university of wisconsin-la crosse growth diverse backgrounds continued growth and reorganization
TRANSCRIPT
University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
Growth
Diverse backgrounds
Continued growth and reorganization
Steffen (1998) called for challenge courses to be housed according to their mission
Sugerman (1999): “no clear consensus on outdoor leadership training in the college/university academic setting”
Raiola & Sugerman (1999) (in J.C. Miles & S. Priest, Adventure programming): suggested in-depth look at higher education curriculum would be important step in defining what constitutes excellence
Medina (2002) reported on position types, job responsibilities, training backgrounds
Plaut (2002): college/academic settings allowed (a) grounding in theory; (b) stimulating a sense of the possible; (c) keeping field current in changing world; (d) training masterful educators
Attarian (2002): college program growth in adventure and challenge courses. Therefore, accountability and examination of:
(a) recruiting, selecting, and training staff;(b) how programs are operated; (c) achievement of program outcomes
Hirsch (2007) called leadership crucial in “pushing the flywheel” and getting good organizations to higher levels of greatness (in closing address of Association for Experiential Education)
1. To gain a better understanding of human resources for ACCT affiliated university challenge courses
2. To gain a better understanding of
financial resources for ACCT affiliated university challenge courses
3. To gain a better understanding of current
trends and data about administration of university challenge courses
Sample: n = 104 ACCT university affiliated members
Survey piloted with 10 ACCT university affiliated challenge course programs to increase validity and reliability
Administration of 19 item survey via SelectSurvey.net
Return rate of 60.5% (63/104)
“Rope and/or Challenge Course” 32%
“Outdoor” 17%
“Adventure” 13%
“Recreation” 8%
“Other” 30%
Director 40%
Coordinator 35%
Professor/Lecturer 11%
Manager 6%
Other 6%
Outdoor Low Elements 94%
Outdoor High Elements 85%
Climbing Wall 78%
Indoor Low Elements 31%
Indoor High Elements 13%
Division I 54%
Division II 25%
Division III 14%
Other 6%
NAIA 2%
Less Than 3,500 6% 3,501-7,000 14%…………………………………………………….…. 7,001-10,500 17% 10,501-13,500 11% 13,501-17,000 17% 17,001-20,500 5% 20,501-24,000 8% 24,001-or Greater 23%
Public 86%
Private 14%
Years of Operation:
0-5 20%
5-10 35% .……………………………………….
10-15 14%
15 or Greater 31%
Fully Self-Sustained 30%
Partially Self-Sustained 56%
Financially Supported by University 12%
Other 2%
Student Services 63%
Academic Dept. 24%
Other 14%
0-25%27%
26-50%23%
51-75%20%
76-100% 30%
1-10 38%
11-20 41%
21-30 13%
31 or More 8%
0 Full-Time Staff 28%
1 Full-Time Staff 54%
2 Full-Time Staff 13%
3 or More Full-Time Staff 5%
Average FTE = 1.09
ACCT 89%
In-House 73%
PRCA 14%
Other 3%
Student Groups On Campus 32%
Students in Academic Classes 25%
Public Special Interest Groups 16%
Students From Outside the University 13%
Majority of programs are Division I schools with over 7,000 students
50% of programs are under 10 years old Approximately 86% are fully or partially self-
sustaining Most get funding from student services Approximately 80% of programs have 0-1 full
time staff Most programs base their training in ACCT
standards Majority of program focus on serving campus
students
Qualitative studies of challenge course orientation within university departments
Qualitative studies of challenge course orientation according to funding resources
Examination of self-sustained budgets
Challenge course promotion on campuses
Examination of university strategic planning and challenge courses as part (or not) of this planning
Challenge courses and their orientation via placement (prominence) on college campuses
