...

中文翻译：

---

研究生项目使用 ACPA/NASPA 能力的案例分析

以下是内容的简短摘录，以代替摘要：

• 研究生项目使用 ACPA/NASPA 能力的案例分析
• 艾米·E·弗伦奇（Amy E. French）（简介）和德娜·R·克尼斯（Dena R. Kniess）（简介）

ACPA/NASPA (2015) 学生事务教育者专业能力领域 (PCASAE) 旨在对学生和专业人士进行整体教育，同时为特定知识领域和预期技能组合提供指导。它们可用于自我评估、专业发展和员工培训。学生事务研究生准备项目（GPP）是硕士生正式社会化过程的一部分，因为他们培养专业实践所需的知识、技能和性格（Weidman et al., 2001）。GPP 致力于为下一代大学教育工作者提供促进学生全面发展和学习所需的知识、能力和性格（Carducci & Jaramillo，2014）。进一步来说，此类课程旨在指导学生从基础技能到提高熟练程度。因此，将理论融入实践（实践）是能力发展的重点。PCASAE 确认，“研究生预备项目……应利用能力作为审查项目和课程级别学习成果以及设定课外学习体验期望的手段”（第 10 页）。此外，PCASE 鼓励 GPP 调整能力以适应各自的校园环境。本研究试图回答以下问题：PCASE（ACPA & NASPA，2015）如何在学生事务 GPP 中实施？“研究生预备项目……应利用能力作为审查项目和课程级别学习成果以及设定对课外学习体验的期望的手段”（第 10 页）。此外，PCASE 鼓励 GPP 调整能力以适应各自的校园环境。本研究试图回答以下问题：PCASE（ACPA & NASPA，2015）如何在学生事务 GPP 中实施？“研究生预备项目……应利用能力作为审查项目和课程级别学习成果以及设定对课外学习体验的期望的手段”（第 10 页）。此外，PCASE 鼓励 GPP 调整能力以适应各自的校园环境。本研究试图回答以下问题：PCASE（ACPA & NASPA，2015）如何在学生事务 GPP 中实施？

概念框架

GPP 内学生事务的专业社会化概念模型（Perez，2016）提供了我们的研究框架。佩雷斯的模型承认“多重交叉的文化背景”（第 43 页），并纳入了学生事务、助人职业和博士生社交的研究。各种功能领域（例如校园活动、咨询、住宿）影响着国家、专业和机构背景下的学生事务文化和社会化。个人层面（例如社会身份、家庭、社会经济地位）影响学生事务文化和社会化经历。GPP 课程作业和现场经验位于上述二维模型的交叉点。在这个模型中，随着新专业人士了解“学生事务‘良好实践’的本质”（第 44 页），课堂作业和现场经验相互促进。对于本研究，我们的目标是了解 PCASAE 如何在课堂和现场体验中使用。自 ACPA 和 NASPA 共同制定并认可了 10[结束第 498 页]专业能力领域，我们认识到需要了解如何在这些网站中应用这些能力。

方法

采用案例研究的方法，两个公共机构学生事务 GPP 作为有界案例。这些案例是有限的，因为每个站点在 2020-2021 学年期间都在 GPP 内使用 PCASE。通过将每个 GPP 作为案例，确定了影响 PCASE 实施的背景和环境。使用案例研究方法来识别特定的、描述性的和上下文丰富的数据的能力被证明在解决实际问题和连接学科知识方面很有用（Stake，2006）。

这两个项目都是有目的地抽样的（Patton，2015），因为它们使用了 PCASE 并通过体验式学习机会（ELO）优先考虑实践。对于本研究，ELO 包括作为课程作业和研究生助学金一部分所需的实践或实习。大多数学生都是全日制就读这两个项目。这些课程的授课方式有所不同（在线和面对面）。这两个项目的 ELO 都是亲自进行的。两个站点共有 36 名参与者。北方大学 (NU) 有 1 名项目协调员 (PC)、12 名研究生助教导师 (GAS) 和 5 名学生。保守党的学术议程主要集中在高等教育政策和学生的坚持上。此前，PC担任上层学生事务管理员。中央大学 (CU) 有 2 名副教授和 16 名学生。一名 PC 研究高等教育的多样性，另一名则专注于宗教和灵性以及批判种族理论。CU 的课程主要由全职教师教授，而 NU 则依靠兼职教师。所有 PC 都是终身教授或临床教员。

学生和 GAS 参加了单独的焦点小组，通过课程作业和 ELO 参与以及使用 PCASAE 作为指导框架来探索技能发展（ACPA/NASPA，2015）。学生们回答了诸如“通过这个项目你培养了哪些技能？”等问题。对于 GAS，问题包括“您是否了解 ACPA/NASPA 能力......